It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
There has been nothing presented in this massive thread that proves your postulation the government is enforcing parenthood on anyone.
Originally posted by joechip
reply to post by sindeestarr
Explain, taking abortion out of the issue (not that I feel you have to but for purpose of examining your original proposition) how it is a biological issue that a woman, unprepared and ill-equipped to raise a child may give it up for adoption, or if she is truly incapable of planning that far ahead, drop it off at a fire station, hospital, or with the police, walk away with no legal ramifications or financial obligations. But a man, similarly unprepared and ill-equipped, may not absolve his responsibilities at all. Explain how having one gender use the governmental apparatus to enforce parenthood upon the other, (when the supreme court clearly found that the government enforcing parenthood upon the 'individual" was unconstitutional governmental overreach) is not the self-same overreach. This is a civil rights issue, not a biological issue.
edit on 19-9-2010 by joechip because: i left out words
edit on 19-9-2010 by joechip because: i'm tired and repeating words, forgetting words, words are swirling, swirling...
Originally posted by lordtyp0
No, I gave examples of how the system is weighted. Those are a bit extreme yes, however 99% of all custody items that I have heard about-the mother has custody. The father either pays 70% of his paycheck or similar.
The courts are extremely unfair in matters of custody and child support. This is fact. I know a person first hand who had a medical career destroyed because his ex would file an amendment every singly month and try to claim his student loans as income, he could not afford a lawyer. He was forced to drop out of med school and wound up in jail for 6 months because the child support about jumped from 350/month to 4,000/month. The judge told him "well I have to raise it because it was requested by the mother of the children". The judge said that verbatim. It had nothing to do with means or ability.
Originally posted by Hefficide
Yesterday, as I was in the midst of some rather heated debate in this thread, a friend happened to offer me some advice. This friend suggested that my position might be effected by the reality that my own life experiences, as spoken of earlier in this thread, might be effecting my objectivity here. After all... My own opportunity to be a father to my eldest child had been removed from me. One could understand how I would be hesitant to accept other men screaming that making them be fathers is Constitutionally unfair.
So, I removed myself from debate and spent a great deal of yesterday really thinking about this issue. In fact I fell asleep, last night, lost in thought about every aspect discussed here. This choice did help me gain perspective.
One aspect of this that I chose to utterly ignore is the "right to life" undertone (And undertone is generous as there is nothing at all subtle about it here). I do think that this entire thread is probably less of a study of law and more of an indictment of abortion for many people. One poster, in particular, replied to most statements about fatherhood with hyperbole filled statements about the "millions of dead babies". Emotional? Yes. But an empty argument.
Is the answer to "millions of dead babies" from abortion really to argue for a society which would probably include millions of starving and dying children, who would have inadequate support? Obviously not.
I concluded that, for some, this thread is much less about giving fathers more rights as it is about wanting mothers to have fewer rights. And, as I said, I refuse to address this issue from that perspective. I personally don't like abortion. I find the idea barbaric and mostly irresponsible (excepting extreme situations which have been discussed, as naseaum before.) But abortion is a reality as we sit here today, so to me it is settled law. And, for those who will tell me that slavery was once settled law, thus stealing all the thunder of my position, my answer is simple: Change the law, but I don't feel compelled to join you in that battle so please don't try and insist in my participation in such pursuits.
I have been, and will continue to, approach this thread from one perspective. And that is simply stated as "Because a woman has the option of choosing abortion, then should a father be allowed to refuse paternity - thus giving both parties an "equal" chance to avoid parenthood"?
My thoughts, in this regard, remain unchanged.
It's easy to get caught up in ideals here, without regard to reality. It's also seemingly a trend here for people to simply discount the welfare of the child in favor of the abstract concept of equity between the parents rights.
And, yes, I know, millions of dead babies. So, in light of that - let's go ahead and decimate the welfare of millions of living children too. I mean, fair is fair. Death is death. Let's augment those dead babies with dead toddlers too. I mean, who cares as long as everyone feels that it's done in the name of fairness.
Oh, and I also know, only women with a lot of money should be having sex anyway. Those whores and their reproductive pyramid schemes. So my dead toddlers point is moot. Because only parasitic whores have sex without independent wealth,
And if I sound a bit bitter here, it's because I am. I don't like the divisiveness of arguments like this. I don't like these little word games that politically inept people tend to dream up. It's the kind of brilliance that leads people to burn down the house because they don't like the drapes. It's a ploy to diminish freedom in the name of freedom and it's obscene and corrupt. But that's just my opinion.
When men can bear a child that is when they get a choice after conception.
That is why it is an abdication of financial responsibility.
Originally posted by Raist
As I said in my original post on this thread I think both parties should share responsibility and raise the kid or give it up for adoption.
Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by hotbakedtater
Just for the sake of equality one could say that the woman could have kept her legs shut and exercised her reproductive rights and we would not be having this discussion at all.
It takes two to tango.
As I said in my original post on this thread I think both parties should share responsibility and raise the kid or give it up for adoption. Low and behold though the woman has the final say on all of it. Why not give the man a chance to add his opinion?
Regardless of what side you take in the average case both parties are to blame. The semen might be given willingly but it is also taken willingly as well. If both kept their stuff in their pants we would not be discussing it, since that does not happen we are discussing it.