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 (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



577 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2011-09-20 11:55:38 PM
Who are they kidding?

As long as Republicans have anything to do with it, the only rights women will be allowed on paper are the right to get in the kitchen, the right to cook dinner, and the right to shut their pretty little mouths when men are talking.

If the war on a woman's right to choose whether to keep a fetus or abort, and just how far the republicans are willing to go to make sure they don't have that choice, or a safe place to go to get the procedure done isn't enough evidence of what they think of women, I don't see what more they can do to prove just how much they hate women.
 
2011-09-21 12:22:31 AM
As a result, previous versions of the treaty that have reached the Senate floor -- including one as recently as 2002 -- have included special riders that exempted abortion laws, and a handful of other provisions, from the treaty.

Passing a U.N. treaty that includes special exemptions would be an insult to the international community, not to mention it would sap the measure of its fundamental strength, Benshoof said.

"If we have a CEDAW that is like the last one, we don't need it," Benshoof said. "It does not send a signal to women of the world that America signs a treaty without intention of ever implementing it. It would be like signing a treaty against torture and putting in a clause excluding waterboarding."


So not giving mothers the right to kill their children is basically the same as waterboarding. This is how abortion advocates actually think.
 
2011-09-21 12:27:40 AM

Bevets: As a result, previous versions of the treaty that have reached the Senate floor -- including one as recently as 2002 -- have included special riders that exempted abortion laws, and a handful of other provisions, from the treaty.

Passing a U.N. treaty that includes special exemptions would be an insult to the international community, not to mention it would sap the measure of its fundamental strength, Benshoof said.

"If we have a CEDAW that is like the last one, we don't need it," Benshoof said. "It does not send a signal to women of the world that America signs a treaty without intention of ever implementing it. It would be like signing a treaty against torture and putting in a clause excluding waterboarding."

So not giving mothers the right to kill their children is basically the same as waterboarding. This is how abortion advocates actually think.


Actually you don't get a soul unless you're born to a Mormon family, so who cares if abortions are legal?
 
2011-09-21 12:41:41 AM
i.huffpost.com

Jesus, did she eat Monica Lewinsky or something?
 
2011-09-21 12:47:28 AM

ArkAngel: [i.huffpost.com image 570x238]

Jesus, did she eat Monica Lewinsky or something?


...I would have paid to see video of that back in 1998.
 
2011-09-21 01:08:27 AM

Bevets: children


www.agileproductdesign.com
 
2011-09-21 01:08:32 AM

Bevets: So not giving mothers the right to kill their children is basically the same as waterboarding.


ummm....no. Not even close to what he was saying. here, try this one...

"It would be like signing a treaty against religious persecution and putting in a clause excluding baptists."
 
2011-09-21 01:14:54 AM
So, it's kind of like when the U.S. lectures to other countries about human rights while Guantanamo is still open.

America- STFU and GBTW.
 
2011-09-21 01:28:04 AM
Ah the ol' "Do as we say, not as we do" gambit.
 
2011-09-21 01:29:41 AM

FirstNationalBastard: Who are they kidding?

As long as Republicans have anything to do with it, the only rights women will be allowed on paper are the right to get in the kitchen, the right to cook dinner, and the right to shut their pretty little mouths when men are talking.

If the war on a woman's right to choose whether to keep a fetus or abort, and just how far the republicans are willing to go to make sure they don't have that choice, or a safe place to go to get the procedure done isn't enough evidence of what they think of women, I don't see what more they can do to prove just how much they hate women.


Considering the UN committee overseeing the treaty opposes Mothers Day, I'd say it's overbroad. Our laws already cover it, anyways.
 
2011-09-21 01:36:44 AM
 
2011-09-21 01:56:51 AM

log_jammin: ArkAngel: Considering the UN committee overseeing the treaty opposes Mothers Day,


"Lastly, CEDAW does not seek to abolish Mother's Day and the Committee has never criticized Mother's Day. However, the Committee did criticize Belarus in 1998 for manipulating Mother's Day by using it to encourage "traditional" roles for women in an effort to restrict women's right to employment." (new window)


While I'm not sure the UN's own website is an unbiased source, this thing matters little. But shouldn't a country be allowed to support a traditional nuclear family?

The bigger question is what signing this treaty will accomplish.
 
2011-09-21 02:02:24 AM

ArkAngel: While I'm not sure the UN's own website is an unbiased source


I'd say it's the very best source. unless you're claiming the are "secretly" opposed to mothers day.

ArkAngel: But shouldn't a country be allowed to support a traditional nuclear family?


of course. not really sure what that has to do with anything though. restricting women's right to employment is not supporting a traditional nuclear family.

ArkAngel: The bigger question is what signing this treaty will accomplish.


the best question is, what would it hurt?
 
2011-09-21 04:06:29 AM

FirstNationalBastard: Who are they kidding?

As long as Republicans have anything to do with it, the only rights women will be allowed on paper are the right to get in the kitchen, the right to cook dinner, and the right to shut their pretty little mouths when men are talking.

If the war on a woman's right to choose whether to keep a fetus or abort, and just how far the republicans are willing to go to make sure they don't have that choice, or a safe place to go to get the procedure done isn't enough evidence of what they think of women, I don't see what more they can do to prove just how much they hate women.



FTA: In a recent Newsweek list of the best countries in the world for women, the United States ranked eighth overal

Yup, without this treaty, women are just treated like shiat in this country. I mean, just the other day, I beat my wife because she had the nerve to get out of the kitchen.

And, back in 2009, when they had a damn near filibuster proof majority in the Senate, I didn't see the Democratic party or President Obama (back when he was riding his 60%+ popularity wave) try to get this thing ratified either. I guess they hate women too, huh?
 
2011-09-21 04:22:17 AM

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


actively opposing =/= too busy trying to fix a financial crisis in the midst of republicans obstructing absolutely every bill being proposed
 
2011-09-21 04:28:10 AM

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

actively opposing =/= too busy trying to fix a financial crisis in the midst of republicans obstructing absolutely every bill being proposed


And in the midst of an economic meltdown, Republicans have still found a way to make sure abortion clinics get shut down. (new window)
 
2011-09-21 04:29:53 AM

FirstNationalBastard: And in the midst of an economic meltdown, Republicans have still found a way to make sure abortion clinics get shut down. (new window)


yes but i'm sure that will create jobs...or something...
 
2011-09-21 04:38:03 AM

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

actively opposing =/= too busy trying to fix a financial crisis in the midst of republicans obstructing absolutely every bill being proposed


Well, they also had quite a large majority in 1980 when Jimmy Carter signed it, and he didn't bring it to the Senate either. Blaming the Republicans is a strawman argument if I've ever heard one. Sorry, as near as I can tell, no one in power in this country, Republican or Democrat has given a damn about this treaty since Carter signed it.
 
2011-09-21 04:56:37 AM

devildog123: and he didn't bring it to the Senate either.


*blink*

He didn't "bring it to the Senate"? ok.....

devildog123: . Blaming the Republicans is a strawman argument


what part of "actively oppose" do you not understand?

devildog123: Sorry, as near as I can tell, no one in power in this country, Republican or Democrat has given a damn about this treaty since Carter signed it.


It's been released from committee for a vote several times. wanna guess what group always blocks it?
 
2011-09-21 05:07:01 AM
 
2011-09-21 06:16:16 AM

ArkAngel: traditional nuclear family


Something that's existed but a few generations is hardly very traditional.
 
2011-09-21 07:05:24 AM
Que the usual crowd crying about sharia law coming out against this.
 
2011-09-21 07:22:51 AM

ArkAngel: But shouldn't a country be allowed to support a traditional nuclear family?


What does that have to do with abortion?
 
2011-09-21 07:36:28 AM

log_jammin: Some ascribe the U.S. failure to ratify the treaty to one man: the late Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina. To Helms, CEDAW was a terrible treaty "negotiated by radical feminists with the intent of enshrining their radical anti-family agenda into international law." As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 1995 to 2001, Helms refused even to hold hearings on the matter. I (new window)


Besides that specific argument, there are also a lot of Republicans (an increasing number, I would say) that subscribe to the John Bolton-school of sovereignty-fetishism. i.e. those that oppose treaties because they somehow involve throwing away the 'sovereignty' of the United States. That Helms -> Bolton axis has a lot of leverage with the main Republican candidates at present through Heritage and other think tanks where they are drawing their advisors. The liberal internationalist Republican seems to have died out completely... even Richard Lugar is facing a tough challenge.

/speaking of which, when did Bolton drop out of the race?
 
2011-09-21 07:37:28 AM

Bevets: As a result, previous versions of the treaty that have reached the Senate floor -- including one as recently as 2002 -- have included special riders that exempted abortion laws, and a handful of other provisions, from the treaty.

Passing a U.N. treaty that includes special exemptions would be an insult to the international community, not to mention it would sap the measure of its fundamental strength, Benshoof said.

"If we have a CEDAW that is like the last one, we don't need it," Benshoof said. "It does not send a signal to women of the world that America signs a treaty without intention of ever implementing it. It would be like signing a treaty against torture and putting in a clause excluding waterboarding."

So not giving mothers the right to kill their children is basically the same as waterboarding. This is how abortion advocates actually think.


Most Farkers graze on a range of subjects.

You only appear in one. I wonder, who submits/greenlights/ tolerates your demonstrably bullshiat responses after all this time?
 
2011-09-21 07:38:35 AM
Bevets:

So not giving mothers the right to kill their children is basically the same as waterboarding. This is how abortion advocates actually think.

log_jammin:

ummm....no. Not even close to what he was saying. here, try this one...

"It would be like signing a treaty against religious persecution and putting in a clause excluding baptists."


There were several comparisons he could have made. He chose waterboarding.
 
2011-09-21 07:40:20 AM
Credit is given for not sending me down a rabbit hole via one of your infamously fact-challenged links. You seem to have formed your own sentences this time.

Congrats on expressing your own thought, however disagreeable to me it might be. Seriously, I'm actually congratulating you.
 
2011-09-21 07:43:42 AM

Bevets: There were several comparisons he could have made. He chose waterboarding.


so you don';t understand how analogies work. got it.
 
2011-09-21 07:44:46 AM

Seth'n'Spectrum: that subscribe to the John Bolton-school of sovereignty-fetishism. i.e. those that oppose treaties because they somehow involve throwing away the 'sovereignty' of the United States.


yeah. there's some UN gun/weapon treaty that they are saying exactly that about.
 
2011-09-21 07:52:07 AM

ArkAngel: Jesus, did she eat Monica Lewinsky or something?


Thus proving that a woman is only as valuable as her appearance makes her. Way to prove the point, douchebag.
 
2011-09-21 07:52:41 AM
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.
 
2011-09-21 07:54:45 AM
First the UN came for our farms, and I was silent because I'm not a farmer.
Then the UN came for our guns, and I was silent becuase my hands are neither cold nor dead.
Now the UN has come for our women and I can be silent no longer.
 
2011-09-21 07:55:26 AM
Well, maybe the senate just hasn't had time to vote on it. They've had a lot on their plate these past few months, and...

TFA: But while CEDAW has been in the hands of the Senate for more than 30 years -- ever since President Jimmy Carter signed it in 1980 -- it has never so much as gotten a vote in the full chamber.

...nevermind. WTF, senate?
 
2011-09-21 07:58:17 AM

FirstNationalBastard: Who are they kidding?

As long as Republicans have anything to do with it, the only rights women will be allowed on paper are the right to get in the kitchen, the right to cook dinner, and the right to shut their pretty little mouths when men are talking.


FTA: But while CEDAW has been in the hands of the Senate for more than 30 years -- ever since President Jimmy Carter signed it in 1980 -- it has never so much as gotten a vote in the full chamber.

You can apologize now.

You were just the first in a series of stupid tirades against Republicans and/or other political groups you have a personal issues with that cloud your ability to form logical conclusions about anything. Over the last 30 years the Democrats haven't even tried to get this through even when they controlled the senate completely, and no, it's not because they were concerned about Republican opposition to it, so come up with a better explanation next time.
 
2011-09-21 08:04:43 AM

Bevets: log_jammin:

ummm....no. Not even close to what he was saying. here, try this one...

"It would be like signing a treaty against religious persecution and putting in a clause excluding baptists."

There were several comparisons he could have made. He chose waterboarding


There were several things you could have attempted to do. You chose derail the conservation.
 
2011-09-21 08:05:01 AM

ArkAngel: But shouldn't a country be allowed to support a traditional nuclear family?


The Nuclear Family has only been popular since the early 1900s and is largely an economic disaster for the poor and middle classes.

If anything is a "Traditional Family" it would be multi-generational households.
 
2011-09-21 08:05:37 AM
Although Clinton did not mention America's conspicuous absence from the CEDAW list of signatories, both she and President Obama have repeatedly stated they would like to see the treaty ratified in the Senate. But while CEDAW has been in the hands of the Senate for more than 30 years -- ever since President Jimmy Carter signed it in 1980 -- it has never so much as gotten a vote in the full chamber.

Yep, that's farking embarrassing... It would be great if the US could move at least into the 20th century on these issues, never mind the 21st century, but when one political party is actively trying to put us back into the 19th century, I don't see that happening anytime soon...
 
2011-09-21 08:05:46 AM
Saudi Arabia signed the treaty 11 years ago. Women are doing wonderfully there now, I think all nuanced and thoughtful people will agree.

Either that or treaties like this are a load of feel-good bullshiat with about as much real-world heft as a wet sheet of one-ply toilet paper.
 
2011-09-21 08:07:28 AM

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.


As for the Women's rights treaty, while I agree that abortions should be allowed, but a treaty is no way to ensure that and will only fan the flames of the people who think the UN is taking over.

As for the Convention on the Rights of the Child, that says signatories must move quickly to eliminate corporal punishment.
 
2011-09-21 08:10:13 AM
UN treaties, and Resolutions were meant to be broken.

Isn't that right Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Egypt, Libya, Yugoslavia, Germany, United States?
 
2011-09-21 08:10:43 AM

Gulper Eel: Saudi Arabia signed the treaty 11 years ago. Women are doing wonderfully there now, I think all nuanced and thoughtful people will agree.

Either that or treaties like this are a load of feel-good bullshiat with about as much real-world heft as a wet sheet of one-ply toilet paper.


Ding, Ding, Ding!!!
 
2011-09-21 08:12:21 AM

Without Fail: ArkAngel: Jesus, did she eat Monica Lewinsky or something?

Thus proving that a woman is only as valuable as her appearance makes her. Way to prove the point, douchebag.


To be fair we could probably get more cash for her if she jogged or something.
 
2011-09-21 08:12:48 AM

Gulper Eel: Saudi Arabia signed the treaty 11 years ago. Women are doing wonderfully there now, I think all nuanced and thoughtful people will agree.

Either that or treaties like this are a load of feel-good bullshiat with about as much real-world heft as a wet sheet of one-ply toilet paper.



Actually women are doing a lot better there, whether it's the ending of male guardianship or forced marriages. And you might consider for just a tiny moment how long it took women in this country to narrow the gap of equality.
 
2011-09-21 08:13:19 AM

log_jammin:
ArkAngel: The bigger question is what signing this treaty will accomplish.

the best question is, what would it hurt?


Not much, except further knock down the credibility of the UN and the idea of "global governance". Like previous UN declarations, certain countries sign them then ignore them. Take the UN declaration of human rights - how many nations still have blasphemy/apostate laws?
 
2011-09-21 08:15:10 AM
Hmm, more biatching from the left about the US not signing a treaty specifically designed to harass the American right and not actually accomplish anything productive. Must be a day ending in y.
 
2011-09-21 08:16:57 AM
Republicans are evil, hateful morons, so I wouldn't look for this to pass the Senate any time soon.
 
2011-09-21 08:19:47 AM
I prefer "Original Thoughts" Bevets to "Quotebot" Bevets
 
2011-09-21 08:22:54 AM

FuturePastNow: Republicans are evil, hateful morons, so I wouldn't look for this to pass the Senate any time soon.


Senate has been sitting on it for 30 years.

Trying to pin this on republicans, when dems have done nothing with it shows your dishonesty or ignorance.
 
2011-09-21 08:24:30 AM

DarnoKonrad: Gulper Eel: Saudi Arabia signed the treaty 11 years ago. Women are doing wonderfully there now, I think all nuanced and thoughtful people will agree.

Either that or treaties like this are a load of feel-good bullshiat with about as much real-world heft as a wet sheet of one-ply toilet paper.


Actually women are doing a lot better there, whether it's the ending of male guardianship or forced marriages. And you might consider for just a tiny moment how long it took women in this country to narrow the gap of equality.


How long it took? Or how long it's taking? (new window)
 
2011-09-21 08:30:21 AM

beta_plus: Hmm, more biatching from the left about the US not signing a treaty specifically designed to harass the American right and not actually accomplish anything productive. Must be a day ending in y.


Women having rights "harasses" the American right? Good to know.
 
2011-09-21 08:37:06 AM
The US not ratifying a human rights treaty? Shocking!
 
2011-09-21 08:37:10 AM

log_jammin: the best question is, what would it hurt?


It is just another step down the path of ceding the role of the US government to a non-elected body that often is at odds with US values. While granted this one seems rather harmless, if it provides no benefit here in the US, why do it? Certainly stamping our name on it won't inspire middle eastern nations to redefine women in their societies.
 
2011-09-21 08:38:24 AM

Karac: DarnoKonrad: Gulper Eel: Saudi Arabia signed the treaty 11 years ago. Women are doing wonderfully there now, I think all nuanced and thoughtful people will agree.

Either that or treaties like this are a load of feel-good bullshiat with about as much real-world heft as a wet sheet of one-ply toilet paper.


Actually women are doing a lot better there, whether it's the ending of male guardianship or forced marriages. And you might consider for just a tiny moment how long it took women in this country to narrow the gap of equality.

How long it took? Or how long it's taking? (new window)


Shouldn't you be in the kitchen?
 
2011-09-21 08:39:47 AM

WorldCitizen: The US not ratifying a human rights treaty? Shocking!


Shockingly status quo. We couldn't even join the international land mine ban.
 
2011-09-21 08:42:39 AM

Alphax: WorldCitizen: The US not ratifying a human rights treaty? Shocking!

Shockingly status quo. We couldn't even join the international land mine ban.


No offense, but really do you blame the South Koreans for pushing us on that issue? The fact the the DMZ is one giant mind-field goes a long way to helping the people in Seoul sleep at night.
 
2011-09-21 08:43:48 AM
America is full of human garbage. What are you stupid assholes shocked about?
 
2011-09-21 08:46:42 AM
How come women get all these rights that I don't get?
 
2011-09-21 08:47:04 AM

DarnoKonrad: Actually women are doing a lot better there, whether it's the ending of male guardianship or forced marriages


Yeah, great. Now the husband has to pay a dowry before he can go bang his 11-year-old wife

Why, they're practically Vermont over there.
 
2011-09-21 08:47:13 AM

Alphax: WorldCitizen: The US not ratifying a human rights treaty? Shocking!

Shockingly status quo. We couldn't even join the international land mine ban.


Why do you keep calling yourselves the world police? I mean, if these are the rules and laws the rest of the world wants, but you can't bring yourself to agree to something as common sense as a land mine ban, how can you enforce the rules on everyone but yourselves? There's a word for that.....
 
2011-09-21 08:47:35 AM

liam76: FuturePastNow: Republicans are evil, hateful morons, so I wouldn't look for this to pass the Senate any time soon.

Senate has been sitting on it for 30 years.

Trying to pin this on republicans, when dems have done nothing with it shows your dishonesty or ignorance.


And it's going to continue to be sat on. Why pass the buck? Why not prove you're better and pass it now?
 
2011-09-21 08:47:56 AM

MinkeyMan: beta_plus: Hmm, more biatching from the left about the US not signing a treaty specifically designed to harass the American right and not actually accomplish anything productive. Must be a day ending in y.

Women having rights "harasses" the American right? Good to know.


Not wanting to pay for childcare does not discriminate against women, nor is it a right. You have a right to pop out kids but you do not have the right to make me pay for them unless I genetically fathered them. So, yeah, it's the usual liberal BS to try to give away American sovereinty so they can have kids they can't afford and make everyone else pay for them.

In addition, many Americans, including many American women, think abortion is fundamentally wrong. I don't agree with them but I do agree that Roe V. Wade was wrong and that they had a right to fight against it in the state legislatures. The reason Europe doesn't get in fights about abortion is because they decided it through the legislatures, not the courts. In some European countries it is legal (uk, germany), others it is not (ireland & poland). It should not be decided by a treaty with the rest of the world, it should be decided in our state legislatures.

No one is falling for your shaming language anymore.

/1-10 says you pull the race card over states rights
 
2011-09-21 08:53:47 AM
US ranks 8th in Women's rights. OMG, we must sign this worthless treaty now!! And then we must continue to name post offices and government buildings!!!

Are Farklibs really upset about not taking the time to sign a worthless treaty? Would it truly expand the women's treatment in the US. We already have laws regarding women's rights, signing the treaty is redundant. Stop wasting time on useless shiat. There's more important things to work on at the moment.
 
2011-09-21 08:54:27 AM

Methadone Girls: Alphax: WorldCitizen: The US not ratifying a human rights treaty? Shocking!

Shockingly status quo. We couldn't even join the international land mine ban.

Why do you keep calling yourselves the world police? I mean, if these are the rules and laws the rest of the world wants, but you can't bring yourself to agree to something as common sense as a land mine ban, how can you enforce the rules on everyone but yourselves? There's a word for that.....


They aren't.

They are rules and laws written by special interest groups.

As for the landmines the last time the US used them was in 1991. It is stupid to say you won't use X weapon when your enimies haven't made that commitment.
 
2011-09-21 08:55:38 AM
[shutyourwhoremouthwhenmuppetsaretalking.jpg]
 
2011-09-21 08:56:16 AM

coco ebert: So, it's kind of like when the U.S. lectures to other countries about human rights while Guantanamo is still open.

America- STFU and GBTW.


Or when America tells other countries that they shouldn't have nuclear weapons while we have the most nukes in the world and we're the only country that used them during warfare.
 
