It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Men's-rights activists seek right to decline fatherhood in event of unplanned pregnancy

page: 68
56
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Responding to my contention that the 14 amendment's privacy right has been unequally applied in this matter with the text of the district courts contemptuous dismissal fails to argue the points at issue.
We already know that the case failed.
That the constitutional principles have been unequally applied is the point, and quoting large parts of the text the the decision (while helpful) does not constitute a refutation of my point.
This would be an example of refutation of the Court's view expressed in your quotation.


The woman’s right to abortion is not solely, or even primarily, based upon her right to choose not to be a mother after engaging in consensual sexual intercourse. Rather, the right to abortion, as articulated in Roe, derives from the woman’s right to bodily integrity and her privacy interest in protecting her own physical and mental health
.
My own reading of Roe seemed to contradict the courts interpretation of "bodily integrity" as the deciding metric, but I found it difficult to find law scholarship on the matter. I finally did.



In drafting Roe, Justice Blackmun did not turn to any protection for bodily integrity, but rather staked his opinion on “a right of personal privacy.” Still, even as the Court and commentators agonized over the parameters and justification of the “right of personal privacy” in the aftermath of Roe, the federal courts, both high and low, forged extratextual protections for the bodies of American citizens at the mercy of the state in the areas of prisoners’ rights, police assault, and medical treatment.

lsr.nellco.org...

As far as finding legal precedent, directly linking one accepted right to an asserted, but denied right, or even a handy legal argument in a law review, that's not going to happen. While there are literally tons of papers on Roe v. Wade, and female reproductive rights, the same is not true for male reproductive rights. I'm going to have to argue this largely on general Constitutional principles.
As such, and in light of the above refutation, would you care to explain how the 14th amendment's protection of privacy is NOT being unequally applied. I mean, argue it, not merely cite a case that asserts it.
.


edit on 21-9-2010 by joechip because: grammar




posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrillsAngelWings
If the father does not want the child in his life and does not want to pay child support for the next 18 years all he has to do is sign over his rights and he will be free of any obligations to that child


This is not true. The father MUST, by law, financially support the child, if it's his. He cannot sign over his rights.

He cannot "opt out". I don't know where you got that idea, but you are incorrect.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
From the majority opinion Roe v. Wade, Justice Blackmun:


This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved.


From Roe v. Wade, concurring opinion, Justice Burger:



"It is true that, in Griswold, the right of privacy in question inhered in the marital relationship. Yet the marital couple is not an independent entity, with a mind and heart of its own, but an association of two individuals, each with a separate intellectual and emotional makeup. If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a personas the decision whether to bear or beget a child."


Justice Stewart, concurring opinion:



As recently as last Term, in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453 , we recognized "the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person [410 U.S. 113, 170] as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." That right necessarily includes the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. "Certainly the interests of a woman in giving of her physical and emotional self during pregnancyand the interests that will be affected throughout her life by the birth and raising of a child are of a far greater degree of significance and personal intimacy than the right to send a child to private school protected in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), or the right to teach a foreign language protected in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)." Abele v. Markle, 351 F. Supp. 224, 227 (Conn. 1972).


Justice Douglas, concurring opinion:



The Georgia statute is at war with the clear message of these cases – that a woman is free to make the basic decision whether to bear an unwanted child. Elaborate argument is hardly necessary to demonstrate that childbirth may deprive a woman of her preferred lifestyle and force upon her a radically different and undesired future. For example, rejected applicants under the Georgia statute are required to endure the [410 U.S. 179, 215] discomforts of pregnancy; to incur the pain, higher mortality rate, and aftereffects of childbirth;to abandon educational plans; to sustain loss of income; to forgo the satisfactions of careers; to tax further mental and physical health in providing child care; and, in some cases, to bear the lifelong stigma of unwed motherhood, a badge which may haunt, if not deter, later legitimate family relationships.


The bold areas are clear examples of language where the privacy right would, by the constitutional principle of equal protection, apply both to unmarried men as well as unmarried women, and show a clear rationale that the liberty implied by that right, while commonly misunderstood as restricted to "bodily integrity" is actually broader in its scope. As my post above illustrates, the applicability of "bodily integrity" is the extra-textual part and in no way a limitation of the fundamental right. The court that dismissed the case was wrong in its interpretation of the right to privacy. Courts can be, and often are wrong. That's why we have appellate courts and ultimately the supreme. They are not infallible either, however, and have overturned many previous high court rulings. It generally doesn't happen overnight.


edit on 21-9-2010 by joechip because: to elaborate




edit on 21-9-2010 by joechip because: spelling




edit on 21-9-2010 by joechip because: elaboration



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 





is it really fair that women who work the same job as men, are more skilled at that job, more reliable, more experienced, should get a few dollars less in the workplace


This is not only unfair, it's illegal.

www.eeoc.gov...

As opposed to codified in law and generally accepted by society like the "unfairness" you are comparing it to.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


and what about SOME(not all mothers as thats a generalization,and some males problay do this too) who use there children as weapons against there fathers because the woman may have felt wronged in a relationship and deny them even visitation rights all the while while getting money id be happy just to haev a law signed saying if your paying for the childs future you should atleast get access EQUAL access to your half of the DNA with the only exceptions to that being the fatheres who have proven they can not be trusted around there offspring(eitehr they beat the crap out of them molest them or something like that would deny access to there children)

if people care about the rights of the child and the law cares about the rights of the child why are they allowed to be weilded as weapons in divorce hearings,and yes some men do this problay i cant think of a case off hand but that dose in no way mean it dosent occur



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


thats an interesting proposial i dont see to many problems with that and its a step in the right direction well thought out i firmly agree that if a man pays he should get to see his child unless hes a monster and we all know what that means



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


I love how you conveniently pass a post asking the same questions you have asked repeatedly only aimed at the other side.