2011-09-21 08:57:08 AM

FuturePastNow: liam76: FuturePastNow: Republicans are evil, hateful morons, so I wouldn't look for this to pass the Senate any time soon.

Senate has been sitting on it for 30 years.

Trying to pin this on republicans, when dems have done nothing with it shows your dishonesty or ignorance.

And it's going to continue to be sat on. Why pass the buck? Why not prove you're better and pass it now?


FIrst off I don't think it should be passed. Abortion is not strictly a "woman's rights issue".

Second who is the "you" here. I certainly don't have the power to pass it, and I am not a part of the republican party. Me pointing out what you are saying is either ignorant or dishonest doesn't make me a republican.
 
2011-09-21 08:57:10 AM

beta_plus: MinkeyMan: beta_plus: Hmm, more biatching from the left about the US not signing a treaty specifically designed to harass the American right and not actually accomplish anything productive. Must be a day ending in y.

Women having rights "harasses" the American right? Good to know.

Not wanting to pay for childcare does not discriminate against women, nor is it a right. You have a right to pop out kids but you do not have the right to make me pay for them unless I genetically fathered them. So, yeah, it's the usual liberal BS to try to give away American sovereinty so they can have kids they can't afford and make everyone else pay for them.


Actually, it's conservatives who tend to both have more kids and live in relative poverty. I wouldn't blame being conservative, however... they've been consistently lied to.

In addition, many Americans, including many American women, think abortion is fundamentally wrong. I don't agree with them but I do agree that Roe V. Wade was wrong and that they had a right to fight against it in the state legislatures.

I disagree. Civil rights are not up to mob rule. If there are rights to privacy and bodily autonomy, then the rest of society doesn't get to vote on whether someone can exercise their rights. But please, go ahead - argue that there are no such rights and that a woman has no "American sovereinty [sic]".
 
2011-09-21 08:57:31 AM

EWreckedSean: It is just another step down the path of ceding the role of the US government to a non-elected body that often is at odds with US values. While granted this one seems rather harmless, if it provides no benefit here in the US, why do it? Certainly stamping our name on it won't inspire middle eastern nations to redefine women in their societies.


Generally when they're at odds with "US values", it means we're wrong.
Remember how they told us it would be a bad idea to invade Iraq?
 
2011-09-21 08:59:09 AM

shivashakti: Or when America tells other countries that they shouldn't have nuclear weapons while we have the most nukes in the world and we're the only country that used them during warfare


That is what happens when countries sign treaties promising not to develope nukes and in turn get assistance in building up nuclear technology.

Nothing in any nuclear treaty we have signed prevents us from having nukes.

But don;t let reality get in the way of your anti-american whargable.
 
2011-09-21 09:01:38 AM

liam76: shivashakti: Or when America tells other countries that they shouldn't have nuclear weapons while we have the most nukes in the world and we're the only country that used them during warfare

That is what happens when countries sign treaties promising not to develope nukes and in turn get assistance in building up nuclear technology.

Nothing in any nuclear treaty we have signed prevents us from having nukes.

But don;t let reality get in the way of your anti-american whargable.


I never said it did. I'm just saying it's hypocritical for us to tell people they shouldn't have nuclear weapons. But it's OK for us to have them....
 
2011-09-21 09:01:44 AM

EWreckedSean: Alphax: WorldCitizen: The US not ratifying a human rights treaty? Shocking!

Shockingly status quo. We couldn't even join the international land mine ban.

No offense, but really do you blame the South Koreans for pushing us on that issue? The fact the the DMZ is one giant mind-field goes a long way to helping the people in Seoul sleep at night.


Could be wrong here, but there I don`t think there`s any existing international treaty that compels states to remove existing landmines (although it`s generally encouraged). I think the DMZ has quite enough ordinance already.
 
2011-09-21 09:02:59 AM
Clearly women's rights are being held back by a three decade old treaty failing to be ratified.

liam76: But don;t let reality get in the way of your anti-american whargable.


This is how authoritarian cowards squash any ideas that aren't their own. By branding it anti-American.
 
2011-09-21 09:04:14 AM
So lets see...

Its worthless so why bother, abortion bad, it will destroy our sovereignty, its only meant to harass the right wing, the classic "you let the right block it so you're just as guilty", and the guy who doesn't understand that it was already signed just not ratified.

The talking point dispenser must be on the fritz.
 
2011-09-21 09:04:41 AM

liam76: FIrst off I don't think it should be passed. Abortion is not strictly a "woman's rights issue".


Wrong.

And our nation whined that they just couldn't get rid of all those land mines on the border between the Koreas that we have there. But we're one of about 6 nations that did not sign it.. mostly the few who still make them.
 
2011-09-21 09:06:00 AM

log_jammin: its only meant to harass the right wing,


That's my favorite one.
 
2011-09-21 09:07:55 AM
This treaty can not be ratified. For if it is, after Bevets kicks his wife in the head with steel toed boots until emergency services come, after she emerges from the coma, and goes home to give him "one more chance": when he attacks her next, she will shoot him. In America, everyone has the right to self-defense except a woman who is knocking boots with the guy who has decided to kill her. And that's the way it should be, right Bevets?
 
2011-09-21 09:08:40 AM

shivashakti: EWreckedSean: It is just another step down the path of ceding the role of the US government to a non-elected body that often is at odds with US values. While granted this one seems rather harmless, if it provides no benefit here in the US, why do it? Certainly stamping our name on it won't inspire middle eastern nations to redefine women in their societies.

Generally when they're at odds with "US values", it means we're wrong.
Remember how they told us it would be a bad idea to invade Iraq?


"They" told us not to invade Iraq because the Russians, Germans and the French had financial interests in a Saddam run Iraq. Let's not pretend their was some grandiose noble reason against it.
 
2011-09-21 09:09:18 AM

EWreckedSean: shivashakti: EWreckedSean: It is just another step down the path of ceding the role of the US government to a non-elected body that often is at odds with US values. While granted this one seems rather harmless, if it provides no benefit here in the US, why do it? Certainly stamping our name on it won't inspire middle eastern nations to redefine women in their societies.

Generally when they're at odds with "US values", it means we're wrong.
Remember how they told us it would be a bad idea to invade Iraq?

"They" told us not to invade Iraq because the Russians, Germans and the French had financial interests in a Saddam run Iraq. Let's not pretend their was some grandiose noble reason against it.


*There - grrr fark needs an edit button
 
2011-09-21 09:10:40 AM

liam76: FuturePastNow: liam76: FuturePastNow: Republicans are evil, hateful morons, so I wouldn't look for this to pass the Senate any time soon.

Senate has been sitting on it for 30 years.

Trying to pin this on republicans, when dems have done nothing with it shows your dishonesty or ignorance.

And it's going to continue to be sat on. Why pass the buck? Why not prove you're better and pass it now?

FIrst off I don't think it should be passed. Abortion is not strictly a "woman's rights issue".

Second who is the "you" here. I certainly don't have the power to pass it, and I am not a part of the republican party. Me pointing out what you are saying is either ignorant or dishonest doesn't make me a republican.


The "you" is Republicans generally. We'll have to just disagree over what is and is not a womens' rights issue.

And I simply don't care which politicians weren't doing their jobs ten, twenty, thirty years ago. I care which politicians aren't doing their jobs now. You can call that dishonest if you like.
 
2011-09-21 09:11:12 AM
Women will never be the equals of men. Ink on paper will never change that.
 
2011-09-21 09:11:15 AM

Aarontology: log_jammin: its only meant to harass the right wing,

That's my favorite one.


Heh...

Those poor put upon dears... First we've got hard-hitting journalists like Katie Couric and Jay Leno trying to make these conservatives look bad and now the U.N. When will this oppression stop!?!

You know, for supposedly "tough, individualistic boot -strappers", the GOP seems to be made up of a bunch of whiny little titty babies, paper tigers and bullies.
 
2011-09-21 09:11:16 AM

Methadone Girls: Why do you keep calling yourselves the world police?


Because they're going to kick your ass and get away with it.
 
2011-09-21 09:11:28 AM
Cr@p, I forgot the part where Bevets' wife goes to prison. My stupid comment above makes zero sense without that point.
 
2011-09-21 09:11:42 AM
Women are tools to be used in the US. This has been true forever and will never change. We are a nation of bigots and cannot be fixed.
 
2011-09-21 09:12:28 AM
Also, I have Bevets on ignore , people. I encourage you all to consider that option.
 
2011-09-21 09:13:06 AM

EWreckedSean: shivashakti: EWreckedSean: It is just another step down the path of ceding the role of the US government to a non-elected body that often is at odds with US values. While granted this one seems rather harmless, if it provides no benefit here in the US, why do it? Certainly stamping our name on it won't inspire middle eastern nations to redefine women in their societies.

Generally when they're at odds with "US values", it means we're wrong.
Remember how they told us it would be a bad idea to invade Iraq?

"They" told us not to invade Iraq because the Russians, Germans and the French had financial interests in a Saddam run Iraq. Let's not pretend their was some grandiose noble reason against it.


That`s just as simplistic as saying that Iraq was invaded because of Cheney`s association with Halliburton; it didn`t help things, but at the same time there are a host of other factors to consider.
 
2011-09-21 09:13:16 AM

EWreckedSean: log_jammin: the best question is, what would it hurt?

It is just another step down the path of ceding the role of the US government to a non-elected body that often is at odds with US values.


Do you get a script of what to post here everyday? Why do you hate women?
 
2011-09-21 09:14:00 AM

illisium: EWreckedSean: Alphax: WorldCitizen: The US not ratifying a human rights treaty? Shocking!

Shockingly status quo. We couldn't even join the international land mine ban.

No offense, but really do you blame the South Koreans for pushing us on that issue? The fact the the DMZ is one giant mind-field goes a long way to helping the people in Seoul sleep at night.

Could be wrong here, but there I don`t think there`s any existing international treaty that compels states to remove existing landmines (although it`s generally encouraged). I think the DMZ has quite enough ordinance already.


No, if we sign it, we commit ourselves to removing the 155 mile long land mind field that protects South Korea from the North. That is basically the reason we refuse to consider it.
 
2011-09-21 09:14:29 AM

keylock71: You know, for supposedly "tough, individualistic boot -strappers", the GOP seems to be made up of a bunch of whiny little titty babies, paper tigers and bullies.


A woman thinking she's a man's equal? It's like a thousand 9/11s.
 
2011-09-21 09:15:20 AM

illisium: EWreckedSean: shivashakti: EWreckedSean: It is just another step down the path of ceding the role of the US government to a non-elected body that often is at odds with US values. While granted this one seems rather harmless, if it provides no benefit here in the US, why do it? Certainly stamping our name on it won't inspire middle eastern nations to redefine women in their societies.

Generally when they're at odds with "US values", it means we're wrong.
Remember how they told us it would be a bad idea to invade Iraq?

"They" told us not to invade Iraq because the Russians, Germans and the French had financial interests in a Saddam run Iraq. Let's not pretend their was some grandiose noble reason against it.

That`s just as simplistic as saying that Iraq was invaded because of Cheney`s association with Halliburton; it didn`t help things, but at the same time there are a host of other factors to consider.


Fair enough, but you can be sure their motivations were their own national interests, not any higher moral decision making process.
 
2011-09-21 09:17:25 AM

Aarontology: keylock71: You know, for supposedly "tough, individualistic boot -strappers", the GOP seems to be made up of a bunch of whiny little titty babies, paper tigers and bullies.

A woman thinking she's a man's equal? It's like a thousand 9/11s.


What a thousand 9/11s might look like:

www.mediabistro.com
 
2011-09-21 09:20:15 AM

EWreckedSean: illisium: EWreckedSean: shivashakti: EWreckedSean: It is just another step down the path of ceding the role of the US government to a non-elected body that often is at odds with US values. While granted this one seems rather harmless, if it provides no benefit here in the US, why do it? Certainly stamping our name on it won't inspire middle eastern nations to redefine women in their societies.

Generally when they're at odds with "US values", it means we're wrong.
Remember how they told us it would be a bad idea to invade Iraq?

"They" told us not to invade Iraq because the Russians, Germans and the French had financial interests in a Saddam run Iraq. Let's not pretend their was some grandiose noble reason against it.

That`s just as simplistic as saying that Iraq was invaded because of Cheney`s association with Halliburton; it didn`t help things, but at the same time there are a host of other factors to consider.

Fair enough, but you can be sure their motivations were their own national interests, not any higher moral decision making process.


Oh, let`s be clear; international politics is driven almost exclusively by the advancement of foreign interests and the impact of actions on domestic politics. All I`m saying is that the money probably wasn`t the driving factor behind the decision not to particpate. Though, like I said, I`m sure it didn`t help.
 
2011-09-21 09:21:27 AM

Aarontology: log_jammin: its only meant to harass the right wing,

That's my favorite one.


It made me lol too.
 
2011-09-21 09:22:18 AM

serial_crusher: How come women get all these rights that I don't get?


You want an abortion?
 
2011-09-21 09:22:20 AM

illisium: EWreckedSean: illisium: EWreckedSean: shivashakti: EWreckedSean: It is just another step down the path of ceding the role of the US government to a non-elected body that often is at odds with US values. While granted this one seems rather harmless, if it provides no benefit here in the US, why do it? Certainly stamping our name on it won't inspire middle eastern nations to redefine women in their societies.

Generally when they're at odds with "US values", it means we're wrong.
Remember how they told us it would be a bad idea to invade Iraq?

"They" told us not to invade Iraq because the Russians, Germans and the French had financial interests in a Saddam run Iraq. Let's not pretend their was some grandiose noble reason against it.

That`s just as simplistic as saying that Iraq was invaded because of Cheney`s association with Halliburton; it didn`t help things, but at the same time there are a host of other factors to consider.

Fair enough, but you can be sure their motivations were their own national interests, not any higher moral decision making process.

Oh, let`s be clear; international politics is driven almost exclusively by the advancement of foreign interests and the impact of actions on domestic politics. All I`m saying is that the money probably wasn`t the driving factor behind the decision not to particpate. Though, like I said, I`m sure it didn`t help.


Well I think their financial issues tended to be access to Iraqi oil.
 
2011-09-21 09:25:56 AM

EWreckedSean: shivashakti: EWreckedSean: It is just another step down the path of ceding the role of the US government to a non-elected body that often is at odds with US values. While granted this one seems rather harmless, if it provides no benefit here in the US, why do it? Certainly stamping our name on it won't inspire middle eastern nations to redefine women in their societies.

Generally when they're at odds with "US values", it means we're wrong.
Remember how they told us it would be a bad idea to invade Iraq?

"They" told us not to invade Iraq because the Russians, Germans and the French had financial interests in a Saddam run Iraq. Let's not pretend their was some grandiose noble reason against it.


Also, something about flimsy evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

Was there grandiose noble reasons for invading? Is that the implication?
 
2011-09-21 09:28:22 AM

Methadone Girls: EWreckedSean: shivashakti: EWreckedSean: It is just another step down the path of ceding the role of the US government to a non-elected body that often is at odds with US values. While granted this one seems rather harmless, if it provides no benefit here in the US, why do it? Certainly stamping our name on it won't inspire middle eastern nations to redefine women in their societies.

Generally when they're at odds with "US values", it means we're wrong.
Remember how they told us it would be a bad idea to invade Iraq?

"They" told us not to invade Iraq because the Russians, Germans and the French had financial interests in a Saddam run Iraq. Let's not pretend their was some grandiose noble reason against it.

Also, something about flimsy evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

Was there grandiose noble reasons for invading? Is that the implication?


I never suggested there was. If I had to guess, the real reason behind it was because the neo-cons actually thought they could easily establish a pro-American, secular government in the heart of the middle east to counter Iran in the region. I mean that's why we supported Iraq all through the 80s to begin with.
 
2011-09-21 09:29:09 AM

Methadone Girls: EWreckedSean: shivashakti: EWreckedSean: It is just another step down the path of ceding the role of the US government to a non-elected body that often is at odds with US values. While granted this one seems rather harmless, if it provides no benefit here in the US, why do it? Certainly stamping our name on it won't inspire middle eastern nations to redefine women in their societies.

Generally when they're at odds with "US values", it means we're wrong.
Remember how they told us it would be a bad idea to invade Iraq?

"They" told us not to invade Iraq because the Russians, Germans and the French had financial interests in a Saddam run Iraq. Let's not pretend their was some grandiose noble reason against it.

Also, something about flimsy evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

Was there grandiose noble reasons for invading? Is that the implication?


I think the implication is that you need a grandiose, noble reason to NOT invade.

/"It would lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands" apparently not noble enough
 
2011-09-21 09:29:31 AM

serial_crusher: How come women get all these rights that I don't get?


There's a crowd of people trying to prevent you and your doctor from making private medical decisions?
 
2011-09-21 09:30:21 AM

FuturePastNow: The "you" is Republicans generally. We'll have to just disagree over what is and is not a womens' rights issue.


For the first point, try "them" in the future.

For the second, fair enough. I believe it is part of a womens rights issue, but it isn't in a vaccuum.

FuturePastNow: And I simply don't care which politicians weren't doing their jobs ten, twenty, thirty years ago. I care which politicians aren't doing their jobs now. You can call that dishonest if you like


When you claim it won't happen because "republicans are evil" make no peep about dems not doing anything about it in the past and make no complaints about dems not pushing for it, it doesn;t coem off as an honest critique over the issue.


shivashakti: liam76: shivashakti: Or when America tells other countries that they shouldn't have nuclear weapons while we have the most nukes in the world and we're the only country that used them during warfare

That is what happens when countries sign treaties promising not to develope nukes and in turn get assistance in building up nuclear technology.

Nothing in any nuclear treaty we have signed prevents us from having nukes.

But don't let reality get in the way of your anti-american whargable.

I never said it did. I'm just saying it's hypocritical for us to tell people they shouldn't have nuclear weapons. But it's OK for us to have them....


When those people sign a treaty that lets them have access to technology they otherwise wouldn't have access to in exchange for not using nukes, then no it isn't hypocritical.


Aarontology: This is how authoritarian cowards squash any ideas that aren't their own. By branding it anti-American


It is "anti-american" to ignore the history of the non-proliferation treaty, and pretend that US is demanding countries make no nukes unilaterally.
 
2011-09-21 09:30:55 AM

coco ebert: So, it's kind of like when the U.S. lectures to other countries about human rights while Guantanamo is still open.

America- STFU and GBTW.


We don't need to be 100% perfect to be able to explain to other countries how it's supposed to work. From a human rights perspective we're pretty damned good. We don't have slavery, outside of the Prison Industrial Complex. We don't mutilate our children, outside of circumcision. We don't engage in torture, outside of waterboarding. We don't incarcerate people without due process of law, outside of Arabs. And we don't let anybody put whatever they want in their bodies, regardless of age, race, gender, or sexual orientation.
 
2011-09-21 09:36:33 AM

EWreckedSean: Methadone Girls: EWreckedSean: shivashakti: EWreckedSean: It is just another step down the path of ceding the role of the US government to a non-elected body that often is at odds with US values. While granted this one seems rather harmless, if it provides no benefit here in the US, why do it? Certainly stamping our name on it won't inspire middle eastern nations to redefine women in their societies.

Generally when they're at odds with "US values", it means we're wrong.
Remember how they told us it would be a bad idea to invade Iraq?

"They" told us not to invade Iraq because the Russians, Germans and the French had financial interests in a Saddam run Iraq. Let's not pretend their was some grandiose noble reason against it.

Also, something about flimsy evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

Was there grandiose noble reasons for invading? Is that the implication?

I never suggested there was. If I had to guess, the real reason behind it was because the neo-cons actually thought they could easily establish a pro-American, secular government in the heart of the middle east to counter Iran in the region. I mean that's why we supported Iraq all through the 80s to begin with.


That's the smartest thing you've ever said on this site.
 
2011-09-21 09:36:33 AM

Lunaville: Also, I have Bevets on ignore , people. I encourage you all to consider that option.


I was in going to ignore him but I chose to abort the process
 
2011-09-21 09:36:44 AM

Theaetetus: serial_crusher: How come women get all these rights that I don't get?

There's a crowd of people trying to prevent you and your doctor from making private medical decisions?


In fairness though, while a man is financially obligated to pay for a child, he has no say on whether or not it gets aborted. Women do have a bit more rights when it comes to child birth than men do.
 
2011-09-21 09:36:48 AM

Lost Thought 00: Women are tools to be used in the US. This has been true forever and will never change. We are a nation of bigots and cannot be fixed.


Sadly, this.
 
2011-09-21 09:38:09 AM
And the US shouldn't sign. Why rights for women? Why not rights for everyone? Feminism is not about equality but about mysandry.
 
2011-09-21 09:38:21 AM

Aarontology: keylock71: You know, for supposedly "tough, individualistic boot -strappers", the GOP seems to be made up of a bunch of whiny little titty babies, paper tigers and bullies.

A woman thinking she's a man's equal? It's like a thousand 9/11s.


First the women wanted to be treated equally and have a vote, then the blacks wanted to be treated equally, and then the gays wanted to be treated equally and now those damned women are at it again wanting to control their own bodies and reproduction...

It's been a trying few centuries for our conservative friends, to be sure, but thankfully they're still able to hold onto those 19th century values despite all this nonsense about white, wealthy men not being exceptional and deserving of better than everyone else.
 
2011-09-21 09:38:46 AM

Bevets: As a result, previous versions of the treaty that have reached the Senate floor -- including one as recently as 2002 -- have included special riders that exempted abortion laws, and a handful of other provisions, from the treaty.

Passing a U.N. treaty that includes special exemptions would be an insult to the international community, not to mention it would sap the measure of its fundamental strength, Benshoof said.

"If we have a CEDAW that is like the last one, we don't need it," Benshoof said. "It does not send a signal to women of the world that America signs a treaty without intention of ever implementing it. It would be like signing a treaty against torture and putting in a clause excluding waterboarding."

So not giving mothers the right to kill their children is basically the same as waterboarding. This is how abortion advocates actually think.


...do you hear yourself when you type?

...maybe you should stick with the quote-mining.
 
2011-09-21 09:41:24 AM

liam76: When you claim it won't happen because "republicans are evil" make no peep about dems not doing anything about it in the past and make no complaints about dems not pushing for it, it doesn;t coem off as an honest critique over the issue.


I just calls it likes I sees it.
 
2011-09-21 09:41:46 AM

ArkAngel: [i.huffpost.com image 570x238]

Jesus, did she eat Monica Lewinsky or something?


i.huffpost.com
1.bp.blogspot.com27.media.tumblr.com
 
2011-09-21 09:44:34 AM
The US only signs pledges that take rights away from people now. Read the news.
 
2011-09-21 09:45:39 AM

liam76: Methadone Girls: Alphax: WorldCitizen: The US not ratifying a human rights treaty? Shocking!

Shockingly status quo. We couldn't even join the international land mine ban.

Why do you keep calling yourselves the world police? I mean, if these are the rules and laws the rest of the world wants, but you can't bring yourself to agree to something as common sense as a land mine ban, how can you enforce the rules on everyone but yourselves? There's a word for that.....

They aren't.

They are rules and laws written by special interest groups.

As for the landmines the last time the US used them was in 1991. It is stupid to say you won't use X weapon when your enimies haven't made that commitment.


Yes, because without land mines the US would be shockingly behind other nations militarily and could probably be rolled right over.
 
2011-09-21 09:45:53 AM

lordaction: And the US shouldn't sign. Why rights for women? Why not rights for everyone? Feminism is not about equality but about mysandry.


Control of your reproductive system should be a universal right. For men, it is easy, for women, it is more complicated.

Think about a right to visit your local government office. People in a wheel chairs need a ramp. People who can walk, don't.

Would you argue that it isn't fair that we have to put ramps in local government offices?

It is the same with women. Being a women isn't a disability, but the nature of the reproductive systems, requires extra legislative mechanisms to provide equality (ramps). Men don't get pregnant. Men don't get raped (typically). Men don't get cervical cancer. To provide women/men an equal level of control over their lives, you have to have special considerations.
 
2011-09-21 09:46:28 AM

lordaction: And the US shouldn't sign. Why rights for women? Why not rights for everyone? Feminism is not about equality but about mysandry.


Your bad divorce does not change the fact that religious, economic and political circles of power are all overwhelming dominated by men. Neither does it justify denying basic human rights to women.
 
2011-09-21 09:46:52 AM

Farking While Farking: ArkAngel: But shouldn't a country be allowed to support a traditional nuclear family?

The Nuclear Family has only been popular since the early 1900s and is largely an economic disaster for the poor and middle classes.

If anything is a "Traditional Family" it would be multi-generational households.


I agree. And without social security, most elderly parents would live with one of their children and a return to these multi-generational households. So social security is a family values issue.

Wow - I just spent 5 seconds inside Rick Perry's head. Don't go in htere - it's mostly empty, but there's a lot of scary shiat in the shadows.
 
2011-09-21 09:47:44 AM

WorldCitizen: liam76: Methadone Girls: Alphax: WorldCitizen: The US not ratifying a human rights treaty? Shocking!

Shockingly status quo. We couldn't even join the international land mine ban.

Why do you keep calling yourselves the world police? I mean, if these are the rules and laws the rest of the world wants, but you can't bring yourself to agree to something as common sense as a land mine ban, how can you enforce the rules on everyone but yourselves? There's a word for that.....

They aren't.

They are rules and laws written by special interest groups.

As for the landmines the last time the US used them was in 1991. It is stupid to say you won't use X weapon when your enimies haven't made that commitment.

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


Rolled over is actually right, as the concern is how quickly North Korea could roll over the DMZ into Seoul without them.
 
2011-09-21 09:49:16 AM

keylock71: It's been a trying few centuries for our conservative friends, to be sure, but thankfully they're still able to hold onto those 19th century values despite all this nonsense about white, wealthy men not being exceptional and deserving of better than everyone else.


I'd like to think that maybe after these goons all died off we could finally achieve true equality. But that's only a pipe dream. These bigots are passing their disease right on down to their children and grandchildren.

If we HAVE to go through another civil war, could we please be a little bit more thorough?!
 
2011-09-21 09:49:28 AM

EWreckedSean: In fairness though, while a man is financially obligated to pay for a child, he has no say on whether or not it gets aborted. Women do have a bit more rights when it comes to child birth than men do.


Do you honestly believe that men are getting the harder deal when it comes to reproduction, reproductive health, reproductive rights, state interference in their reproductive system and the effect of reproduction on their lives?
 
2011-09-21 09:50:44 AM

illisium: lordaction: And the US shouldn't sign. Why rights for women? Why not rights for everyone? Feminism is not about equality but about mysandry.

Your bad divorce does not change the fact that religious, economic and political circles of power are all overwhelming dominated by men. Neither does it justify denying basic human rights to women.


Us signing the treaty grants zero basic rights to anybody.
 
2011-09-21 09:51:10 AM

Gulper Eel: DarnoKonrad: Actually women are doing a lot better there, whether it's the ending of male guardianship or forced marriages

Yeah, great. Now the husband has to pay a dowry before he can go bang his 11-year-old wife

Why, they're practically Vermont over there.


It's like you enjoy advertising how much of an insipid dishonest reactionary you are. No it's not vermont, nor did I imply it was, but more importantly people who care about equality don't base their compliance on the standards of foreign nations. Okay? It doesn't goddamned matter what the Saudis are up to, it matters if it's the right policy to pursue.
 
2011-09-21 09:53:44 AM

Farking While Farking: EWreckedSean: In fairness though, while a man is financially obligated to pay for a child, he has no say on whether or not it gets aborted. Women do have a bit more rights when it comes to child birth than men do.

Do you honestly believe that men are getting the harder deal when it comes to reproduction, reproductive health, reproductive rights, state interference in their reproductive system and the effect of reproduction on their lives?


In certain areas, certainly. A woman gets pregnant, she and she alone gets to chose whether or not to have that child, right? A man is hostage to the woman's decision. If a man things abortion is murder and wants to keep the child and she doesn't. Too bad. If the pregnancy was unplanned, and the man doesn't want a child and she does, too bad, he's an ATM machine for the next 18 years. Women have options post impregnation. Men have none.
 
2011-09-21 09:54:30 AM

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

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


I lived within shelling distance of North Korea (with a north facing apartment even) and visited the DMZ. I don't think if you took away the land mines North Korea would suddenly think, "hey, there's nothing stopping us know; let's go for it!"
 
2011-09-21 09:55:46 AM

N. A. Coffey: keylock71: It's been a trying few centuries for our conservative friends, to be sure, but thankfully they're still able to hold onto those 19th century values despite all this nonsense about white, wealthy men not being exceptional and deserving of better than everyone else.

I'd like to think that maybe after these goons all died off we could finally achieve true equality. But that's only a pipe dream. These bigots are passing their disease right on down to their children and grandchildren.

If we HAVE to go through another civil war, could we please be a little bit more thorough?!


Oh the irony of you guys making sweeping judgements about a whole group of people, and then whining about their bigotry...
 
2011-09-21 09:57:33 AM

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

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

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


Did you miss last year where the North started shelling the South again? It's hard to blame the South for wanting every little bit of deterrence between them and the North...
 
2011-09-21 09:58:30 AM

WorldCitizen: liam76: As for the landmines the last time the US used them was in 1991. It is stupid to say you won't use X weapon when your enimies haven't made that commitment.

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


Where did I say that?

The fact is this treaty is asking us to give up a tool that our enemies use. There is no reason to do it.

mrshowrules: It is the same with women. Being a women isn't a disability, but the nature of the reproductive systems, requires extra legislative mechanisms to provide equality (ramps). Men don't get pregnant. Men don't get raped (typically). Men don't get cervical cancer. To provide women/men an equal level of control over their lives, you have to have special considerations


Allowing abortion isn't "equal level of control" unless the man has a vote or he can waive off parental support.

Given the nature of our reproductive organs and technology today "equal level of control" is impossible.
 
2011-09-21 10:00:06 AM

devildog123: FirstNationalBastard: Who are they kidding?

As long as Republicans have anything to do with it, the only rights women will be allowed on paper are the right to get in the kitchen, the right to cook dinner, and the right to shut their pretty little mouths when men are talking.

If the war on a woman's right to choose whether to keep a fetus or abort, and just how far the republicans are willing to go to make sure they don't have that choice, or a safe place to go to get the procedure done isn't enough evidence of what they think of women, I don't see what more they can do to prove just how much they hate women.


FTA: In a recent Newsweek list of the best countries in the world for women, the United States ranked eighth overal

Yup, without this treaty, women are just treated like shiat in this country. I mean, just the other day, I beat my wife because she had the nerve to get out of the kitchen.

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


It might be hard to grasp, but if you are going to be apart of the international community and te UN, then you have to play too.

Anyway, treaties can be changed you know. Governments of each country can exclude certain parts of the bill if they so choose, before they sign. At least, thats what Wikipedia said...
 
2011-09-21 10:02:32 AM

AnonAmbientLight: It might be hard to grasp, but if you are going to be apart of the international community and te UN, then you have to play too.


Did the UN security council pass it?
 
2011-09-21 10:02:45 AM

AnonAmbientLight:
It might be hard to grasp, but if you are going to be apart of the international community and te UN, then you have to play too.


Who says? Frankly, I don't much see the need to promote an unelected body from making up rules it sees fit.
 
2011-09-21 10:02:50 AM

liam76: The fact is this treaty is asking us to give up a tool that our enemies use. There is no reason to do it.


Of course this is the same logic that some people use to justify torture by the US.
 
2011-09-21 10:03:50 AM

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

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

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

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


Cause there's no way to get around the DMZ's land mines at all. I mean if you can lob shells over the DMZ, that prolly means you can fly a plane over it. You know, with soldiers on them and stuff. I think the international community keeps North Korea at bay more than the land mines.
 
2011-09-21 10:04:05 AM

liam76: Allowing abortion isn't "equal level of control" unless the man has a vote or he can waive off parental support.


A man has complete control of his sperm. Having a vote what someone else can do with their body has nothing to do with you.
 
2011-09-21 10:04:13 AM

N. A. Coffey: If we HAVE to go through another civil war, could we please be a little bit more thorough?!


wpcontent.answcdn.com

"Don't look at me... I told 'em what needed to be done."


But seriously, these attitudes won't be changed through violence, but rather through education. Like terrorism, it's not something that can ever completely be eradicated, but it can be limited and minimized in free, civilized societies.
 
2011-09-21 10:05:29 AM

Farking While Farking: ArkAngel: But shouldn't a country be allowed to support a traditional nuclear family?

The Nuclear Family has only been popular since the early 1900s and is largely an economic disaster for the poor and middle classes.

If anything is a "Traditional Family" it would be multi-generational households.


If you take the whole history of Homo Sapiens into account, the "traditional family" would be communal living with the women working together to take care of all the kids and the men doing the hunting much like the least disturbed indigenous tribes today.
 
2011-09-21 10:05:44 AM
With the Republicans controlling the Senate, the Democrats really have no way to push for the ratification of this treaty...err...wait a minute...
 
2011-09-21 10:07:46 AM

keylock71: Although Clinton did not mention America's conspicuous absence from the CEDAW list of signatories, both she and President Obama have repeatedly stated they would like to see the treaty ratified in the Senate. But while CEDAW has been in the hands of the Senate for more than 30 years -- ever since President Jimmy Carter signed it in 1980 -- it has never so much as gotten a vote in the full chamber.

Yep, that's farking embarrassing... It would be great if the US could move at least into the 20th century on these issues, never mind the 21st century, but when one political party is actively trying to put us back into the 19th century, I don't see that happening anytime soon...


Down with Mother's Day! Down with Mother's Day!

/flowers are expensive
 
2011-09-21 10:09:44 AM

EWreckedSean: If the pregnancy was unplanned, and the man doesn't want a child and she does, too bad, he's an ATM machine for the next 18 years.


The mother also spends a great deal of money in child care; how is it fair to place that entire burden on her? The money that an absent father spends in child support is the same money he'd spend if he wasn't absent. Do you really think men should be able to get a woman pregnant, and then walk away with no consequences?

Also, there is no such thing as an unplanned pregnancy any more. If a man or woman doesn't want children, there are several options available to prevent it. Not using these options is a personal choice, and in making that choice, you are accepting responsibility for the possible consequences (to wit, pregnancy).
 
2011-09-21 10:10:03 AM

EWreckedSean: In certain areas, certainly. A woman gets pregnant, she and she alone gets to chose whether or not to have that child, right? A man is hostage to the woman's decision. If a man things abortion is murder and wants to keep the child and she doesn't. Too bad. If the pregnancy was unplanned, and the man doesn't want a child and she does, too bad, he's an ATM machine for the next 18 years. Women have options post impregnation. Men have none.


So are you really saying that if the man wants the child but the woman doesn't then he should be able to make her keep it?

Are you also saying you refer prefer the deal that women get? And that all things considered thu have it better, not just the above items?
 
2011-09-21 10:10:43 AM

EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: serial_crusher: How come women get all these rights that I don't get?

There's a crowd of people trying to prevent you and your doctor from making private medical decisions?

In fairness though, while a man is financially obligated to pay for a child, he has no say on whether or not it gets aborted. Women do have a bit more rights when it comes to child birth than men do.


In fairness though, no one, anywhere, has any say on whether a man gets a vasectomy other than him and his doctor. We only intrude on private medical decisions when it's a woman.

Additionally, if a child gets aborted, a man cannot possibly be financially obligated. And if a child is not aborted, a woman is equally financially obligated. What you perceive as unfairness is really just the distinction between whether there's a child or not, and your own ignorance of the fact that the mother is equally on the hook once a child is born.
 
2011-09-21 10:11:30 AM

Methadone Girls: I think the international community China keeps North Korea at bay more than the land mines.


The last thing the Chinese government wants is a sudden and massive influx of North Korean refugees.

Quiefenburger: With the Republicans controlling the Senate, the Democrats really have no way to push for the ratification of this treaty...err...wait a minute...


Farking filibusters, how to they work?
 
2011-09-21 10:14:06 AM

qorkfiend: Farking filibusters, how to they work?


a 30 year filibuster is impressive ;)
 
2011-09-21 10:14:28 AM

EWreckedSean: In certain areas, certainly. A woman gets pregnant, she and she alone gets to chose whether or not to have that child, right? A man is hostage to the woman's decision. If a man things abortion is murder and wants to keep the child and she doesn't. Too bad. If the pregnancy was unplanned, and the man doesn't want a child and she does, too bad, he's an ATM machine for the next 18 years. Women have options post impregnation. Men have none.



Haha, wow. This is some warped thinking. "Why can't I force my unintended incubator to have a medical procedure? It would save me MONEY for Christ's sake!"
 
2011-09-21 10:15:11 AM

EWreckedSean: In certain areas, certainly. A woman gets pregnant, she and she alone gets to chose whether or not to have that child, right? A man is hostage to the woman's decision.


I suppose, if you believe "fulfilling your parental obligations to your child" is the same as being "held hostage." But then, you'd have to really admit to being a huge asshole.

If a man things abortion is murder and wants to keep the child and she doesn't. Too bad.

Wait, you mean we can't force women to undergo a painful medical procedure with a not-insignificant chance of adverse health effects or death against their will?! This is an OUTRAGE!

If the pregnancy was unplanned, and the man doesn't want a child and she does, too bad, he's an ATM machine for the next 18 years.

Here's a clue: if she has a child, she's also an ATM machine for the next 18 years, and that kid has the card.

Oh, my god - you mean that the mother and father both have to support a child? And that that's a right of the child? Children have rights?! OUTRAGE!!

Women have options post impregnation. Men have none.

Women undergo 9 months of pregnancy, followed by labor, potential emergency surgery, massive physiological stress, potentially fatal blood pressure changes, and a risk of death. Men do not. But... it's totally unfair. OUTRAGEEEEEEEE!!!
 
2011-09-21 10:15:40 AM
This is just stupid. Women are granted the same rights in the US as men have. Proposing a special treaty for them is just farking dumb.

Ohhhh your so special because you have different genitals than the oppressive men!
 
2011-09-21 10:16:10 AM

Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: serial_crusher: How come women get all these rights that I don't get?

There's a crowd of people trying to prevent you and your doctor from making private medical decisions?

In fairness though, while a man is financially obligated to pay for a child, he has no say on whether or not it gets aborted. Women do have a bit more rights when it comes to child birth than men do.

In fairness though, no one, anywhere, has any say on whether a man gets a vasectomy other than him and his doctor. We only intrude on private medical decisions when it's a woman.

Additionally, if a child gets aborted, a man cannot possibly be financially obligated. And if a child is not aborted, a woman is equally financially obligated. What you perceive as unfairness is really just the distinction between whether there's a child or not, and your own ignorance of the fact that the mother is equally on the hook once a child is born.


I think his point is that a woman is the final arbiter of the decision of whether they are both on the hook for raising the child. She is in effect making that decision for the father as well with her being the sole decision maker on whether to have an abortion.
 
2011-09-21 10:16:16 AM

Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: serial_crusher: How come women get all these rights that I don't get?

There's a crowd of people trying to prevent you and your doctor from making private medical decisions?

In fairness though, while a man is financially obligated to pay for a child, he has no say on whether or not it gets aborted. Women do have a bit more rights when it comes to child birth than men do.

In fairness though, no one, anywhere, has any say on whether a man gets a vasectomy other than him and his doctor


Well that's a silly argument. Women can get their tubes tied. If your argument is that men who don't want to support a child should get vasectomies instead of waiting until its too late, you should really be consistent and demand that women do the same.

Theaetetus: Additionally, if a child gets aborted, a man cannot possibly be financially obligated. And if a child is not aborted, a woman is equally financially obligated


100% of the choice, 50% of the obligation. Seems fair to me.
 
2011-09-21 10:16:34 AM

liam76: mrshowrules: It is the same with women. Being a women isn't a disability, but the nature of the reproductive systems, requires extra legislative mechanisms to provide equality (ramps). Men don't get pregnant. Men don't get raped (typically). Men don't get cervical cancer. To provide women/men an equal level of control over their lives, you have to have special considerations

Allowing abortion isn't "equal level of control" unless the man has a vote or he can waive off parental support.

Given the nature of our reproductive organs and technology today "equal level of control" is impossible.


We attempt to make it as equal as possible and that is the point. A woman can get raped and then get fired for being pregnant or die because of a abortion attempt. She can get raped and contract HPV and than cervical cancer. These are life altering events.

Legislation/policy that balances these issues or extends a measure of equality to women in the control of their life are part of modern thinking and societal trends. You may disagree with some of the specific measures but the goal is societal equality.
 
2011-09-21 10:18:00 AM

Theaetetus: Women undergo 9 months of pregnancy, followed by labor, potential emergency surgery, massive physiological stress, potentially fatal blood pressure changes, and a risk of death. Men do not. But... it's totally unfair. OUTRAGEEEEEEEE!!!


Until men have the right to say "Hey, I dont want that kid. If you have it then you will pay for it all" I will always be against abortion. This one way street bullshiat is old and busted.
 
2011-09-21 10:18:31 AM

skullkrusher: Down with Mother's Day! Down with Mother's Day!

/flowers are expensive


What about Father's Day, you male chauvinist pig?!?

I buy all my flowers from temporary stands along the side of the road...
 
2011-09-21 10:19:39 AM

keylock71: skullkrusher: Down with Mother's Day! Down with Mother's Day!

/flowers are expensive

What about Father's Day, you male chauvinist pig?!?

I buy all my flowers from temporary stands along the side of the road...


No, no no no no no. Macy's was having a sale on shirts. I have like 10 years of Father's Day gifts to give. After that, fine... wait, I'm a father now. I WANT MINE DAMMIT!
 
2011-09-21 10:20:37 AM

I alone am best: Until men have the right to say "Hey, I dont want that kid. If you have it then you will pay for it all"


you do have the right to say that by not sticking your pecker into a woman's vagina.
 
2011-09-21 10:20:40 AM

keylock71: skullkrusher: Down with Mother's Day! Down with Mother's Day!

/flowers are expensive

What about Father's Day, you male chauvinist pig?!?

I buy all my flowers from temporary stands along the side of the road...


in all seriousness, bodega flowers are the best flowers. 2 dozen roses, $10. They come with the buds still closed and last for a week. Beats the hell out of that $60 proflowers bullshiat that dies on your doorstep
 
2011-09-21 10:20:45 AM

mrshowrules: fired for being pregnant


Good luck with that and the impending massive amount of money you will spend defending against the lawsuit.
 
2011-09-21 10:21:36 AM

Headso: I alone am best: Until men have the right to say "Hey, I dont want that kid. If you have it then you will pay for it all"

you do have the right to say that by not sticking your pecker into a woman's vagina.


you know what they call it when that decision is made solely by the man? Rape.
 
2011-09-21 10:23:01 AM

skullkrusher: Headso: I alone am best: Until men have the right to say "Hey, I dont want that kid. If you have it then you will pay for it all"

you do have the right to say that by not sticking your pecker into a woman's vagina.

you know what they call it when that decision is made solely by the man? Rape.


It's rape to force a woman to not have sex with you?
 
2011-09-21 10:23:45 AM

Headso: I alone am best: Until men have the right to say "Hey, I dont want that kid. If you have it then you will pay for it all"

you do have the right to say that by not sticking your pecker into a woman's vagina.


That sounds like the pro-lifes argument against abortion or abstinence only education. Look it's her body, if she gets pregnant its her fault and she can remedy that if she doesnt like it. I should not be on the line for it ever. As of right now its a one way street in her favor.
 
2011-09-21 10:23:57 AM

Headso: you do have the right to say that by not sticking your pecker into a woman's vagina.


Or use one of the half-dozen options to that allow you to still stick your pecker wherever you want without a resultant pregnancy.
 
2011-09-21 10:23:58 AM

serial_crusher: Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: serial_crusher: How come women get all these rights that I don't get?

There's a crowd of people trying to prevent you and your doctor from making private medical decisions?

In fairness though, while a man is financially obligated to pay for a child, he has no say on whether or not it gets aborted. Women do have a bit more rights when it comes to child birth than men do.