I even directed the post to you specifically; I am still waiting for an answer.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is a link to the post; I am not going to spend the time reposting what has already been posted multiple times.

Raist



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


All without being the same towards woman who do.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


So if men see their children as proprety, please explain how NOW and most gender feminists opposed mandatory shared parenting unless there is abuse?

Oh here is the part where you say men are more likely to be abusers. WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLL.

Hate to break it to ya look it up. Custadial MOTHERS are more likely to be abusers than custodial dads.NEXT.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   

They have the right to keep their pants zipped if they can't step up to the plate.


I see. So in other words, women are exempt from needing to engage in sexual responsibility? Perhaps I am misunderstanding your statement; in which case, I would appreciate some clarification.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


But yet calling anyone who supports the right of a man to say he doesnt want to be a dad is a worthless sack is alright.. Do I got ya correct? By the way still waiting on that answer.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Yes.

And you aren't looking at MEN's rights.

You just pretend you are. You don't speak for all men. You barely qualify as being one - thinking you are advocating for the rest of them is your narcisstic fantasy.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by mayertuck
reply to post by Aeons
 


So if men see their children as proprety, please explain how NOW and most gender feminists opposed mandatory shared parenting unless there is abuse?

Oh here is the part where you say men are more likely to be abusers. WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLL.

Hate to break it to ya look it up. Custadial MOTHERS are more likely to be abusers than custodial dads.NEXT.


Fascinating - how you put words in my mouth, set it up like a strawman, and then knock that strawman over and then paradearound like a WWE Wrestler.

Sad really.


edit on 2010/9/21 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilrathiLG
reply to post by Aeons
 


and what about SOME(not all mothers as thats a generalization,and some males problay do this too) who use there children as weapons against there fathers because the woman may have felt wronged in a relationship and deny them even visitation rights all the while while getting money id be happy just to haev a law signed saying if your paying for the childs future you should atleast get access EQUAL access to your half of the DNA with the only exceptions to that being the fatheres who have proven they can not be trusted around there offspring(eitehr they beat the crap out of them molest them or something like that would deny access to there children)

if people care about the rights of the child and the law cares about the rights of the child why are they allowed to be weilded as weapons in divorce hearings,and yes some men do this problay i cant think of a case off hand but that dose in no way mean it dosent occur



Yes. Most men with a problem in this regard would get exactly this if they actually paid their lawyers to obtain it.

Find me the lawyer that won't take your money to proceed with your claim. Just because men are informed it might be unpleasant doesn't mean they COULDN'T.

The statistics are pretty clear that a very large percentage of men never even try to pursue this. They might SAY they do to their buddies - but the statistics of their cases speak for themselves.

And no - just because the other party involved is of another gender doesn't entitle them to other treatment.

Men don't pursue custody. When they do, they get it 70% of the time. That shows that given an attempt at getting custody, men recieve it MORE than equally.

Roll that one around.




posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
A child is its own person.

It is not an extension of its mother.

You cannot negotiate your obligations and rights to that child in reference to the Mother of that child.

You can only negotiate these in reference to the child themselves.

Every attempt to turn your arguements into "BUT Mommy ....." is red-herring.

The fact that this isn't obvious to so many of the men on this thread only shows how deeply ingrained it is with them to not see other people as humans.

You do not see a child as a person. Therefore, you cannot fathom how not to even DISCUSS them in any terms except as an extension of the hated "mother" of said inconvenience to you.

When you do at all, you only do so in terms that indicate that you see that PERSON like an inconveniently tanking stock you want to remove from your portfolio.


Your child is a PERSON. Not an extension of you, or the woman you are angry at. A real PERSON. With legal, civil, familial rights and constraints in legal, moral, ethical and existential terms.

Once you master this little teeny tiny idea, that the people around you EXIST and are REAL PEOPLE, even the small ones, then you'll start to clue in.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
Your child is a PERSON. Not an extension of you, or the woman you are angry at. A real PERSON. With legal, civil, familial rights and constraints in legal, moral, ethical and existential terms.


Yes - absolutely!

There was a time when the children automatically (in most cases) went to the mother. But that is not so anymore.

Courts involving children have changed dramatically - - there are few hard line laws anymore.

The new stance for child law is: "In the best interest of the child". And I'm pretty sure if parents show up and show loving concern for the welfare of the child - - - and not be at war with each other - - - neither parent will be excluded from that child's life.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons


Are you suggesting that teenage and young women take advantage of teen boys and young men for the purposes of reproduction?


Yes,just not all.

When support is there financialy, people will abuse it.

You dont believe there are poeple like that it the world,male or female?


edit on 21-9-2010 by gps777 because: clarity



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by mayertuck
 


Why would it not be alright to call a man who shuns his parental duty a worthless sack?
If he does not want to be a father, why engage in the only known activity that produces children?



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 

invetro fertilization can produce a baby with out "sex" you can have a baby placed in a willing uterus with out sex happening so sex isnt the only way to make a baby heck while its illegal now cloning could be popular some day and that could gasp produce children with out either parents having to have sex just contribute relevant dna who knows what the future will bring us?



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


Because it would not be alright to call a woman who shuns her parental responsibilities a worthless sack. This would make you a misogynist. The same way calling a man a dirty sleaze is fine but calling a woman a slut is being a misogynist. Double Standards.


edit on 21/9/2010 by Dark Ghost because: spelling



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join