In fairness though, no one, anywhere, has any say on whether a man gets a vasectomy other than him and his doctor

Well that's a silly argument. Women can get their tubes tied. If your argument is that men who don't want to support a child should get vasectomies instead of waiting until its too late, you should really be consistent and demand that women do the same.


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

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

Theaetetus: Additionally, if a child gets aborted, a man cannot possibly be financially obligated. And if a child is not aborted, a woman is equally financially obligated

100% of the choice, 50% of the obligation. Seems fair to me.


Yes, but with all due respect, that's because you're an idiot. The choice is not "should I be obligated to pay for my child," because THERE IS NO CHOICE. Neither the mother nor the father gets to make that choice. The obligation is imposed on both parents as a matter of law once the child is born.

The mother has one choice - she can decide whether to undergo a medical procedure now or a bigger medical procedure later. That is her sole choice.
 
2011-09-21 10:25:59 AM

skullkrusher: in all seriousness, bodega flowers are the best flowers. 2 dozen roses, $10. They come with the buds still closed and last for a week. Beats the hell out of that $60 proflowers bullshiat that dies on your doorstep


Absolutely... I've been buying dirt cheap flowers from a little old Portuguese woman, who sets up her stand a few days before the big flower holidays, for years.

I also have a few wild flower and rose bushes in the back yard that provide me with free "Yeah, I was an asshole" roses during the blooming months. : )
 
2011-09-21 10:26:23 AM

I alone am best: if she gets pregnant its her fault


It takes two, actually.

The pro-life argument is that abstinence won't lead to unintended pregnancy, which is accurate. The problem with abstinence-only is that it's an unrealistic method of birth control.
 
2011-09-21 10:27:24 AM

I alone am best: Theaetetus: Women undergo 9 months of pregnancy, followed by labor, potential emergency surgery, massive physiological stress, potentially fatal blood pressure changes, and a risk of death. Men do not. But... it's totally unfair. OUTRAGEEEEEEEE!!!

Until men have the right to say "Hey, I dont want that kid. If you have it then you will pay for it all" I will always be against abortion. This one way street bullshiat is old and busted.


And until people like you start making arguments that are better than "fark everyone, I look out for numero uno," no one is going to listen to you.

Child support is the right of the child. Only the child - or a guardian ad litem - can waive that right. If a father could say "Hey, I dont want that kid. If you have it then you will pay for it all," then who could agree? The child? It isn't born yet. The mother? Nope. She doesn't have the ability. The court? They have the ability, but would be in breach of their duty to the child.
Got it? No one has the legal power to grant the unilateral waiver you want.
 
2011-09-21 10:27:57 AM

I alone am best: Headso: I alone am best: Until men have the right to say "Hey, I dont want that kid. If you have it then you will pay for it all"

you do have the right to say that by not sticking your pecker into a woman's vagina.

That sounds like the pro-lifes argument against abortion or abstinence only education. Look it's her body, if she gets pregnant its her fault and she can remedy that if she doesnt like it. I should not be on the line for it ever. As of right now its a one way street in her favor.


Yeah, I agree. To say both the father and mother are responsible but only the mother gets a choice seems inconsistent. If with a fetus we're going to go the "it's my body, my choice" route, then by all means "it's your body, your baby" should be a legal option for the father so long as the first is available to the woman.
 
2011-09-21 10:28:27 AM

I alone am best: I should not be on the line for it ever. As of right now its a one way street in her favor.


Child support is the right OF THE CHILD. Is that really so difficult to understand?
 
2011-09-21 10:29:11 AM

I alone am best: That sounds like the pro-lifes argument against abortion or abstinence only education. Look it's her body, if she gets pregnant its her fault and she can remedy that if she doesnt like it. I should not be on the line for it ever. As of right now its a one way street in her favor.


There's this thing called "Birth Control"... You might want to have a look into it. It's a great way to avoid your little scenario.

Take some personal responsibility for your actions, hippie.
 
2011-09-21 10:29:22 AM
Hey guys! Don't want to have a kid with the skank you are banging? Here's an idea... USE PROTECTION OR GET A VASECTOMY!

The fact that you decided to ride bareback because you are too much of a man to use a condom at the least goes to show that you really don't give a shiat whether or not you knock her up. This whole BS argument of "I should be able to have say in whether she keeps the kid or not" is bunk because guess what... you already had your say when you wet your dick. You chose to not give a shiat what happens.

Same goes for the girls. In all honesty, abortions should be used for those rare times that all of the precautions fail (condom breaks, birth control fails, life-threatening pregnancy, etc.) and from my experience that is exactly what they are used for. It is not some happy-go-lucky procedure that you get on a monthly basis, it can actually be quite invasive. Also, you don't just go get an abortion then go out and skank it up the next day, you need to heal in between. Why do you think pimps beat the shiat out of their biatches when they get pregnant and get an abortion? It's because those women are out of commission for at least a month.
 
2011-09-21 10:30:03 AM

Theaetetus: I alone am best: I should not be on the line for it ever. As of right now its a one way street in her favor.

Child support is the right OF THE CHILD. Is that really so difficult to understand?


How is that even relevant to what he is saying?
 
2011-09-21 10:30:17 AM

I alone am best: Look it's her body, if she gets pregnant its her fault and she can remedy that if she doesnt like it. I should not be on the line for it ever. As of right now its a one way street in her favor.


you're not on the hook for ever, just until the kid is an adult then you can stop all contact.
 
2011-09-21 10:30:35 AM

lennavan: I alone am best: Headso: I alone am best: Until men have the right to say "Hey, I dont want that kid. If you have it then you will pay for it all"

you do have the right to say that by not sticking your pecker into a woman's vagina.

That sounds like the pro-lifes argument against abortion or abstinence only education. Look it's her body, if she gets pregnant its her fault and she can remedy that if she doesnt like it. I should not be on the line for it ever. As of right now its a one way street in her favor.

Yeah, I agree. To say both the father and mother are responsible but only the mother gets a choice seems inconsistent. If with a fetus we're going to go the "it's my body, my choice" route, then by all means "it's your body, your baby" should be a legal option for the father so long as the first is available to the woman.


The man made his choice (as did the woman) when they engaged in unprotected sex, with the full knowledge that it could lead to the woman getting pregnant. At that point, it's a little too late to say "Whoa whoa! Why should I be responsible for any of this?"
 
2011-09-21 10:32:58 AM

I alone am best: mrshowrules: fired for being pregnant

Good luck with that and the impending massive amount of money you will spend defending against the lawsuit.


I'm not sure what you mean. Anyways, this is an International treaty and this practices is very common in many countries.
 
2011-09-21 10:33:30 AM

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


I dont think you get the gist of my statement. She has all the ability in the world. She can get an abortion. The man cant. She has a right to control her body why should I not have the right to control mine? Once the child is born, I would be in literal servitude providing for the child for the next 18 years. The system is currently so lopsided its stupid.
 
2011-09-21 10:33:38 AM

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

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

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


Works both ways, doesn't it? Your double standard is showing.
 
2011-09-21 10:33:57 AM

lennavan: Theaetetus: I alone am best: I should not be on the line for it ever. As of right now its a one way street in her favor.

Child support is the right OF THE CHILD. Is that really so difficult to understand?

How is that even relevant to what he is saying?


Because he is saying that a choice of the mother should abrogate the right of the child to financial support from both parents.
 
2011-09-21 10:34:17 AM

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


This is an argument against abortion in all cases. I disagree with that.
 
2011-09-21 10:34:34 AM

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

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

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

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

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


These don't fly...

t2.gstatic.com
 
2011-09-21 10:34:52 AM

I alone am best: She has a right to control her body why should I not have the right to control mine?


you don't have control of your ejaculate? sounds messy
 
2011-09-21 10:34:58 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: lennavan: Theaetetus: I alone am best: I should not be on the line for it ever. As of right now its a one way street in her favor.

Child support is the right OF THE CHILD. Is that really so difficult to understand?

How is that even relevant to what he is saying?

Because he is saying that a choice of the mother should abrogate the right of the child to financial support from both parents.


No he isn't.
 
2011-09-21 10:35:03 AM

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


I'll bet you're one of those folks who believes in tort reform too right?
 
2011-09-21 10:36:02 AM

lennavan: Yeah, I agree. To say both the father and mother are responsible but only the mother gets a choice seems inconsistent. If with a fetus we're going to go the "it's my body, my choice" route, then by all means "it's your body, your baby" should be a legal option for the father so long as the first is available to the woman.


Look at that a conservative and a liberal agree on something and the world didnt blow up. Ebony and Ivory and shiat.
 
2011-09-21 10:36:11 AM

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

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

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

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


One would have realized that I meant both when I said "same goes for the girls". Sorry you apparently want to make yourself into a victim so badly that you ignored that part. Having trouble nailing yourself to that cross?
 
2011-09-21 10:38:20 AM

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

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


I'm for people using common sense including judges.
 
2011-09-21 10:39:34 AM

fuhfuhfuh: This whole BS argument of "I should be able to have say in whether she keeps the kid or not" is bunk because guess what... you already had your say when you wet your dick.

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


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

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

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

Fundamentally, the MRA argument that men should be able to opt out of child support is a statement that they believe that children should not have Constitutional rights.
 
2011-09-21 10:39:50 AM

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


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

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

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

Your double standard, it's still showing.
 
2011-09-21 10:40:35 AM

mrshowrules: We attempt to make it as equal as possible and that is the point. A woman can get raped and then get fired for being pregnant or die because of a abortion attempt. She can get raped and contract HPV and than cervical cancer. These are life altering events.

Legislation/policy that balances these issues or extends a measure of equality to women in the control of their life are part of modern thinking and societal trends. You may disagree with some of the specific measures but the goal is societal equality


I agree with that goal but I don't think you will get equality in reporduction rights.

I also think this legislation is a terrible idea for making access to abortion easier (which I completely agree with) as it will be seen as a "backdoor" to it and will drive out the bible thumpers/NATO is going to take over nuts in droves to attack it. I also see it is a terrible idea as it will be used to drag the US name through the mud and let Sauid carry on with all the stuff they do to women.

Headso: liam76: Allowing abortion isn't "equal level of control" unless the man has a vote or he can waive off parental support.

A man has complete control of his sperm. Having a vote what someone else can do with their body has nothing to do with you.


A woman has complete control of her eggs. The question comes up when they want to do something from the zygote stage on, at which point it isn't "their" egg.

And the fact is that it still doesn have soemthing to do with the man, since if the woman has a baby the man is on the hook for child support.

/pro abortion, just not pretending the law is, or there is a way to make the law "equal"

Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: The fact is this treaty is asking us to give up a tool that our enemies use. There is no reason to do it.

Of course this is the same logic that some people use to justify torture by the US.


Only if you consider torture a tool.

Do you consider torture a tool?

Even if I was to take torture as a "tool" it still sin't worth the damage it does to our reputation, nto the case with landmines. We can simply not use them.
 
2011-09-21 10:41:01 AM

I alone am best: I dont think you get the gist of my statement. She has all the ability in the world. She can get an abortion. The man cant. She has a right to control her body why should I not have the right to control mine? Once the child is born, I would be in literal servitude providing for the child for the next 18 years. The system is currently so lopsided its stupid.



WTF? Body != Finances. That is the difference here. She has the right to terminate the pregnancy because it is happening within the confines of her body. Financial responsibility is far far far outweighed by right to privacy.
 
2011-09-21 10:41:01 AM

lennavan: Philip Francis Queeg: lennavan: Theaetetus: I alone am best: I should not be on the line for it ever. As of right now its a one way street in her favor.

Child support is the right OF THE CHILD. Is that really so difficult to understand?

How is that even relevant to what he is saying?

Because he is saying that a choice of the mother should abrogate the right of the child to financial support from both parents.

No he isn't.


Yes that's exactly what he (I alone am best) is saying. He is saying that the decision of the mother to carry the baby to term should eliminate the right of the child to financial support from the father.
 
2011-09-21 10:41:45 AM

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


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

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

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

I don't think children should be given up for adoption simply because one parent doesn't wish to parent (no judgment here), and the other can't due to financial or time constraints (yeah yeah legs closed whatever). A wanted child should always be supported, but I can't see how to do that easily considering the people involved.
 
2011-09-21 10:41:46 AM

fuhfuhfuh: One would have realized that I meant both when I said "same goes for the girls". Sorry you apparently want to make yourself into a victim so badly that you ignored that part. Having trouble nailing yourself to that cross?


It does go for both, but you know what doesn't? Its the whole she can decide if she want the baby or now. The man is completely cut out of the loop at that point.

If she doesnt want to have the child and the man does he has no choice. If she does, the man has to pay for it he has no choice. Im just pro-choice. I don't see what's wrong with my stance. What you people are arguing for isnt pro-choice, its pro-choice for women only and screw the men.
 
2011-09-21 10:41:55 AM
I'd say just sign the damn thing, but I know that any piece of legislature right now is an up-hill battle. Look, women are already treated as equals in the United States (for the most part). Let's just let that ride until we clean up our own issues, then go forward with the signing of some treaty that we already follow.

Would passing the CEDAW make any new laws in the U.S.?
 
2011-09-21 10:41:57 AM
Hillary Clinton is an amazing woman. I don't know how she finds time to advocate for this treaty AND be Secretary of State while still managing to make sandwiches for Bill and clean the house.
 
2011-09-21 10:41:59 AM

I alone am best: lennavan: Yeah, I agree. To say both the father and mother are responsible but only the mother gets a choice seems inconsistent. If with a fetus we're going to go the "it's my body, my choice" route, then by all means "it's your body, your baby" should be a legal option for the father so long as the first is available to the woman.

Look at that a conservative and a liberal agree on something and the world didnt blow up. Ebony and Ivory and shiat.


I promise to call you names and stuff to make up for it later.
 
2011-09-21 10:42:24 AM

keylock71: I also have a few wild flower and rose bushes in the back yard that provide me with free "Yeah, I was an asshole" roses during the blooming months. : )


hehe nice
 
2011-09-21 10:43:00 AM

CPennypacker: skullkrusher: Headso: I alone am best: Until men have the right to say "Hey, I dont want that kid. If you have it then you will pay for it all"

you do have the right to say that by not sticking your pecker into a woman's vagina.

you know what they call it when that decision is made solely by the man? Rape.

It's rape to force a woman to not have sex with you?


hehe yes?
 
2011-09-21 10:43:22 AM

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

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

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

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

Your double standard, it's still showing.


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

Personal responsibility, HOW DOES IT WORK?!? Keep playing the victim though, it seems you are good at it.
 
2011-09-21 10:43:35 AM

liam76: And the fact is that it still doesn have soemthing to do with the man, since if the woman has a baby the man is on the hook for child support.


After the die is cast there are consequences, your point of no return is before hers, but that doesn't mean you have less control of the situation.
 
2011-09-21 10:44:16 AM

Theaetetus: serial_crusher: Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: serial_crusher: How come women get all these rights that I don't get?

There's a crowd of people trying to prevent you and your doctor from making private medical decisions?

In fairness though, while a man is financially obligated to pay for a child, he has no say on whether or not it gets aborted. Women do have a bit more rights when it comes to child birth than men do.

In fairness though, no one, anywhere, has any say on whether a man gets a vasectomy other than him and his doctor

Well that's a silly argument. Women can get their tubes tied. If your argument is that men who don't want to support a child should get vasectomies instead of waiting until its too late, you should really be consistent and demand that women do the same.

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

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

Theaetetus: Additionally, if a child gets aborted, a man cannot possibly be financially obligated. And if a child is not aborted, a woman is equally financially obligated

100% of the choice, 50% of the obligation. Seems fair to me.

Yes, but with all due respect, that's because you're an idiot. The choice is not "should I be obligated to pay for my child," because THERE IS NO CHOICE. Neither the mother nor the father gets to make that choice. The obligation is imposed on both parents as a matter of law once the child is born.

The mother has one choice - she can decide whether to undergo a medical procedure now or a bigger medical procedure later. That is her sole choice.


No offense, that's farking stupid. A woman has a choice post sex whether or not to keep a child. She can evaluate her financial situation and decide yes this is a good or bad idea. A man has no choice. If he doesn't want the child, or can't afford a child, he can't opt out like a woman can. He becomes an 18 year ATM machine against his will.
 
2011-09-21 10:44:29 AM

qorkfiend: Methadone Girls: I think the international community China keeps North Korea at bay more than the land mines.

The last thing the Chinese government wants is a sudden and massive influx of North Korean refugees.

Quiefenburger: With the Republicans controlling the Senate, the Democrats really have no way to push for the ratification of this treaty...err...wait a minute...

Farking filibusters, how to they work?


Oh, I must have missed the part about the Republican filibustering.

/get back to me after you've taken a look at the current make-up of the Senate
 
2011-09-21 10:44:39 AM

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: The fact is this treaty is asking us to give up a tool that our enemies use. There is no reason to do it.

Of course this is the same logic that some people use to justify torture by the US.

Only if you consider torture a tool.

Do you consider torture a tool?

Even if I was to take torture as a "tool" it still sin't worth the damage it does to our reputation, nto the case with landmines. We can simply not use them.


Those who support the use of torture very much consider it a tool.

So your primary concern is the damage to our reputation, not the damage that land mines do to civilian populations for decades after the conflicts end. Nice priorities there.
 
2011-09-21 10:44:55 AM

guestguy: WTF? Body != Finances. That is the difference here. She has the right to terminate the pregnancy because it is happening within the confines of her body. Financial responsibility is far far far outweighed by right to privacy.


I'm sorry, i was unaware you could make money without using some part of your body. Please let me know how this is done because i'm sick of working. Additionally no ones right should outweigh or interfere with another's right.
 
2011-09-21 10:46:03 AM

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

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


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

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

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

*it's not literal servitude. Shut your goddamn whining trap.
 
2011-09-21 10:46:14 AM

FirstNationalBastard: Who are they kidding?

As long as Republicans have anything to do with it, the only rights women will be allowed on paper are the right to get in the kitchen, the right to cook dinner, and the right to shut their pretty little mouths when men are talking.


www.buttonsonline.com
 
2011-09-21 10:46:29 AM

DarnoKonrad: It's like you enjoy advertising how much of an insipid dishonest reactionary you are. No it's not vermont, nor did I imply it was, but more importantly people who care about equality don't base their compliance on the standards of foreign nations. Okay? It doesn't goddamned matter what the Saudis are up to, it matters if it's the right policy to pursue.


Cynically signing on to a meaningless treaty in exchange for some ego-strokes is the right policy?

The implication is, as it always is with feel-good nonsense treaties such as these, and as is confirmed by the blather of the NOW flunky in TFA, that non-signatories such as the US are morally inferior.

Which is a colossal steaming load of insulting idiocy.

Go back and look at the signatories and when they signed on.

Romania signed on in 1982...during the Ceausescu years. Fat lot of good this treaty did the women forced through pregnancies there. (I trust you've seen the orphanage photos that came out 20 years ago.)

Robert Mugabe signed on in 1991. Saddam in 1986.

Fidel Castro got on board real early, in 1980. I guess that makes him a women's rights pioneer, right?

Best Korea has been a signatory for 10 years now, during which time Dear Leader has brought every adult female Best Korean to orgasm at least a thousand times.

Dozens of nations with abortion laws far more restrictive than America's...have signed this phony treaty. That's most of Africa and South America, plus most of Central America and southern Asia.

Tell us again how it's the US who are the real assholes and how all of this nation's rights and oppiortunities don't count for squat, because we didn't sign on to some eurocrats' line of bullshiat.
 
2011-09-21 10:46:32 AM

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

 
2011-09-21 10:46:40 AM

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


FTFY
 
2011-09-21 10:47:38 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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



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

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


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

EWreckedSean: No offense, that's farking stupid.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Your double standard, it's still showing.

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

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


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

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

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



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

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



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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

I'm for people using common sense including judges.


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you support abortion?


Yes, of course.

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

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

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

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

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

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



"Caring for your child" = "involuntary servitude"

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

These don't fly...

[t2.gstatic.com image 259x176]


Tell that to the A Team

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

EWreckedSean:

These don't fly...

[t2.gstatic.com image 259x176]


Says you

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

Here's what I tell my kids.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She can opt out by having a farking abortion genius.


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She can opt out by having a farking abortion genius.

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

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

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

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


The one where you made up this argument:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


Troof.
 
2011-09-21 11:04:34 AM

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


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

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

Troof.


or put it in her butt. Can't get preggo in the butt
 
2011-09-21 11:05:39 AM

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

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


I have... Who do you think proposed those laws? Do you remember NOW arguing against those laws for exactly this reason?

No, of course not.

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

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


Again, "caring for your child" = unconstitutional servitude.

This is what Conservatives really believe.

You're not really arguing well for your position, y'know.

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

Actually I am pro-choice, just pointing out the fallacy of your position that you are only pro-choice for women.


There's no fallacy. The only reason you think there is one is that, like an idiot, you think "pro-choice" refers to every possible choice:
You want to deny people the right to choose to commit grand theft auto? You're not really pro-choice!
You want to deny people the right to choose to steal from others? You're not really pro-choice!

No, sorry. That argument simply doesn't fly. Pro-choice does not refer to any and every choice, no matter how stupid, but to the choice to undergo a specific medical procedure. And I am for that.
I am not in favor of letting people walk away from their legal obligations. You don't get that choice.
 
2011-09-21 11:05:53 AM

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

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

You seem to be both against women having access to legal abortions and also against men being required to support children they father. Is that correct?


No, I am absolutely 100% pro-choice. The difference is I am pro-choice for both men and women, not just women. I man should absolutely be able to say I don't want this child, so if you have it against my wishes, you will be financially responsible for it. A woman shouldn't be able to force a man to be an ATM machine for 18 years. People love to say "Well it's in the best interest of the child, so we ignore the father's rights." Well I tell you what, having a zero abortion policy is in the best interest of the children too. It's a huge double standard.
 
2011-09-21 11:05:59 AM

skullkrusher: preggo in the butt


how is republican babby formed?
 
2011-09-21 11:07:16 AM

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

It's a term used by the Pro-Life movement which satisfies their propaganda.


"The virgin will be with child fetus and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"--which means, "God with us."

Stupid Pro-Life Propaganda Bible
 
2011-09-21 11:07:28 AM

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

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

I have... Who do you think proposed those laws? Do you remember NOW arguing against those laws for exactly this reason?

No, of course not.

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

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

Again, "caring for your child" = unconstitutional servitude.

This is what Conservatives really believe.

You're not really arguing well for your position, y'know.

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

Actually I am pro-choice, just pointing out the fallacy of your position that you are only pro-choice for women.

There's no fallacy. The only reason you think there is one is that, like an idiot, you think "pro-choice" refers to every possible choice:
You want to deny people the right to choose to commit grand theft auto? You're not really pro-choice!
You want to deny people the right to choose to steal from others? You're not really pro-choice!

No, sorry. That argument simply doesn't fly. Pro-choice does not refer to any and every choice, no matter how stupid, but to the choice to undergo a specific medical procedure. And I am for that.
I am not in favor of letting people walk away from their legal obligations. You don't get that choice.


Wow, you sure do love those strawmen don't you? Any other positions you'd like to make up for us, or at some point would you like the ones we've actually made?
 
2011-09-21 11:07:40 AM

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

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

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

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

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


Child support has NOTHING to do with abortion. Nothing at all. It's about supporting a child that has been born.

If your argument is that abortion is murder and that abortion should be illegal in all cases since the unborn child has a right to life, that is a wholly separate argument to whether a child has a right to financial support from both parents after birth.

Now, it seems to me that if you truly believe that the child has full rights from conception, believing that the decision of the mother NOT to abort should remove the right of the child to support from the father is wholly illogical.
 
2011-09-21 11:08:20 AM

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


The solution I suggest is during the period of time where abortion is legal, the argument goes "it is not a child." If it was a child, it would have rights. It is the potential for a child. So long as the mother can terminate the potential for a child, a father should be allowed to terminate the potential for rights to the potential child. He isn't forcing any medical decision on her.
 
2011-09-21 11:08:51 AM

Headso: skullkrusher: preggo in the butt

how is republican babby formed?


Mt Doom?
 
2011-09-21 11:09:11 AM

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


Exactly. If two people have a child together willingly then yes the father should pay support.
 
2011-09-21 11:09:26 AM

EWreckedSean: The one where you made up this argument:

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

Which absolutely nobody has said. See when we argue when thing, and you argue back against a different point ignoring our actual argument, that's a strawman.


Actually, that's exactly what you've been saying. Your proposal is that men should be able to walk away from a legal obligation to a child, leaving a child with only the mother's support. You claim that women have this right, but men do not.
So, I'm simply asking for proof: how can a woman walk away from a legal obligation to her child, leaving the child with only the father's support?

This is what you've been arguing. So either step up, or admit that you're actually arguing that men should have a different right that women do not have.
 
2011-09-21 11:09:48 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Child support has NOTHING to do with abortion. Nothing at all. It's about supporting a child that has been born.


Couldn't agree more. Wait, you think I brought up child support in this abortion thread?

Philip Francis Queeg: If your argument is that abortion is murder


It isn't. Go back and read what I've been saying. Otherwise what's the point in posting back and forth?
 
2011-09-21 11:10:10 AM

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

Such laws are often attempts to define women as fetus carriers and are passed to weaken / challenge access to abortion.


Laws that charge a murder with two murders for murdering a pregnant woman are meant to challenge access to abortion? Huh?
 
2011-09-21 11:10:44 AM

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

It's a term used by the Pro-Life movement which satisfies their propaganda.

"The virgin will be with child fetus and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"--which means, "God with us."

Stupid Pro-Life Propaganda Bible


That's really stupid, even for you.
 
2011-09-21 11:11:00 AM

Headso: the woman also kinda has to raise the kid too...


But that is her choice.
 
2011-09-21 11:11:44 AM

EWreckedSean: Any other positions you'd like to make up for us, or at some point would you like the ones we've actually made?


Here's one you just said:

EWreckedSean: I man should absolutely be able to say I don't want this child, so if you have it against my wishes, you will be financially responsible for it.


When does a woman get to say "I don't want this child, so you will be financially responsible for it"?

It's a direct quote from you. Stop whining about me putting words in your mouth.
 
2011-09-21 11:12:35 AM

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

Such laws are often attempts to define women as fetus carriers and are passed to weaken / challenge access to abortion.

Laws that charge a murder with two murders for murdering a pregnant woman are meant to challenge access to abortion? Huh?


Yup. If you murder a pregnant woman and get charged for double murder, you implicitly agreed the fetus inside was a person that was murdered.

There are also laws that "regulate abortion facilities" that are really meant to just run them out of town or put them out of business.

They aren't even thinly veiled, it's out in the open. It's not like this is a debated topic.
 
2011-09-21 11:12:48 AM

Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: The one where you made up this argument:

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

Which absolutely nobody has said. See when we argue when thing, and you argue back against a different point ignoring our actual argument, that's a strawman.

Actually, that's exactly what you've been saying. Your proposal is that men should be able to walk away from a legal obligation to a child, leaving a child with only the mother's support. You claim that women have this right, but men do not.
So, I'm simply asking for proof: how can a woman walk away from a legal obligation to her child, leaving the child with only the father's support?

This is what you've been arguing. So either step up, or admit that you're actually arguing that men should have a different right that women do not have.


Really, quote where I've said that genius.

A woman opting out by having an abortion doesn't equal a woman opting out of child support payments while a man has to pay them. That is the point you are pretending we made so you can argue against it, I mean at least you are persistent in making up points to pretend we've made, I'll give you that. So tell us strawman, has Dorthy found you a brain yet?
 
2011-09-21 11:14:44 AM

EWreckedSean: Laws that charge a murder with two murders for murdering a pregnant woman are meant to challenge access to abortion? Huh?


The intent is to set precedet that killing a fetus is legally recognized as murder. Next step: killing a fetus without killing the mother = murder. Hmmm... Sounds a lot like what abortion does.
 
2011-09-21 11:14:46 AM

lennavan: Philip Francis Queeg: Child support has NOTHING to do with abortion. Nothing at all. It's about supporting a child that has been born.

Couldn't agree more. Wait, you think I brought up child support in this abortion thread?

Philip Francis Queeg: If your argument is that abortion is murder

It isn't. Go back and read what I've been saying. Otherwise what's the point in posting back and forth?


So you agree that the decision of the mother in regards to abortion should have no bearing on child support. Glad we agree.
 
2011-09-21 11:14:56 AM

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

It's a term used by the Pro-Life movement which satisfies their propaganda.

"The virgin will be with child fetus and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"--which means, "God with us."

Stupid Pro-Life Propaganda Bible

That's really stupid, even for you.


why's that if referring to a fetus as a "child" is a pro-life propagandist tactic? Or is it the word "unborn" that you have issue with?
 
2011-09-21 11:15:32 AM

I alone am best: Headso: the woman also kinda has to raise the kid too...

But that is her choice.


yeah that is her choice, your choice was previously made and at this point you are living with your choice.
 
2011-09-21 11:15:39 AM

EWreckedSean: Really, quote where I've said that genius.


Here: I man should absolutely be able to say I don't want this child, so if you have it against my wishes, you will be financially responsible for it

When does a woman get to say "I don't want this child, you will be financially responsible for it"?

It's your entire argument... it should be easy to come up with an example.
 
2011-09-21 11:16:07 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Even if I was to take torture as a "tool" it still sin't worth the damage it does to our reputation, nto the case with landmines. We can simply not use them.

Those who support the use of torture very much consider it a tool.

So your primary concern is the damage to our reputation, not the damage that land mines do to civilian populations for decades after the conflicts end. Nice priorities there


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

Headso: liam76: And the fact is that it still doesn have soemthing to do with the man, since if the woman has a baby the man is on the hook for child support.

After the die is cast there are consequences, your point of no return is before hers, but that doesn't mean you have less control of the situation.


It is a little more than a "point of no return" issue. You are on the hook if she lies about being protected, and if you agree to the kid before hand and she gets rid of it you have no recourse.

So her having more control is actually exactly what it means.
 
2011-09-21 11:16:19 AM

Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Any other positions you'd like to make up for us, or at some point would you like the ones we've actually made?

Here's one you just said:
EWreckedSean: I man should absolutely be able to say I don't want this child, so if you have it against my wishes, you will be financially responsible for it.

When does a woman get to say "I don't want this child, so you will be financially responsible for it"?

It's a direct quote from you. Stop whining about me putting words in your mouth.


If that is a direct quote from me, show me where I've said it. You'll notice you went and found a different quote. I've said she can opt out of her financial responsibility by having an abortion. A man doesn't get that choice. He can't opt out if she chooses to have the child.
 
2011-09-21 11:17:37 AM

keylock71: The baby is in her body for nine months

Truth.

... not yours.
Not truth. "ours" would be more accurate.

If she decided to have it, it's your fault for not discussing the issue with her before you had unprotected sex with her. If she chooses to get rid of it, it's her choice.
I think if "she decided" than the "fault" lies with her for making the decision.* But it takes two to tango, and makin' babies ain't no simple choice. You're boiling one of the most complicated decisions available to humans into a simple ethical situation by assuming that the only way to have babies is to engage in unprotected sex. Shockingly, babies are born to couples who wear condoms and are on the pill. Women don't always stay on top of their BC, and men don't always take the best care of their condoms. shiat happens against the wishes of both parties, and then there's a whole universe of issues that have to be sorted with BOTH parties that didn't necessarily need to be accounted for in the "we both agree that we never want children" relationship. Just saying.

If she chooses to have it, you, as the father, are responsible for helping to raise that child.
Ethically, sure. Again, it takes two to tango. Can't rightly disagree with this bit, but...

Don't like it? Tough shiat. You should have thought about that before ejaculating inside her.
This attitude helps nobody.

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

"The woman's choice occurs at the moment of copulation. Keep your legs closed if you don't want to be put in this scenario, or at the very least use birth control."
 
2011-09-21 11:18:16 AM

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

It's a term used by the Pro-Life movement which satisfies their propaganda.

"The virgin will be with child fetus and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"--which means, "God with us."

Stupid Pro-Life Propaganda Bible

That's really stupid, even for you.

why's that if referring to a fetus as a "child" is a pro-life propagandist tactic? Or is it the word "unborn" that you have issue with?


The Bible has the Earth being created in six days. It must be true then.

And that still doesn't counter what I said.
 
2011-09-21 11:18:41 AM

EWreckedSean: A woman opting out by having an abortion doesn't equal a woman opting out of child support payments while a man has to pay them.


Exactly! A woman having an abortion is not the same thing as opting out of child support payments while the other parent has to pay them! Therefore, the fact that a woman has a right to an abortion doesn't mean that it's unfair that a man doesn't have the right to opt out of child support payments while the woman has to pay them.

... Of course, that's not what you've been arguing.
 
2011-09-21 11:19:05 AM

Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Really, quote where I've said that genius.

Here: I man should absolutely be able to say I don't want this child, so if you have it against my wishes, you will be financially responsible for it

When does a woman get to say "I don't want this child, you will be financially responsible for it"?

It's your entire argument... it should be easy to come up with an example.


Wow strawman, I'll give that you sure are persistent in trying to tell everybody what their positions actually are. Since that is what I have been saying all along, farking quote me saying it.
 
2011-09-21 11:19:37 AM

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

Well... You can be a hedge manager without having a brain. You make mad bank, so I hear.


I was going to go with Stephen Hawking, but he does use his brain. Everything else, not so much.
 
2011-09-21 11:20:33 AM

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

It's a term used by the Pro-Life movement which satisfies their propaganda.

"The virgin will be with child fetus and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"--which means, "God with us."

Stupid Pro-Life Propaganda Bible

That's really stupid, even for you.

why's that if referring to a fetus as a "child" is a pro-life propagandist tactic? Or is it the word "unborn" that you have issue with?

The Bible has the Earth being created in six days. It must be true then.

And that still doesn't counter what I said.


again, what was your issue? With "child" or "unborn" or was it those two words together that really upset you so?
 
2011-09-21 11:20:49 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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


Yeah, I guess I was talking in a "perfect world" sense. The decision to terminate the pregnancy or not is the consequence I was mostly referring to, not the actual biological consequence (the zygote).

To extend the thievery analogy, you knew before you stole the $20 that there may be consequences. You can decide after the fact that maybe you don't want to deal with these consequences ("abort" the operation, if you will), but you can avoid the abortion decision entirely by engaging in "safe thievery".
 
2011-09-21 11:21:00 AM

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

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

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

Neither. The court imposes the obligation of child support on both parents, because it's the right of the child. If there's no child, there's no obligation.


If the woman gets to make the call about he child she is making a call about the obligation.

The end.
 
2011-09-21 11:21:06 AM

Headso: I alone am best: Headso: the woman also kinda has to raise the kid too...

But that is her choice.

yeah that is her choice, your choice was previously made and at this point you are living with your choice.


That argument is as bad as the pro-life argument.
 
2011-09-21 11:21:08 AM

Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: A woman opting out by having an abortion doesn't equal a woman opting out of child support payments while a man has to pay them.

Exactly! A woman having an abortion is not the same thing as opting out of child support payments while the other parent has to pay them! Therefore, the fact that a woman has a right to an abortion doesn't mean that it's unfair that a man doesn't have the right to opt out of child support payments while the woman has to pay them.

... Of course, that's not what you've been arguing.


Yes it is, you want a woman to have a choice, but a man not too. You think it is unfair for a man to force a woman to carry a child for 9 months, but perfectly fair for a woman to force a man to work with his body for 18 years to provide for the child.
 
2011-09-21 11:21:29 AM

Theaetetus: When does a woman get to say "I don't want this child, you will be financially responsible for it if you yourself decide to carry it to term"?

It's your entire argument


Yeah, that is his argument. I made it slightly more honest for you though.
 
2011-09-21 11:21:56 AM

I alone am best: Headso: I alone am best: Headso: the woman also kinda has to raise the kid too...

But that is her choice.

yeah that is her choice, your choice was previously made and at this point you are living with your choice.

That argument is as bad as the pro-life argument.


sorry that living with the consequences of your actions is so objectionable to you.
 
2011-09-21 11:22:16 AM

EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Any other positions you'd like to make up for us, or at some point would you like the ones we've actually made?

Here's one you just said:
EWreckedSean: I man should absolutely be able to say I don't want this child, so if you have it against my wishes, you will be financially responsible for it.

When does a woman get to say "I don't want this child, so you will be financially responsible for it"?

It's a direct quote from you. Stop whining about me putting words in your mouth.

If that is a direct quote from me, show me where I've said it.


See bolded quote above.

You'll notice you went and found a different quote. I've said she can opt out of her financial responsibility by having an abortion.

If she has an abortion, there is no financial responsibility for her to opt out of.

A man doesn't get that choice. He can't opt out if she chooses to have the child.

And if she chooses to have the child, she can't opt out either. The thing you're claiming exists - "she can opt out of her financial responsibility" - does not actually exist.
 
2011-09-21 11:24:37 AM

liam76: It is a little more than a "point of no return" issue. You are on the hook if she lies about being protected, and if you agree to the kid before hand and she gets rid of it you have no recourse.


She has a choice later than you have a choice because the fetus resides in her body. Yeah people victimize eachother but if you are just saying people shouldn't victimize eachother, I think we can all agree on that.
 
2011-09-21 11:25:12 AM

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

It's a term used by the Pro-Life movement which satisfies their propaganda.

"The virgin will be with child fetus and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"--which means, "God with us."

Stupid Pro-Life Propaganda Bible

That's really stupid, even for you.

why's that if referring to a fetus as a "child" is a pro-life propagandist tactic? Or is it the word "unborn" that you have issue with?

The Bible has the Earth being created in six days. It must be true then.

And that still doesn't counter what I said.

again, what was your issue? With "child" or "unborn" or was it those two words together that really upset you so?


Nightmare, the persecution
A child's dream of death.

Torment, ill forgotten
A soul that will never rest.

Guidance, it means nothing
In a world of brutal time.

Electric, circus, wild,
Deep in the infants mind.

Silent Scream
Bury the unwanted child.
Beaten and torn
Sacrifice the unborn.

Shattered, adolescent [sings: another child]
Bearer of no name.

Restrained, insane games
Suffer the children condemned.

Scattered, remnants of life,
Murder a time to die.

Pain, sufferaged toyed,
Life's little fragments destroyed.

Silent Scream
Crucify the bastard son.
Beaten and torn
Sanctify lives of scorn.

Life preordained
Humanity maintained.
Extraction termination
Pain's agonizing stain.

Embryonic death,
Embedded in your brain.
Suffocation, strangulation,
Death is farking you insane.

Nightmare, the persecution
A child's dream of death.

Torment, ill forgotten
A soul that will never rest.
Innocence withdrawn in fear.
Fires burning can you hear
Cries in the night.


Slayer - doing their part to spread Pro-Life PropagandaTM since 1981
 
2011-09-21 11:25:12 AM

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: Even if I was to take torture as a "tool" it still sin't worth the damage it does to our reputation, nto the case with landmines. We can simply not use them.

Those who support the use of torture very much consider it a tool.

So your primary concern is the damage to our reputation, not the damage that land mines do to civilian populations for decades after the conflicts end. Nice priorities there

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?

Once they are deployed, they are never all retrieved. Some get left behind. There they remain a danger to the civilians who live and work in the region for decades.

The point of having land mines is to deploy them. They serve no use, even as a deterrent un-deployed. If we have no intention of deploying them, there is no reason not to sign the trey.
 
2011-09-21 11:25:21 AM

EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Really, quote where I've said that genius.

Here: I man should absolutely be able to say I don't want this child, so if you have it against my wishes, you will be financially responsible for it

When does a woman get to say "I don't want this child, you will be financially responsible for it"?

It's your entire argument... it should be easy to come up with an example.

Wow strawman, I'll give that you sure are persistent in trying to tell everybody what their positions actually are. Since that is what I have been saying all along, farking quote me saying it.


Holy farking Christ.

You: "I man should absolutely be able to say I don't want this child, so if you have it against my wishes, you will be financially responsible for it"
Me: "You just said 'I man should absolutely be able to say I don't want this child, so if you have it against my wishes, you will be financially responsible for it'
You: "What?! No I didn't! That's a strawman! You can't quote me! I never said thaaaaaaaaat!"

Y'know what? If you're going to repeatedly demand I quote you, AND WHEN I DO, you claim you never said that and demand I quote you again, then you're not worth arguing with. Most people at least admit it when presented with a quote in black and white.
 
2011-09-21 11:25:43 AM
This headline always makes me laugh.
 
2011-09-21 11:26:49 AM

Headso: I alone am best: Headso: I alone am best: Headso: the woman also kinda has to raise the kid too...

But that is her choice.

yeah that is her choice, your choice was previously made and at this point you are living with your choice.

That argument is as bad as the pro-life argument.

sorry that living with the consequences of your actions is so objectionable to you.


You're still missing the whole point. She doesn't have to live with the consequences if she doesn't want to. You do. You don't get a choice after the matter, she does. She can have an abortion to end it, you cant. You have no choice, you are held responsible for whatever she wants.
 
2011-09-21 11:28:01 AM
I mean, honestly, the fact that I keep quoting his typo - "I man" rather than "A man" - would be a clue that I'm quoting him.
 
2011-09-21 11:28:02 AM

Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Any other positions you'd like to make up for us, or at some point would you like the ones we've actually made?

Here's one you just said:
EWreckedSean: I man should absolutely be able to say I don't want this child, so if you have it against my wishes, you will be financially responsible for it.

When does a woman get to say "I don't want this child, so you will be financially responsible for it"?

It's a direct quote from you. Stop whining about me putting words in your mouth.

If that is a direct quote from me, show me where I've said it.

See bolded quote above.

You'll notice you went and found a different quote. I've said she can opt out of her financial responsibility by having an abortion.

If she has an abortion, there is no financial responsibility for her to opt out of.

A man doesn't get that choice. He can't opt out if she chooses to have the child.

And if she chooses to have the child, she can't opt out either. The thing you're claiming exists - "she can opt out of her financial responsibility" - does not actually exist.


Yes, I see the bolded above, I love how you are cherry picking different parts trying to mismatch them together to try and show I said something I didn't. That is some fine commitment to a strawman there my friend.

The argument all along is that an abortion is a woman opting out of her financial responsibility, a choice a man can't make. You argument that it isn't is just farking stupid, which is why you are trying so very hard to pretend I made a different point. Deciding not to have a baby is absolutely opting out of paying for it. No baby, nothing to pay for. It's kind of funny at this point.
 
2011-09-21 11:28:24 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: lennavan: Philip Francis Queeg: Child support has NOTHING to do with abortion. Nothing at all. It's about supporting a child that has been born.

Couldn't agree more. Wait, you think I brought up child support in this abortion thread?

Philip Francis Queeg: If your argument is that abortion is murder

It isn't. Go back and read what I've been saying. Otherwise what's the point in posting back and forth?

So you agree that the decision of the mother in regards to abortion should have no bearing on child support. Glad we agree.



I mean, I wouldn't say that entirely. If she chooses to have the kid herself, she's on the hook. But otherwise sure. And hey, if the mother at 10 weeks can decide to terminate the fetus' potential to a right to life, the father should be able to decide to terminate the fetus' potential to a right to paternal financial support. Because I mean really, of the two, I think the kid would rather be alive and supported by one parent, don't you think?

I love that you're simultaneously arguing for a 10 week old fetus' potential right to child support from its father but not for its potential right to life. You're so close to being a pro-life, I don't know that I want to be the one to push you over the edge.
 
2011-09-21 11:30:38 AM

Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Really, quote where I've said that genius.

Here: I man should absolutely be able to say I don't want this child, so if you have it against my wishes, you will be financially responsible for it

When does a woman get to say "I don't want this child, you will be financially responsible for it"?

It's your entire argument... it should be easy to come up with an example.

Wow strawman, I'll give that you sure are persistent in trying to tell everybody what their positions actually are. Since that is what I have been saying all along, farking quote me saying it.

Holy farking Christ.

You: "I man should absolutely be able to say I don't want this child, so if you have it against my wishes, you will be financially responsible for it"
Me: "You just said 'I man should absolutely be able to say I don't want this child, so if you have it against my wishes, you will be financially responsible for it'
You: "What?! No I didn't! That's a strawman! You can't quote me! I never said thaaaaaaaaat!"

Y'know what? If you're going to repeatedly demand I quote you, AND WHEN I DO, you claim you never said that and demand I quote you again, then you're not worth arguing with. Most people at least admit it when presented with a quote in black and white.


Me: "Abortion is a woman's opt out of her financial responsibility"
You: "When does a woman get to opt out and the father is still financially responsible"

Lol when I ask you to quote something, quoting something else isn't doing it genius.
 
2011-09-21 11:31:50 AM

EWreckedSean: you are trying so very hard to pretend I made a different point.


Really? Let's really get to the fundamentals:

Agree or disagree: "I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."

Yes? No? Do you disagree with the above statement? Do you disagree that the above statement is what you've been proposing through this thread?
 
2011-09-21 11:32:28 AM

I alone am best: Headso: I alone am best: Headso: I alone am best: Headso: the woman also kinda has to raise the kid too...

But that is her choice.

yeah that is her choice, your choice was previously made and at this point you are living with your choice.

That argument is as bad as the pro-life argument.

sorry that living with the consequences of your actions is so objectionable to you.

You're still missing the whole point. She doesn't have to live with the consequences if she doesn't want to. You do. You don't get a choice after the matter, she does. She can have an abortion to end it, you cant. You have no choice, you are held responsible for whatever she wants.


yes because your choice to have a kid was already made. You said, yes I am going to fark this biatch bareback, yes I am going to fark her while not knowing enough about her to know if she is on a birth control pill or has stds. Yes I don't care if she is unstable I want to get my dick wet.
 
2011-09-21 11:33:34 AM

skullkrusher: again, what was your issue? With "child" or "unborn" or was it those two words together that really upset you so?


Nothing upset me. I was pointing out that "unborn child" is frequently used by the pro-life movement in their propaganda. Do you have anything to counter his or are you just trolling again?
 
2011-09-21 11:33:40 AM

Theaetetus: I mean, honestly, the fact that I keep quoting his typo - "I man" rather than "A man" - would be a clue that I'm quoting him.


Holy hell you love the strawmen don't you.

Me; "You are quoting something completely different than what you claimed I said"
You: "He says I'm not quoting him, obviously I am".

Wow man, just wow.
 
2011-09-21 11:33:56 AM

lennavan: Philip Francis Queeg: lennavan: Philip Francis Queeg: Child support has NOTHING to do with abortion. Nothing at all. It's about supporting a child that has been born.

Couldn't agree more. Wait, you think I brought up child support in this abortion thread?

Philip Francis Queeg: If your argument is that abortion is murder

It isn't. Go back and read what I've been saying. Otherwise what's the point in posting back and forth?

So you agree that the decision of the mother in regards to abortion should have no bearing on child support. Glad we agree.

I mean, I wouldn't say that entirely. If she chooses to have the kid herself, she's on the hook. But otherwise sure. And hey, if the mother at 10 weeks can decide to terminate the fetus' potential to a right to life, the father should be able to decide to terminate the fetus' potential to a right to paternal financial support. Because I mean really, of the two, I think the kid would rather be alive and supported by one parent, don't you think?

I love that you're simultaneously arguing for a 10 week old fetus' potential right to child support from its father but not for its potential right to life. You're so close to being a pro-life, I don't know that I want to be the one to push you over the edge.


Wow, Just wow.
 
2011-09-21 11:36:09 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: So you agree that the decision of the mother in regards to abortion should have no bearing on child support. Glad we agree.

I mean, I wouldn't say that entirely. If she chooses to have the kid herself, she's on the hook. But otherwise sure. And hey, if the mother at 10 weeks can decide to terminate the fetus' potential to a right to life, the father should be able to decide to terminate the fetus' potential to a right to paternal financial support. Because I mean really, of the two, I think the kid would rather be alive and supported by one parent, don't you think?

I love that you're simultaneously arguing for a 10 week old fetus' potential right to child support from its father but not for its potential right to life. You're so close to being a pro-life, I don't know that I want to be the one to push you over the edge.


I have no actual reply, you're right and I cannot explain the logical inconsistency, so instead I'll just pretend like what you said is so stupid it's beyond a reply and hope you don't notice.


Oh, okay. I'll pretend I didn't notice then.
 
2011-09-21 11:36:28 AM

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


Did you see me say that? Seriously?

Philip Francis Queeg: Once they are deployed, they are never all retrieved. Some get left behind. There they remain a danger to the civilians who live and work in the region for decades.


Same with nukes. Same with most conventional ordnance.

Philip Francis Queeg: The point of having land mines is to deploy them. They serve no use, even as a deterrent un-deployed. If we have no intention of deploying them, there is no reason not to sign the trey


No that isn't the only point. Removing a type of weapon and you lose the skills to work with it, the knowledge to improve it, and it hurts your ability to defeat it.

Care to back that up with anything, or is that more of your made up BS?

We don't intend to launch MIRV's. should we sign a treaty banning them?
 
2011-09-21 11:36:54 AM

Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: again, what was your issue? With "child" or "unborn" or was it those two words together that really upset you so?

Nothing upset me. I was pointing out that "unborn child" is frequently used by the pro-life movement in their propaganda. Do you have anything to counter his or are you just trolling again?


it's a common phrase and referring to a fetus as a "child" is a pretty common thing in English.
 
2011-09-21 11:37:34 AM

Theaetetus: Agree or disagree: "I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."


Ill answer it for him. No he doesn't believe that. Additionally nothing he has said should lead you to believe that is what his thinks..
 
2011-09-21 11:39:19 AM

Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: you are trying so very hard to pretend I made a different point.

Really? Let's really get to the fundamentals:

Agree or disagree: "I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."

Yes? No? Do you disagree with the above statement? Do you disagree that the above statement is what you've been proposing through this thread?


Yes, with the cavaet that we are talking about at the decision faze of when to have the child or not. Now let's really get down to fundamentals, where have I ever said:

"I believe a woman should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to her child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the father as the child's sole source of support."

Absolutely never. And you keep pretending I have. I said a woman can have an abortion, which eliminates all her financial obligation. Obviously if she has an abortion, there is nothing left for the father to support. I am pro-choice for both parents, you are only pro-choice for the woman.
 
2011-09-21 11:40:21 AM

I alone am best: Theaetetus: Agree or disagree: "I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."

Ill answer it for him. No he doesn't believe that. Additionally nothing he has said should lead you to believe that is what his thinks..


Really? Because that seems to be the same as "I man should absolutely be able to say I don't want this child, so if you have it against my wishes, you will be financially responsible for it"

But okay, can you propose a modification of the statement? How about one you believe? What do you believe a man should be able to do? And specifics, please - not just "the same as the woman gets" since we clearly don't agree on what that is.
What exactly should a man be able to do, and what position is the child left in as a result?
 
2011-09-21 11:40:46 AM

lennavan: Philip Francis Queeg: So you agree that the decision of the mother in regards to abortion should have no bearing on child support. Glad we agree.

I mean, I wouldn't say that entirely. If she chooses to have the kid herself, she's on the hook. But otherwise sure. And hey, if the mother at 10 weeks can decide to terminate the fetus' potential to a right to life, the father should be able to decide to terminate the fetus' potential to a right to paternal financial support. Because I mean really, of the two, I think the kid would rather be alive and supported by one parent, don't you think?

I love that you're simultaneously arguing for a 10 week old fetus' potential right to child support from its father but not for its potential right to life. You're so close to being a pro-life, I don't know that I want to be the one to push you over the edge.

I have no actual reply, you're right and I cannot explain the logical inconsistency, so instead I'll just pretend like what you said is so stupid it's beyond a reply and hope you don't notice.

Oh, okay. I'll pretend I didn't notice then.


Dude, your complete contradiction of your self is so obvious that words really aren't necessary.

You cannot simultaneous believe that child support has nothing to do with abortion, AND that the decision by a woman not to abort should change the legal rights of the child to support.
 
2011-09-21 11:41:02 AM

I alone am best: Theaetetus: Agree or disagree: "I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."

Ill answer it for him. No he doesn't believe that. Additionally nothing he has said should lead you to believe that is what his thinks..


Well I do agree wit that, if we are talking about at the decision faze of whether or not to keep the child. Not at any point in time.
 
2011-09-21 11:41:41 AM

EWreckedSean: I alone am best: Theaetetus: Agree or disagree: "I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."

Ill answer it for him. No he doesn't believe that. Additionally nothing he has said should lead you to believe that is what his thinks..

Well I do agree wit that, if we are talking about at the decision faze of whether or not to keep the child. Not at any point in time.


And by keep I mean give birth to.
 
2011-09-21 11:43:14 AM

EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: you are trying so very hard to pretend I made a different point.

Really? Let's really get to the fundamentals:

Agree or disagree: "I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."

Yes? No? Do you disagree with the above statement? Do you disagree that the above statement is what you've been proposing through this thread?

Yes, with the cavaet that we are talking about at the decision faze of when to have the child or not. Now let's really get down to fundamentals, where have I ever said:

"I believe a woman should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to her child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the father as the child's sole source of support."

Absolutely never. And you keep pretending I have. I said a woman can have an abortion, which eliminates all her financial obligation. Obviously if she has an abortion, there is nothing left for the father to support.


So you're not saying that a man should be able to waive financial obligation?

Look, I'm trying to play nice here. I'm trying not to put words in your mouth. But all you're saying here is that a woman has different options.
How about you put some words in your mouth then:
"I believe a man should be able to __________________, and the child should get support from only __________"

Fill in the blanks. Let's hear an affirmative statement.
 
2011-09-21 11:47:48 AM

Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: you are trying so very hard to pretend I made a different point.

Really? Let's really get to the fundamentals:

Agree or disagree: "I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."

Yes? No? Do you disagree with the above statement? Do you disagree that the above statement is what you've been proposing through this thread?

Yes, with the cavaet that we are talking about at the decision faze of when to have the child or not. Now let's really get down to fundamentals, where have I ever said:

"I believe a woman should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to her child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the father as the child's sole source of support."

Absolutely never. And you keep pretending I have. I said a woman can have an abortion, which eliminates all her financial obligation. Obviously if she has an abortion, there is nothing left for the father to support.

So you're not saying that a man should be able to waive financial obligation?

Look, I'm trying to play nice here. I'm trying not to put words in your mouth. But all you're saying here is that a woman has different options.
How about you put some words in your mouth then:
"I believe a man should be able to __________________, and the child should get support from only __________"

Fill in the blanks. Let's hear an affirmative statement.


1) I just farking said yes he should be able to opt out of financial responsibility at the time the decision is made to keep the child (i.e. carry it to term or not).

2) A woman has that same option through an abortion

That's my argument. It's easy for you to quote, because I actually typed it.
 
2011-09-21 11:49:53 AM

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: So you think the US has an urgent need to have landmines sitting in warehouses that will never, ever be deployed? Seriously?

Did you see me say that? Seriously?

Philip Francis Queeg: Once they are deployed, they are never all retrieved. Some get left behind. There they remain a danger to the civilians who live and work in the region for decades.

Same with nukes. Same with most conventional ordnance.

Philip Francis Queeg: The point of having land mines is to deploy them. They serve no use, even as a deterrent un-deployed. If we have no intention of deploying them, there is no reason not to sign the trey

No that isn't the only point. Removing a type of weapon and you lose the skills to work with it, the knowledge to improve it, and it hurts your ability to defeat it.

Care to back that up with anything, or is that more of your made up BS?

We don't intend to launch MIRV's. should we sign a treaty banning them?


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

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.

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.

Do you support any arms treaties at all?
 
2011-09-21 11:51:21 AM

Theaetetus: I alone am best: Theaetetus: Agree or disagree: "I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."

Ill answer it for him. No he doesn't believe that. Additionally nothing he has said should lead you to believe that is what his thinks..

Really? Because that seems to be the same as "I man should absolutely be able to say I don't want this child, so if you have it against my wishes, you will be financially responsible for it"

But okay, can you propose a modification of the statement? How about one you believe? What do you believe a man should be able to do? And specifics, please - not just "the same as the woman gets" since we clearly don't agree on what that is.
What exactly should a man be able to do, and what position is the child left in as a result?


I will give some examples.

1. Man and Woman get freaky. Woman gets pregnant. Woman has to decide if she is going to get an abortion or keep it. At this point the man should be able to say, "If you are going to keep it, I don't want anything to do with it.". The woman still has the choice and the right to keep or abort the pregnancy however if she keeps it she knows she is making a unilateral decision and that the man has been removed from the process.

2. Man and Woman get freaky. Woman gets pregnant. Woman has to decide if she is going to get an abortion or keep it. The woman at this point can make a unilateral decision to keep it or not keep it, thus abrogating her financial responsibility in the process and indirectly removing the financial responsibility from the father.

3. Man and Woman get freaky. Woman gets pregnant. Woman cannot have an abortion for one reason or another, its not possible, she finds out to late blah blah blah. The child is born. The mother and father both have a financial responsibility.


So above we have 3 scenarios. 1 is the way I think it should be and pretty sure what the others are arguing for as well. 2 is the current setup and 3 is also the way it should be and currently is.
 
2011-09-21 11:53:41 AM

EWreckedSean: How about you put some words in your mouth then:
"I believe a man should be able to __________________, and the child should get support from only __________"

Fill in the blanks. Let's hear an affirmative statement.

1) I just farking said yes he should be able to opt out of financial responsibility at the time the decision is made to keep the child (i.e. carry it to term or not).

2) A woman has that same option through an abortion

That's my argument. It's easy for you to quote, because I actually typed it.


So filling in the blanks is too tough for you? Allow me:
"I believe a man should be able to opt out of financial responsibility, and the child should get support from only the mother"

Right? Yes or no... It's a very simple question.

If no, then you do it:
"I believe a man should be able to __________________, and the child should get support from only __________"
 
2011-09-21 11:53:51 AM

I alone am best: 1. Man and Woman get freaky


man chooses to spill his sperm creating a pregnancy, he has chosen to be down for a child at that point.
 
2011-09-21 11:54:31 AM

Headso: I alone am best: 1. Man and Woman get freaky

man chooses to spill his sperm creating a pregnancy, he has chosen to be down for a child at that point.


So has the woman, lets outlaw abotion.
 
2011-09-21 11:54:44 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: You cannot simultaneous believe that child support has nothing to do with abortion


When you are discussing abortion, you are discussing a fetus that is the potential for life. It has zero rights. It will become a viable fetus, it will become life with associated rights. But while we discuss abortion, it has no rights, it is not a person.

Philip Francis Queeg: the decision by a woman not to abort should change the legal rights of the child to support.


She makes that decision the day she can no longer legally abort the fetus. The fetus went from having zero rights, it is the potential to life, to having full rights.

Philip Francis Queeg: your complete contradiction of your self is so obvious


You're talking about two completely different situations and telling me I'm inconsistent. I'm telling you those two situations are completely different. In one situation you have a person, in the other you have a thing. And that difference kinda matters.

What you are projecting on to me, which is false, is that if at 10 weeks, a woman "decides" to have the fetus, I think it gets rights to financial support from her. I'm not saying that. At 10 weeks, she did not actually make that decision because she can always change her mind. She made that decision the moment she allowed the pregnancy to progress to a state where she can no longer get a legal abortion.
 
2011-09-21 11:55:07 AM
Abortion:(
 
2011-09-21 11:55:20 AM

Headso: I alone am best: 1. Man and Woman get freaky

man chooses to spill his sperm creating a pregnancy, he has chosen to be down for a child at that point.


stop punishing the manwhores, fundi
 
2011-09-21 11:55:56 AM

I alone am best: Abortion:(


that's better than "Abortion :)"
 
2011-09-21 11:56:32 AM

Headso: I alone am best: 1. Man and Woman get freaky

man chooses to spill his sperm creating a pregnancy, he has chosen to be down for a child at that point.

Woman spreads her legs, allows man to spill sperm inside her creating a pregnancy. She has chosen to be down for a child at that point.

That is why I am against all abortion entirely


I mean, I see where you're coming from. I disagree but hey, at least you are consistent.
 
2011-09-21 11:58:37 AM
I'm not familiar with the specifics of this treaty (though I guess if I weren't lazy looking up the actual text on one of the UN archive sites wouldn't be difficult), but the problem with UN treaties in general from the US perspective is that they tend to demand a tightening of regulations that we've largely already enacted, and provide no particular incentives in terms of US interests. So they manage to be pointless in two respects: we're already taking the actions requested without a treaty, and there is no additional benefit to signing on.

A treaty is a contract, if there's no actual benefit to one side, why the hell would that side sign on, even if the obligations involved are largely actions he's already taking?
 
2011-09-21 11:58:42 AM

I alone am best: Theaetetus: I alone am best: Theaetetus: Agree or disagree: "I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."

Ill answer it for him. No he doesn't believe that. Additionally nothing he has said should lead you to believe that is what his thinks..

Really? Because that seems to be the same as "I man should absolutely be able to say I don't want this child, so if you have it against my wishes, you will be financially responsible for it"

But okay, can you propose a modification of the statement? How about one you believe? What do you believe a man should be able to do? And specifics, please - not just "the same as the woman gets" since we clearly don't agree on what that is.
What exactly should a man be able to do, and what position is the child left in as a result?

I will give some examples.

1. Man and Woman get freaky. Woman gets pregnant. Woman has to decide if she is going to get an abortion or keep it. At this point the man should be able to say, "If you are going to keep it, I don't want anything to do with it.". The woman still has the choice and the right to keep or abort the pregnancy however if she keeps it she knows she is making a unilateral decision and that the man has been removed from the process.

2. Man and Woman get freaky. Woman gets pregnant. Woman has to decide if she is going to get an abortion or keep it. The woman at this point can make a unilateral decision to keep it or not keep it, thus abrogating her financial responsibility in the process and indirectly removing the financial responsibility from the father.

3. Man and Woman get freaky. Woman gets pregnant. Woman cannot have an abortion for one reason or another, its not possible, she finds out to late blah blah blah. The child is born. The mother and father both have a financial responsibility.


So above we have 3 scenarios. 1 is the way I think it should be and pretty sure what the others are arguing for as well. 2 is the current setup and 3 is also the way it should be and currently is.


How is number one any different from: "I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."?

You've said you disagree with it, but didn't say how. You propose something that sounds exactly like it. So, let's clear it up: in what way do you disagree with that statement? Exactly how do you disagree?
 
2011-09-21 11:59:12 AM

lennavan: She makes that decision the day she can no longer legally abort the fetus. The fetus went from having zero rights, it is the potential to life, to having full rights.


And among those full rights is the right to financial support until the age of 18 from BOTH parents. That's whole farking point. The mother's decision to carry to term does not remove the full rights of the child.
 
2011-09-21 11:59:46 AM

I alone am best: Headso: I alone am best: 1. Man and Woman get freaky

man chooses to spill his sperm creating a pregnancy, he has chosen to be down for a child at that point.

So has the woman, lets outlaw abotion.


Her choice to do what she wants with her body extends later because the babby is formed in her body, like how you had the choice about what to do with your body previously when you decided to get freaky without birth control.
 
2011-09-21 12:00:13 PM

Theaetetus: How is number one any different from: "I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."?


Because it isnt a child. If it is a child then abortion is murder. You pick.
 
2011-09-21 12:02:28 PM

skullkrusher: Headso: I alone am best: 1. Man and Woman get freaky

man chooses to spill his sperm creating a pregnancy, he has chosen to be down for a child at that point.

stop punishing the manwhores, fundi


Hey I am for free vasectomies for any dude, I could even be easily convinced to have a big rebate for anyone who gets one, screw the home buyer credit give people 8 grand if they get fixed.
 
2011-09-21 12:02:58 PM

Theaetetus: 1) it's not a child before it's born.


So, obviously we can have fun all day disagreeing on that point and we'll never get anywhere.

But that argument is completely contradictory to the argument that fathers should pay child support. If it's not a child until it's born, the only people who should be held responsible for that child is the mother since she's the one who unilaterally decided to make it exist. Otherwise you might as well pick any arbitrary man and force him to pay child support, not just the one who put sperm in the mother's vagina 9 months before she decided to have a kid.
 
2011-09-21 12:03:09 PM

Headso: I alone am best: Headso: I alone am best: 1. Man and Woman get freaky

man chooses to spill his sperm creating a pregnancy, he has chosen to be down for a child at that point.

So has the woman, lets outlaw abotion.

Her choice to do what she wants with her body extends later because the babby is formed in her body, like how you had the choice about what to do with your body previously when you decided to get freaky without birth control.


Abortion is a divisive issue with many moral underpinnings. If its as simple as you say, then lets just take responsibility into account. She can just not get pregnant. Problem solved.
 
2011-09-21 12:03:35 PM

I alone am best: Theaetetus: How is number one any different from: "I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."?

Because it isnt a child. If it is a child then abortion is murder. You pick.


she doesn't get to have the baby and then smother it, her choice ends slightly later than yours does.
 
2011-09-21 12:05:03 PM

I alone am best: Theaetetus: How is number one any different from: "I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."?

Because it isnt a child. If it is a child then abortion is murder. You pick.


So, you believe that a man should not have any financial obligation to a fetus, but once born, the man should have financial obligation to the child?

I'm really NOT trying to put words in your mouth, but you and EWrecked both repeatedly refuse to say what you actually believe. I also understand that both you and EWrecked are trying to pretend that this all just occurs at the time of the decision to continue the pregnancy or abort, but you're both ignoring what happens if the pregnancy continues and the child is born.

Please... one sentence, that's all I ask:
"I believe a man should be able to _________, and once born, the child should get support from only __________"

Alternately, if you refuse to fill in those blanks, then please explain why you think the statement is unfair.
 
2011-09-21 12:05:14 PM
How could anyone oppose something called the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.

That would be as stupid as opposing something called the USA PATRIOT Act.

After all its all in the name. Right?
 
2011-09-21 12:06:22 PM

I alone am best: She can just not get pregnant. Problem solved.


If only there was more of this, there'd be less need for abortions.
 
2011-09-21 12:07:46 PM

serial_crusher: Theaetetus: 1) it's not a child before it's born.

So, obviously we can have fun all day disagreeing on that point and we'll never get anywhere.

But that argument is completely contradictory to the argument that fathers should pay child support. If it's not a child until it's born, the only people who should be held responsible for that child is the mother since she's the one who unilaterally decided to make it exist.


So, then you agree with the statement:
"I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."

Come on, this shouldn't be so hard... Day 1, couple has sex. Day 2, they find out she's pregnant. Day 3, he says "I refuse to pay for any child." Day 270, child is born. Does the child get support from the father? Has the child waived the obligation? Has a guardian ad litem waived the obligation? Is the mother the child's sole source of support?
 
2011-09-21 12:08:40 PM

I alone am best: Headso: I alone am best: Headso: I alone am best: 1. Man and Woman get freaky

man chooses to spill his sperm creating a pregnancy, he has chosen to be down for a child at that point.

So has the woman, lets outlaw abotion.

Her choice to do what she wants with her body extends later because the babby is formed in her body, like how you had the choice about what to do with your body previously when you decided to get freaky without birth control.

Abortion is a divisive issue with many moral underpinnings. If its as simple as you say, then lets just take responsibility into account. She can just not get pregnant. Problem solved.


The reasons for legalized abortion are that it is a safer alternative and results in less burdens on society IMO , it's not like legal abortion is some great thing and a moral victory for the left it's just better than the alternative.
 
2011-09-21 12:11:10 PM
Dumb.
 
2011-09-21 12:11:19 PM

Theaetetus: I alone am best: Theaetetus: How is number one any different from: "I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."?

Because it isnt a child. If it is a child then abortion is murder. You pick.

So, you believe that a man should not have any financial obligation to a fetus, but once born, the man should have financial obligation to the child?

I'm really NOT trying to put words in your mouth, but you and EWrecked both repeatedly refuse to say what you actually believe. I also understand that both you and EWrecked are trying to pretend that this all just occurs at the time of the decision to continue the pregnancy or abort, but you're both ignoring what happens if the pregnancy continues and the child is born.

Please... one sentence, that's all I ask:
"I believe a man should be able to _________, and once born, the child should get support from only __________"

Alternately, if you refuse to fill in those blanks, then please explain why you think the statement is unfair.


Are you being deliberately obtuse, or what? I will do it even though I have said it like 8 times.

"I believe a man should be able to should be able to waive parental rights within the time frame that the woman has an opportunity to have an abortion, and once born, the child should get support from only the mother if she decided to carry the child to term after the fact."
 
2011-09-21 12:11:53 PM
I really don't see what you guys are disagreeing about in the statement:
"I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."

It seems to be exactly what you've repeatedly proposed over and over. You all say you disagree with it, but refuse to say what about it you disagree with.

Come on... be honest. You really agree with it, don't you? You just realize that it puts you in a trap where you have to say that a child has no rights.
 
2011-09-21 12:13:23 PM

Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: How about you put some words in your mouth then:
"I believe a man should be able to __________________, and the child should get support from only __________"

Fill in the blanks. Let's hear an affirmative statement.

1) I just farking said yes he should be able to opt out of financial responsibility at the time the decision is made to keep the child (i.e. carry it to term or not).

2) A woman has that same option through an abortion

That's my argument. It's easy for you to quote, because I actually typed it.

So filling in the blanks is too tough for you? Allow me:
"I believe a man should be able to opt out of financial responsibility, and the child should get support from only the mother"

Right? Yes or no... It's a very simple question.

If no, then you do it:
"I believe a man should be able to __________________, and the child should get support from only __________"


You are cherry picking my statement to remove a very essential part of it, which is AT THE TIME THE DECISION IS MADE TO KEEP THE CHILD OR NOT. I have agreed repeatedly with the full statement, I am not suggesting at any point the father should be able to opt out.
 
2011-09-21 12:13:25 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: lennavan: She makes that decision the day she can no longer legally abort the fetus. The fetus went from having zero rights, it is the potential to life, to having full rights.

And among those full rights is the right to financial support until the age of 18 from BOTH parents. That's whole farking point. The mother's decision to carry to term does not remove the full rights of the child.


And I'm saying, if during the period a mother can choose to prevent that child from ever having a right to life and child support and so on thus severing all legal ties to it, a father should be allowed to sever those legal ties as well. That moment a mother decides to carry a child to term, against the will of the father, is the very moment she decided to raise it herself. The child never got the right to financial support from both parents and therefore no right is being "removed."

And let's not be so silly as to suggest this idea is unprecedented. You can give birth, give it to the hospital and walk out the door, terminating all of your rights to the child and never once financially support it. So it's fully legal and possible and presumably acceptable for the child to have support from ZERO parents.
 
2011-09-21 12:15:42 PM

Theaetetus: I really don't see what you guys are disagreeing about in the statement:
"I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."

It seems to be exactly what you've repeatedly proposed over and over. You all say you disagree with it, but refuse to say what about it you disagree with.

Come on... be honest. You really agree with it, don't you? You just realize that it puts you in a trap where you have to say that a child has no rights.


No, because it isnt a child and words have meanings and stuff.

It makes its like saying.You are for killing children. If you are pro choice.
 
2011-09-21 12:16:53 PM

Theaetetus: I really don't see what you guys are disagreeing about in the statement:
"I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."


Wait, you believe that? Because I sure as fark don't.

Theaetetus: It seems to be exactly what you've repeatedly proposed over and over.


By all means, quote one single person who ever said that. 342 posts in the thread, it has happened "repeatedly ... over and over." Quote someone.
 
2011-09-21 12:17:28 PM

I alone am best: Are you being deliberately obtuse, or what? I will do it even though I have said it like 8 times.

"I believe a man should be able to should be able to waive parental rights within the time frame that the woman has an opportunity to have an abortion, and once born, the child should get support from only the mother if she decided to carry the child to term after the fact."


Thank you!

So, you believe that the child or a guardian of the child should have no say in whether the father's obligation to the child is discharged: instead, the father should be able to unilaterally diminish the child's rights, provided only that he makes a statement within a predetermined time frame?

See, I guess that's the difference between you and me. I believe that you can't just walk away from a legal obligation to another person without, y'know, that other person getting a say so.

But, it's pretty clear that you're not arguing that men should be able to do something that women can currently do: at no point can a woman waive parental rights and obligations within any time frame, such that once born, the child gets support only from the father.
 
2011-09-21 12:18:49 PM

Theaetetus: I really don't see what you guys are disagreeing about in the statement:
"I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."

It seems to be exactly what you've repeatedly proposed over and over. You all say you disagree with it, but refuse to say what about it you disagree with.

Come on... be honest. You really agree with it, don't you? You just realize that it puts you in a trap where you have to say that a child has no rights.


Because you are cherry picking out the time frame we are suggesting a man can make that decision, which is incredibly important to the point. And even though we keep adding it back in, you keep pretending we aren't for some reason.
 
2011-09-21 12:20:49 PM

Theaetetus: Thank you!


Wow, an honest discussion might ensue. I'm actually quite interested to see how this will go.

Theaetetus: So, you believe that the child or a guardian of the child


Holy balls that turned dishonest fast. He is talking about when abortion is legal. When abortion is legal it's not a child you farknut.

Theaetetus: the father's obligation


The father has no obligation. There is no child. Nor is there a spoon.

Theaetetus: the father should be able to unilaterally diminish the child's rights


There is no child. Said non-existent child also has no rights.

Theaetetus: See, I guess that's the difference between you and me.


He's honest and you're a stramanning dick?
 
2011-09-21 12:21:12 PM

EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: How about you put some words in your mouth then:
"I believe a man should be able to __________________, and the child should get support from only __________"

Fill in the blanks. Let's hear an affirmative statement.

1) I just farking said yes he should be able to opt out of financial responsibility at the time the decision is made to keep the child (i.e. carry it to term or not).

2) A woman has that same option through an abortion

That's my argument. It's easy for you to quote, because I actually typed it.

So filling in the blanks is too tough for you? Allow me:
"I believe a man should be able to opt out of financial responsibility, and the child should get support from only the mother"

Right? Yes or no... It's a very simple question.

If no, then you do it:
"I believe a man should be able to __________________, and the child should get support from only __________"

You are cherry picking my statement to remove a very essential part of it,


Nope. Over and over, I'm asking you to MAKE a statement. Bit difficult to cherry pick when I'm asking you to make a statement, no?

which is AT THE TIME THE DECISION IS MADE TO KEEP THE CHILD OR NOT. I have agreed repeatedly with the full statement, I am not suggesting at any point the father should be able to opt out.

Nope, like I alone am best, you believe that a father should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, provided he waived that obligation early enough. The child (or a guardian ad litem, since the child didn't exist yet) didn't get to agree, or even get asked.
In other words, you don't believe in constitutional rights of due process for the child.
 
2011-09-21 12:21:18 PM

lennavan: Philip Francis Queeg: lennavan: She makes that decision the day she can no longer legally abort the fetus. The fetus went from having zero rights, it is the potential to life, to having full rights.

And among those full rights is the right to financial support until the age of 18 from BOTH parents. That's whole farking point. The mother's decision to carry to term does not remove the full rights of the child.

And I'm saying, if during the period a mother can choose to prevent that child from ever having a right to life and child support and so on thus severing all legal ties to it, a father should be allowed to sever those legal ties as well. That moment a mother decides to carry a child to term, against the will of the father, is the very moment she decided to raise it herself. The child never got the right to financial support from both parents and therefore no right is being "removed."

And let's not be so silly as to suggest this idea is unprecedented. You can give birth, give it to the hospital and walk out the door, terminating all of your rights to the child and never once financially support it. So it's fully legal and possible and presumably acceptable for the child to have support from ZERO parents.


So now you've moved the goalpost to saying that a child has no right to support from either parent. Holy Fark.
 
2011-09-21 12:21:28 PM

Theaetetus: serial_crusher: Theaetetus: 1) it's not a child before it's born.

So, obviously we can have fun all day disagreeing on that point and we'll never get anywhere.

But that argument is completely contradictory to the argument that fathers should pay child support. If it's not a child until it's born, the only people who should be held responsible for that child is the mother since she's the one who unilaterally decided to make it exist.

So, then you agree with the statement:
"I believe a man should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, without the child or a guardian ad litem waiving the obligation, leaving the mother as the child's sole source of support."

Come on, this shouldn't be so hard... Day 1, couple has sex. Day 2, they find out she's pregnant. Day 3, he says "I refuse to pay for any child." Day 270, child is born. Does the child get support from the father? Has the child waived the obligation? Has a guardian ad litem waived the obligation? Is the mother the child's sole source of support?


Well, yes and no. I think giving the man that right would make the law consistent, which is better than nothing. I think it's also reasonable to say that he has the right to walk away from his financial obligations only during the timeframe where she can legally get an abortion. i.e. he can't say, "oh yeah, let's have the kid, let's have the kid, I'll be a dad", then bail as soon as it's born, or in the third trimester or whatever. But if he says upfront that he doesn't want the kid, the mom's decision to keep it should also be a decision to support it without his help. Sucks for the kid, but that's life. If we were only concerned with what's best for the kid, we'd pick an arbitrary billionaire and make him pay some child support too.

Now, when it comes down to it, I don't think the man should have the right to walk away, just like I don't think the woman should have the right to an abortion. But that boils down to me thinking that it's a person from conception, so it's already too late for either parent to bail. So like I said, we can disagree all day there.

You haven't addressed the question I was asking though. If the baby only becomes a person when it's born, how do you decide that somebody who wasn't involved in the decision to give birth responsible for it?
 
2011-09-21 12:23:53 PM

skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: again, what was your issue? With "child" or "unborn" or was it those two words together that really upset you so?

Nothing upset me. I was pointing out that "unborn child" is frequently used by the pro-life movement in their propaganda. Do you have anything to counter his or are you just trolling again?

it's a common phrase and referring to a fetus as a "child" is a pretty common thing in English.


Unborn child today is used primarily by the Pro Life movement. I didn't realize this was such a big issue with you.
 
2011-09-21 12:24:45 PM

Theaetetus: I alone am best: Are you being deliberately obtuse, or what? I will do it even though I have said it like 8 times.

"I believe a man should be able to should be able to waive parental rights within the time frame that the woman has an opportunity to have an abortion, and once born, the child should get support from only the mother if she decided to carry the child to term after the fact."

Thank you!

So, you believe that the child or a guardian of the child should have no say in whether the father's obligation to the child is discharged: instead, the father should be able to unilaterally diminish the child's rights, provided only that he makes a statement within a predetermined time frame?

See, I guess that's the difference between you and me. I believe that you can't just walk away from a legal obligation to another person without, y'know, that other person getting a say so.

But, it's pretty clear that you're not arguing that men should be able to do something that women can currently do: at no point can a woman waive parental rights and obligations within any time frame, such that once born, the child gets support only from the father.



OMG you're dense. They have a say so, they can get an abortion or not get one. Its a pretty simple statement. I don't know what you're even arguing about but it seems to me you don't want to argue what we are saying instead trying to make up something you would rather argue about. I have work to do and cant keep explaining the same thing anymore. I would just like to tell you youre wrong.
 
2011-09-21 12:25:02 PM
Theaetetus:
So, you believe that the child or a guardian of the child should have no say in whether the father's obligation to the child is discharged: instead, the father should be able to unilaterally diminish the child's rights, provided only that he makes a statement within a predetermined time frame?

See, I guess that's the difference between you and me. I believe that you can't just walk away from a legal obligation to another person without, y'know, that other person getting a say so.


You are happy with giving away a father's 5th and 14th amendment rights to the fruits of his own labor for 18 years without him having a choice. Not only did you take forever to get to your point, but it was a poor one at that. Leaving aside for a fact the idea that a child has any right to the father's income to begin with is beyond silly.

But, it's pretty clear that you're not arguing that men should be able to do something that women can currently do: at no point can a woman waive parental rights and obligations within any time frame, such that once born, the child gets support only from the father.

Wow, 30 posts later and you are just going to go back to ignoring what we actually have been arguing. That's some serious dedication man to a strawman, or some fine trolling. Congrats either way.
 
2011-09-21 12:26:07 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: So now you've moved the goalpost to saying that a child has no right to support from either parent. Holy Fark.


So you think abortion is murder? I didn't have you pegged for being pro-life.
 
2011-09-21 12:26:25 PM

EWreckedSean: Because you are cherry picking out the time frame we are suggesting a man can make that decision, which is incredibly important to the point. And even though we keep adding it back in, you keep pretending we aren't for some reason


Nope, I'm happy to add it back in. I alone am best did it, in fact, even though you were too scared to:
"I believe a man should be able to should be able to waive parental rights within the time frame that the woman has an opportunity to have an abortion, and once born, the child should get support from only the mother if she decided to carry the child to term after the fact."

You think that distinction is relevant, for some reason. I'm pointing out that, regardless of when the man attempts to waive his future obligation, under your proposal, the child never gets to agree or disagree to the waiver.

Now, if you wanted to propose a system whereby a child, upon reaching the age of 18, could waive the father's obligation and retroactively pay back 18 years of support, I'd be all in favor of it. Actually, it can be done now. Simple contract between the father and the child. It can even be done earlier - simple contract between the father and the child's guardian ad litem. But that's not what you're proposing.
 
2011-09-21 12:27:50 PM

Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: How about you put some words in your mouth then:
"I believe a man should be able to __________________, and the child should get support from only __________"

Fill in the blanks. Let's hear an affirmative statement.

1) I just farking said yes he should be able to opt out of financial responsibility at the time the decision is made to keep the child (i.e. carry it to term or not).

2) A woman has that same option through an abortion

That's my argument. It's easy for you to quote, because I actually typed it.

So filling in the blanks is too tough for you? Allow me:
"I believe a man should be able to opt out of financial responsibility, and the child should get support from only the mother"

Right? Yes or no... It's a very simple question.

If no, then you do it:
"I believe a man should be able to __________________, and the child should get support from only __________"

You are cherry picking my statement to remove a very essential part of it,

Nope. Over and over, I'm asking you to MAKE a statement. Bit difficult to cherry pick when I'm asking you to make a statement, no?

which is AT THE TIME THE DECISION IS MADE TO KEEP THE CHILD OR NOT. I have agreed repeatedly with the full statement, I am not suggesting at any point the father should be able to opt out.

Nope, like I alone am best, you believe that a father should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, provided he waived that obligation early enough. The child (or a guardian ad litem, since the child didn't exist yet) didn't get to agree, or even get asked.
In other words, you don't believe in constitutional rights of due process for the child.


Really, quote me the part of the constitution that gives a child right to his father's assets. If you are going to invoke the document, try not to invent rights that don't exist please. have you never heard of giving a child up for adoption, or turning it over to be a ward of the state. Both of those very legal options also remove a child's access to a father's assets.
 
2011-09-21 12:29:03 PM

EWreckedSean: Really, quote me the part of the constitution that gives a child right to his father's assets.


Why do you support more kids being funded by the state?
 
2011-09-21 12:29:08 PM

EWreckedSean: Theaetetus:
So, you believe that the child or a guardian of the child should have no say in whether the father's obligation to the child is discharged: instead, the father should be able to unilaterally diminish the child's rights, provided only that he makes a statement within a predetermined time frame?

See, I guess that's the difference between you and me. I believe that you can't just walk away from a legal obligation to another person without, y'know, that other person getting a say so.

You are happy with giving away a father's 5th and 14th amendment rights to the fruits of his own labor for 18 years without him having a choice. Not only did you take forever to get to your point, but it was a poor one at that. Leaving aside for a fact the idea that a child has any right to the father's income to begin with is beyond silly.


And you're back to arguing that supporting one's child is "indentured servitude", and that children have no right to support.
 
2011-09-21 12:29:38 PM

lennavan: Philip Francis Queeg: So now you've moved the goalpost to saying that a child has no right to support from either parent. Holy Fark.

So you think abortion is murder? I didn't have you pegged for being pro-life.


Child, not fetus, the very same differentiation that you yourself made. Remember?
 
2011-09-21 12:30:41 PM

lennavan: Holy balls that turned dishonest fast. He is talking about when abortion is legal. When abortion is legal it's not a child you farknut.


Up until the date a woman can't get an abortion anymore she has a choice what to do with her body.
 
2011-09-21 12:31:01 PM

Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Theaetetus:
So, you believe that the child or a guardian of the child should have no say in whether the father's obligation to the child is discharged: instead, the father should be able to unilaterally diminish the child's rights, provided only that he makes a statement within a predetermined time frame?

See, I guess that's the difference between you and me. I believe that you can't just walk away from a legal obligation to another person without, y'know, that other person getting a say so.

You are happy with giving away a father's 5th and 14th amendment rights to the fruits of his own labor for 18 years without him having a choice. Not only did you take forever to get to your point, but it was a poor one at that. Leaving aside for a fact the idea that a child has any right to the father's income to begin with is beyond silly.

And you're back to arguing that supporting one's child is "indentured servitude", and that children have no right to support.


I love this invented right to a father's assets and the fruits of his labor that you have invented. It's funny.
 
2011-09-21 12:31:45 PM

EWreckedSean: Really, quote me the part of the constitution that gives a child right to his father's assets. If you are going to invoke the document, try not to invent rights that don't exist please.


9th Amendment.
Now, please, quote me part of the constitution or contemporaneous writings of the founding fathers indicating that they didn't believe that children had a right to support from their parents.
I mean, shiat, that right has been understood for hundreds upon hundreds of years. It's why we have the concept of the state pursuing deadbeat dads and child support in the first place.

Let me guess... This is you?
 
2011-09-21 12:33:46 PM

EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Theaetetus:
So, you believe that the child or a guardian of the child should have no say in whether the father's obligation to the child is discharged: instead, the father should be able to unilaterally diminish the child's rights, provided only that he makes a statement within a predetermined time frame?

See, I guess that's the difference between you and me. I believe that you can't just walk away from a legal obligation to another person without, y'know, that other person getting a say so.

You are happy with giving away a father's 5th and 14th amendment rights to the fruits of his own labor for 18 years without him having a choice. Not only did you take forever to get to your point, but it was a poor one at that. Leaving aside for a fact the idea that a child has any right to the father's income to begin with is beyond silly.

And you're back to arguing that supporting one's child is "indentured servitude", and that children have no right to support.

I love this invented right to a father's assets and the fruits of his labor that you have invented. It's funny.


Farky'd as believing that child support is unconstitutional servitude. Pretty much disqualifies you from every legal discussion.
 
2011-09-21 12:34:46 PM

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

It's a term used by the Pro-Life movement which satisfies their propaganda.

"The virgin will be with child fetus and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"--which means, "God with us."

Stupid Pro-Life Propaganda Bible

That's really stupid, even for you.

why's that if referring to a fetus as a "child" is a pro-life propagandist tactic? Or is it the word "unborn" that you have issue with?

The Bible has the Earth being created in six days. It must be true then.

And that still doesn't counter what I said.

again, what was your issue? With "child" or "unborn" or was it those two words together that really upset you so?

Nightmare, the persecution
A child's dream of death.

Torment, ill forgotten
A soul that will never rest.

Guidance, it means nothing
In a world of brutal time.

Electric, circus, wild,
Deep in the infants mind.

Silent Scream
Bury the unwanted child.
Beaten and torn
Sacrifice the unborn.

Shattered, adolescent [sings: another child]
Bearer of no name.

Restrained, insane games
Suffer the children condemned.

Scattered, remnants of life,
Murder a time to die.

Pain, sufferaged toyed,
Life's little fragments destroyed.

Silent Scream
Crucify the bastard son.
Beaten and torn
Sanctify lives of scorn.

Life preordained
Humanity maintained.
Extraction termination
Pain's agonizing stain.

Embryonic death,
Embedded in your brain.
Suffocation, strangulation,
Death is farking you insane.

Nightmare, the persecution
A child's dream of death.

Torment, ill forgotten
A soul that will never rest.
Innocence withdrawn in fear.
Fires burning can you hear
Cries in the night.


Slayer - doing their part to spread Pro-Life PropagandaTM since 1981


i100.photobucket.com

Love that CD
 
2011-09-21 12:37:49 PM

Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Really, quote me the part of the constitution that gives a child right to his father's assets. If you are going to invoke the document, try not to invent rights that don't exist please.

9th Amendment.
Now, please, quote me part of the constitution or contemporaneous writings of the founding fathers indicating that they didn't believe that children had a right to support from their parents.
I mean, shiat, that right has been understood for hundreds upon hundreds of years. It's why we have the concept of the state pursuing deadbeat dads and child support in the first place.

Let me guess... This is you?


The 9th amendment in no way, shape or form obligates once person to support another. Specifically because the 5th and 14th already enumerate the protection of an individual's property rights.
 
2011-09-21 12:39:40 PM

Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Theaetetus:
So, you believe that the child or a guardian of the child should have no say in whether the father's obligation to the child is discharged: instead, the father should be able to unilaterally diminish the child's rights, provided only that he makes a statement within a predetermined time frame?

See, I guess that's the difference between you and me. I believe that you can't just walk away from a legal obligation to another person without, y'know, that other person getting a say so.

You are happy with giving away a father's 5th and 14th amendment rights to the fruits of his own labor for 18 years without him having a choice. Not only did you take forever to get to your point, but it was a poor one at that. Leaving aside for a fact the idea that a child has any right to the father's income to begin with is beyond silly.

And you're back to arguing that supporting one's child is "indentured servitude", and that children have no right to support.

I love this invented right to a father's assets and the fruits of his labor that you have invented. It's funny.

Farky'd as believing that child support is unconstitutional servitude. Pretty much disqualifies you from every legal discussion.


Your inability to follow a simple conversation disqualifies you from every discussion period, but hey, I was bored.
 
2011-09-21 12:39:42 PM

Hung Like A Tic-Tac: Love that CD


downright un-American not to
 
2011-09-21 12:40:07 PM

EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Really, quote me the part of the constitution that gives a child right to his father's assets. If you are going to invoke the document, try not to invent rights that don't exist please.

9th Amendment.
Now, please, quote me part of the constitution or contemporaneous writings of the founding fathers indicating that they didn't believe that children had a right to support from their parents.
I mean, shiat, that right has been understood for hundreds upon hundreds of years. It's why we have the concept of the state pursuing deadbeat dads and child support in the first place.

Let me guess... This is you?

The 9th amendment in no way, shape or form obligates once person to support another. Specifically because the 5th and 14th already enumerate the protection of an individual's property rights.


"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

Bwaaahahahahaaa!
 
2011-09-21 12:41:19 PM

Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Really, quote me the part of the constitution that gives a child right to his father's assets. If you are going to invoke the document, try not to invent rights that don't exist please.

9th Amendment.
Now, please, quote me part of the constitution or contemporaneous writings of the founding fathers indicating that they didn't believe that children had a right to support from their parents.
I mean, shiat, that right has been understood for hundreds upon hundreds of years. It's why we have the concept of the state pursuing deadbeat dads and child support in the first place.

Let me guess... This is you?

The 9th amendment in no way, shape or form obligates once person to support another. Specifically because the 5th and 14th already enumerate the protection of an individual's property rights.

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

Bwaaahahahahaaa!


Uhh exactly his point.
 
2011-09-21 12:42:21 PM
Damnit all, im done sorry dont respond to me.
 
2011-09-21 12:42:54 PM

Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Really, quote me the part of the constitution that gives a child right to his father's assets. If you are going to invoke the document, try not to invent rights that don't exist please.

9th Amendment.
Now, please, quote me part of the constitution or contemporaneous writings of the founding fathers indicating that they didn't believe that children had a right to support from their parents.
I mean, shiat, that right has been understood for hundreds upon hundreds of years. It's why we have the concept of the state pursuing deadbeat dads and child support in the first place.

Let me guess... This is you?

The 9th amendment in no way, shape or form obligates once person to support another. Specifically because the 5th and 14th already enumerate the protection of an individual's property rights.

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

Bwaaahahahahaaa!


Yes genius, the key word is others. the 5th and 14th protect property rights of an individual. Suggesting that the 9th allows those rights to be denied or disparage is an utter failing of what the law means.
 
2011-09-21 12:43:29 PM

I alone am best: Damnit all, im done sorry dont respond to me.


No doubt, back to work.
 
2011-09-21 12:46:10 PM
How early are men usually able to get a vasectomy without having to fight their doctor for it?

How early are women able to get a tubal ligation without having to fight their doctor for it?

I feel that putting unequal restrictions on people's reproductive rights is far more encompassing than abortion - something that happens well after the fact. Denying pre-emptive measures out of "benevolent authority" seems to me like something out of the anti-choice camp, as it solidifies the position that pregnancy is punishment for having sex.
 
2011-09-21 12:50:27 PM

Ms.Maus: How early are men usually able to get a vasectomy without having to fight their doctor for it?

How early are women able to get a tubal ligation without having to fight their doctor for it?

I feel that putting unequal restrictions on people's reproductive rights is far more encompassing than abortion - something that happens well after the fact. Denying pre-emptive measures out of "benevolent authority" seems to me like something out of the anti-choice camp, as it solidifies the position that pregnancy is punishment for having sex.


aren't vasectomies far more easily reversed than tubal ligations? One is done with a pen knife and a cup of warm water and the other requires anesthesia, no?
 
2011-09-21 12:51:54 PM

I alone am best: Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Really, quote me the part of the constitution that gives a child right to his father's assets. If you are going to invoke the document, try not to invent rights that don't exist please.

9th Amendment.
Now, please, quote me part of the constitution or contemporaneous writings of the founding fathers indicating that they didn't believe that children had a right to support from their parents.
I mean, shiat, that right has been understood for hundreds upon hundreds of years. It's why we have the concept of the state pursuing deadbeat dads and child support in the first place.

Let me guess... This is you?

The 9th amendment in no way, shape or form obligates once person to support another. Specifically because the 5th and 14th already enumerate the protection of an individual's property rights.

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

Bwaaahahahahaaa!

Uhh exactly his point.


His point is that children have no rights of parent support, and for evidence, he points to... the property rights of the parent? Heh. It's almost like he has no idea what due process means.
 
2011-09-21 12:54:38 PM

EWreckedSean: 1) I just farking said yes he should be able to opt out of financial responsibility at the time the decision is made to keep the child (i.e. carry it to term or not).

2) A woman has that same option through an abortion

That's my argument. It's easy for you to quote, because I actually typed it.


Then you are saying that you want the man to have more rights, because you are saying that you want a man to be able to legally abandon a living child, for whatever reason, while a woman cannot make the same legal choice.

This is a situation where biology does not treat men and women identically. The essential point is that you are conflating the right to bodily autonomy on the part of the woman with the right of the child to parental support. They are related as they both pertain to the process by which a child is first conceived and brought to term, but they are legally separate rights.

The equivalent right of the woman's right to abortion would be the right for the father to terminate the pregnancy as well. However, as that would necessarily infringe on the bodily autonomy of the woman, that is impermissible. The reverse is also true. A man cannot stop a woman from having an abortion without also impermissibly infringing on her right to bodily autonomy. This is due solely to the fact that pregnancy occurs within the woman's body.

Once the child exists as an independent legal entity, its right to support trumps both parent's desires to escape financial obligation. It is the child's rights as an innocent minor to be supported financialy by the parents save in the event of giving up the child for adoption, which must always be a joint decision - so the rights of the parents are equal in the case of a living child.

In order for there to be legal parity as you are demanding there would first have to be biological parity; i.e. neither party carries the child to term, you use some kind of as-yet hypothetical device as a uterine replacement to carry the child to term, and conception only occurs as a deliberate choice made by both parties.

As long as that remains impossible, the legal parity you want simply cannot happen, because there are not equivalent physical conditions and limitations on all parties. At that point, the designation of what is legally permissible involved figuring out which set of options is the least infringing on the rights of everyone involved, and which rights take precedence.

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.

The legal asymmetry derives from the biological asymmetry. You are not actually proposing a legal parity, but simply a different legal asymmetry, one that favors the father's desires over the mother's right to control her own body or the child's right to support. That is not legally tenable, as it results in greater infringement on rights than the alternative.

Is this a fair outcome? No, definitely not. But it is the least unfair outcome. Men get left holding the short end of the stick, but that is inevitable, because the realities of biology mean that someone is left holding the short end of the stick, and unfortunately the men are the ones with the least overriding interest in the situation, so they are the ones stuck with it.

You want to change that? Then do the work necessary to find a way to rectify the biological asymmetry I described first, because otherwise it simply shifts who gets screwed to someone that will be harmed more.
 
2011-09-21 12:54:51 PM
So we're the 8th best country for women, but we don't like specific parts of this specific treaty, so we must be EVIL!
 
2011-09-21 12:58:51 PM

skullkrusher: Ms.Maus: How early are men usually able to get a vasectomy without having to fight their doctor for it?

How early are women able to get a tubal ligation without having to fight their doctor for it?

I feel that putting unequal restrictions on people's reproductive rights is far more encompassing than abortion - something that happens well after the fact. Denying pre-emptive measures out of "benevolent authority" seems to me like something out of the anti-choice camp, as it solidifies the position that pregnancy is punishment for having sex.

aren't vasectomies far more easily reversed than tubal ligations? One is done with a pen knife and a cup of warm water and the other requires anesthesia, no?


A tubal ligation is more easily reversed than an abortion. ;)

It's irrelevant to my point though - if a man or a woman wants to take proactive steps to mitigate unwanted pregnancy, they shouldn't have to fight with "oh, you're too young to make that decision, even though you are legally an adult." Too young to make that decision, but not too young to make the decision to carry a child to term/have an abortion? The decision over life/death is much more sobering than the decision to govern one's body, in my opinion.
 
2011-09-21 01:02:30 PM

Ms.Maus: they shouldn't have to fight with "oh, you're too young to make that decision, even though you are legally an adult." Too young to make that decision, but not too young to make the decision to carry a child to term/have an abortion?


Agreed.
 
2011-09-21 01:03:23 PM

KiltedBastich: Is this a fair outcome? No, definitely not. But it is the least unfair outcome. Men get left holding the short end of the stick, but that is inevitable, because the realities of biology mean that someone is left holding the short end of the stick, and unfortunately the men are the ones with the least overriding interest in the situation, so they are the ones stuck with it.


I wouldn't necessarily agree... Men don't have to face pregnancy, labor, surgery, complications, and physical impairment or death.
If men are left holding the short end of the stick through having to support their own child, then women are holding an equally short stick, and it is only the child who has the long end of the stick.
 
2011-09-21 01:07:30 PM

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

It's a term used by the Pro-Life movement which satisfies their propaganda.

"The virgin will be with child fetus and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"--which means, "God with us."

Stupid Pro-Life Propaganda Bible

That's really stupid, even for you.

why's that if referring to a fetus as a "child" is a pro-life propagandist tactic? Or is it the word "unborn" that you have issue with?

The Bible has the Earth being created in six days. It must be true then.

And that still doesn't counter what I said.

again, what was your issue? With "child" or "unborn" or was it those two words together that really upset you so?

Nightmare, the persecution
A child's dream of death.

Torment, ill forgotten
A soul that will never rest.

Guidance, it means nothing
In a world of brutal time.

Electric, circus, wild,
Deep in the infants mind.

Silent Scream
Bury the unwanted child.
Beaten and torn
Sacrifice the unborn.

Shattered, adolescent [sings: another child]
Bearer of no name.

Restrained, insane games
Suffer the children condemned.

Scattered, remnants of life,
Murder a time to die.

Pain, sufferaged toyed,
Life's little fragments destroyed.

Silent Scream
Crucify the bastard son.
Beaten and torn
Sanctify lives of scorn.

Life preordained
Humanity maintained.
Extraction termination
Pain's agonizing stain.

Embryonic death,
Embedded in your brain.
Suffocation, strangulation,
Death is farking you insane.

Nightmare, the persecution
A child's dream of death.

Torment, ill forgotten
A soul that will never rest.
Innocence withdrawn in fear.
Fires burning can you hear
Cries in the night.


Slayer - doing their part to spread Pro-Life PropagandaTM since 1981


The song is entitled Silent Scream after the anti-abortion video.

Not sure if this really makes your point.
 
2011-09-21 01:09:07 PM

Theaetetus: I wouldn't necessarily agree... Men don't have to face pregnancy, labor, surgery, complications, and physical impairment or death.
If men are left holding the short end of the stick through having to support their own child, then women are holding an equally short stick, and it is only the child who has the long end of the stick.


Let me clarify, I meant that solely in terms of legal choices versus legal responsibilities. Men have the least choice in the matter for the responsibility they must assume, and so in that sense they are left holding the short end of the stick. But as I said, that is an inevitable consequence of the biological asymmetry of pregnancy, because the alternatives all involve inflicting worse infringements of rights on other individuals who have equivalent legal rights under the law.

Thus, if someone's rights must be infringed by the necessities of the conflicting interests and obligations imposed by the limitations of biology, you pick the option that is the least infringing. That is always leaving the father on the hook for support. It is not fun for the fathers, but it is the most pragmatic resolution.
 
2011-09-21 01:09:12 PM

Headso: lennavan: Holy balls that turned dishonest fast. He is talking about when abortion is legal. When abortion is legal it's not a child you farknut.

Up until the date a woman can't get an abortion anymore she has a choice what to do with her body.


Couldn't agree more. I love that you're implying that I don't though. Does that make it easier for you to argue your point?
 
2011-09-21 01:10:38 PM

Ms.Maus: It's irrelevant to my point though - if a man or a woman wants to take proactive steps to mitigate unwanted pregnancy, they shouldn't have to fight with "oh, you're too young to make that decision, even though you are legally an adult." Too young to make that decision, but not too young to make the decision to carry a child to term/have an abortion? The decision over life/death is much more sobering than the decision to govern one's body, in my opinion.


ah I thought you meant there was a disparity between how much the doctor tries to persuade a man vs a woman
 
2011-09-21 01:11:54 PM
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.
 
2011-09-21 01:12:06 PM

Fart_Machine: The song is entitled Silent Scream after the anti-abortion video.

Not sure if this really makes your point.


that referring to an a fetus as "the unborn" and a "child" is pretty common in English even amongst people not likely to be super pro-lifers? Yeah, I think it makes my point nicely.
 
2011-09-21 01:17:52 PM

skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: The song is entitled Silent Scream after the anti-abortion video.

Not sure if this really makes your point.

that referring to an a fetus as "the unborn" and a "child" is pretty common in English even amongst people not likely to be super pro-lifers? Yeah, I think it makes my point nicely.


Why would you say the song isn't from a pro-life perspective? It's a song dealing with abortion from source material that has been Pro Life propaganda for over a decade. Slayer likes lyrics from a graphic point of view. It's why you have songs like Angel of Death and Behind the Crooked Cross.
 
2011-09-21 01:17:55 PM

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:


cdn.inquisitr.com
 
2011-09-21 01:22:18 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: lennavan: Philip Francis Queeg: So now you've moved the goalpost to saying that a child has no right to support from either parent. Holy Fark.

So you think abortion is murder? I didn't have you pegged for being pro-life.

Child, not fetus, the very same differentiation that you yourself made. Remember?


Oh, I misunderstood what your reply meant. I wasn't saying that. I was pointing out that parents being able to drop their rights and responsibilities to the child isn't unprecedented. Just like you can leave your baby at the hospital and sever responsibilities, a father, before it becomes a viable child should be able to sever the potential of responsibilities to the child. A mother already can.
 
2011-09-21 01:22:25 PM

KiltedBastich: Thus, if someone's rights must be infringed by the necessities of the conflicting interests and obligations imposed by the limitations of biology, you pick the option that is the least infringing. That is always leaving the father on the hook for support. It is not fun for the fathers, but it is the most pragmatic resolution.


Incidentally, this is also why I am fully in support of the development of a safe, noninvasive and fully reversible form of male birth control. Currently, men have essentially two options for taking proactive control of their own fertility: condoms (which have a failure rate and are at least marginally intrusive) or vasectomies (which are expensive, invasive and not fully reversible).

If men could inexpensively and reversibly control their own fertility to the same extent that the pill allows women to control theirs, a lot of these arguments would evaporate, because then you would have a greatly strengthened argument that getting a woman pregnant is either a deliberate choice or negligence, and that claims that being able to waive supports are a male right would be immediately thrown out by everyone, liberal and conservative both.
 
2011-09-21 01:23:24 PM

Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: The song is entitled Silent Scream after the anti-abortion video.

Not sure if this really makes your point.

that referring to an a fetus as "the unborn" and a "child" is pretty common in English even amongst people not likely to be super pro-lifers? Yeah, I think it makes my point nicely.

Why would you say the song isn't from a pro-life perspective? It's a song dealing with abortion from source material that has been Pro Life propaganda for over a decade. Slayer likes lyrics from a graphic point of view. It's why you have songs like Angel of Death and Behind the Crooked Cross.


Slayer also writes songs about murdering children and wearing their faces as a mask. That doesn't mean they like that sort of thing.
 
2011-09-21 01:23:57 PM

lennavan: Oh, I misunderstood what your reply meant. I wasn't saying that. I was pointing out that parents being able to drop their rights and responsibilities to the child isn't unprecedented. Just like you can leave your baby at the hospital and sever responsibilities, a father, before it becomes a viable child should be able to sever the potential of responsibilities to the child. A mother already can.


The situations are not biologically equivalent, and so cannot be legally equivalent. Someone is having their rights violated here, one way or the other. The status quo does this the least.
 
2011-09-21 01:27:23 PM

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?
 
2011-09-21 01:28:21 PM

skullkrusher: Slayer also writes songs about murdering children and wearing their faces as a mask. That doesn't mean they like that sort of thing.


Nope, they just like writing lyrics from the POV of their subjects. Hence you get Silent Scream. I don't think they were a huge fan of Mengele either.
 
2011-09-21 01:28:47 PM
KiltedBastich:
Then you are saying that you want the man to have more rights, because you are saying that you want a man to be able to legally abandon a living child, for whatever reason, while a woman cannot make the same legal choice.


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.

This is a situation where biology does not treat men and women identically. The essential point is that you are conflating the right to bodily autonomy on the part of the woman with the right of the child to parental support. They are related as they both pertain to the process by which a child is first conceived and brought to term, but they are legally separate rights.

Obviously biology can't make their choices exactly the same here. A woman must have an abortion, and a man has no choice to say yes if a woman says no.

The equivalent right of the woman's right to abortion would be the right for the father to terminate the pregnancy as well. However, as that would necessarily infringe on the bodily autonomy of the woman, that is impermissible. The reverse is also true. A man cannot stop a woman from having an abortion without also impermissibly infringing on her right to bodily autonomy. This is due solely to the fact that pregnancy occurs within the woman's body.

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.

Once the child exists as an independent legal entity, its right to support trumps both parent's desires to escape financial obligation. It is the child's rights as an innocent minor to be supported financialy by the parents save in the event of giving up the child for adoption, which must always be a joint decision - so the rights of the parents are equal in the case of a living child.

You made a statement, and then immediately showed how that statement is untrue. Parents absolutely can opt out of financial obligation for a child. I don't understand why it should be ok only if one wants out, otherwise the other has to be an unwilling cash cow for 18 years?

In order for there to be legal parity as you are demanding there would first have to be biological parity; i.e. neither party carries the child to term, you use some kind of as-yet hypothetical device as a uterine replacement to carry the child to term, and conception only occurs as a deliberate choice made by both parties.

As long as that remains impossible, the legal parity you want simply cannot happen, because there are not equivalent physical conditions and limitations on all parties. At that point, the designation of what is legally permissible involved figuring out which set of options is the least infringing on the rights of everyone involved, and which rights take precedence.


I disagree. At least in terms of parental choice.

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.

The legal asymmetry derives from the biological asymmetry. You are not actually proposing a legal parity, but simply a different legal asymmetry, one that favors the father's desires over the mother's right to control her own body or the child's right to support. That is not legally tenable, as it results in greater infringement on rights than the alternative.

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

Is this a fair outcome? No, definitely not. But it is the least unfair outcome. Men get left holding the short end of the stick, but that is inevitable, because the realities of biology mean that someone is left holding the short end of the stick, and unfortunately the men are the ones with the least overriding interest in the situation, so they are the ones stuck with it.

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?
 
2011-09-21 01:29:17 PM

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?
 
2011-09-21 01:30:50 PM

KiltedBastich: Theaetetus: I wouldn't necessarily agree... Men don't have to face pregnancy, labor, surgery, complications, and physical impairment or death.
If men are left holding the short end of the stick through having to support their own child, then women are holding an equally short stick, and it is only the child who has the long end of the stick.

Let me clarify, I meant that solely in terms of legal choices versus legal responsibilities. Men have the least choice in the matter for the responsibility they must assume, and so in that sense they are left holding the short end of the stick. But as I said, that is an inevitable consequence of the biological asymmetry of pregnancy, because the alternatives all involve inflicting worse infringements of rights on other individuals who have equivalent legal rights under the law.

Thus, if someone's rights must be infringed by the necessities of the conflicting interests and obligations imposed by the limitations of biology, you pick the option that is the least infringing. That is always leaving the father on the hook for support. It is not fun for the fathers, but it is the most pragmatic resolution.


By that measure wouldn't the least infringing be to outlaw abortion altogether, as it costs the unborn baby it's life?
 
2011-09-21 01:34:13 PM

KiltedBastich: lennavan: Oh, I misunderstood what your reply meant. I wasn't saying that. I was pointing out that parents being able to drop their rights and responsibilities to the child isn't unprecedented. Just like you can leave your baby at the hospital and sever responsibilities, a father, before it becomes a viable child should be able to sever the potential of responsibilities to the child. A mother already can.

The situations are not biologically equivalent, and so cannot be legally equivalent. Someone is having their rights violated here, one way or the other. The status quo does this the least.


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.
 
2011-09-21 01:34:49 PM

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


Fetuses have no rights under our Constitution. There is nothing to infringe.
 
2011-09-21 01:35:16 PM

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.
 
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...
 
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.