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: 76
56
<< 73  74  75    77  78  79 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


So you admit we are discussing a moot issue, considering the highest court threw this baseless claim out years ago?

We can talk about it all day long but the court has decreed it to be a worthless case.




posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 

Uh, actually, Mr. Capitalize Every Word Unnecessarily, I was all for this law.
And yes, men do have the choice of simply NOT paying child support. Mine never did, and there is absolutely nothing that I can do about it. Yes, he was taken to court over it several times, because yes, my mom was trying to finish highschool and work full-time at the same time to raise me. She gave up after I started school because it was no longer a life-or-death situation, but he has quite a few court orders to pay, and never paid a dime of it.
Oh correction, his grandmother wrote my mom a cheque for 2 grand IN COURT to try to win the judge over and get him completely excused from paying child support, because he claimed to "not have a job" and yet still managed to go out to bars with his friends every weekend and buy beer, etc.
So yes, men have the ability to refuse to pay child support. In the end, there is almost no way to force it except by garnishing of wages, and if you're working for pay "under the counter", there is nothing to garnish and hence nothing to be gained.
Not only that, but the mother will be highly in debt from paying the lawyers, even if it was you, the man, who started another court case.

reply to post by joechip
 

Your assumption that the US is somehow "free" of these boundaries makes me laugh. Just because they can't screen you doesn't mean they can't take your child away for the slightest reason they find. All it takes is a phone call from an overly nosy neighbor. Did you know that your house being untidy takes points away from you if Social Services comes to see if you're doing ok raising your child? Lots of things do, such as a dog that barks, any dirty dishes being in sight, etc etc. I think that a lot of the reasons they can take away a child for are completely unreasonable. As I had already said, I think it should be a very BASIC course or test, designed only to make sure you will not cause the child physical or emotional distress. Legitimate emotional distress would obviously have to be well defined.


Presumption of Innocence: Yeah, the people stuck in Gitmo really had that going for them, huh? There are teenagers stuck there with no trial, no investigation. You tell me that a 13 year old who immigrated from the middle east when he was a BABY is somehow linked to terrorists. Despite being brought up in the US and learning everything in it's schools, up to and including an irrational fear and hatred of nearly nonexistent terrorists.

Privacy Rights: Sure, pretend you have those. The US government can tap any phone in the country without reason, and without anyone checking up to make sure they are using that power reasonably.
They can make your ISP provide a list of every website you have ever visited, and if you mis-click and end up on a "suspicious" site (such as this one, as there have been fairly prolific speeches in which "conspiracy theorists" were declared a national enemy in less words) it can be used against you in court.

"It runs counter to how we pretend to do things here"
Pretend is right.
And while you're off running your mouth about Canada, you might want to stop and think. We have more of what you claim to idealize than you do.



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by BiohazardsBack
 



Uh, actually, Mr. Capitalize Every Word Unnecessarily, I was all for this law.
And yes, men do have the choice of simply NOT paying child support. Mine never did, and there is absolutely nothing that I can do about it. Yes, he was taken to court over it several times, because yes, my mom was trying to finish highschool and work full-time at the same time to raise me. She gave up after I started school because it was no longer a life-or-death situation, but he has quite a few court orders to pay, and never paid a dime of it.


Really?

Is that your entire perspective?



I sort of thought... (Or Assumed I guess) that you had a relevant point to add to the discussion when I saw that you were replying to my post.

Boy, was *I* ever Wrong.



You say that Men are not *REQUIRED* to pay child support, because they can just break the law and not pay...


This phrase would be much like me saying... that Female Genital Mutilations are perfectly Fine, because the infant could *ALWAYS* escape their oppressive parents, and join the Circus.


Super good at Logic, aren't you?



-Edrick



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by BiohazardsBack
 


While many of your points are valid, they are beside the point. If you can, on the one hand argue for "screening" of all parents, while simultaneously point out examples of governmental overreach that already exist; assert that I'm claiming our system is perfect with regard to "presumption of innocence" or privacy rights, then quote my own words where I clearly say that these rights are not being honored here, you obviously don't get my point at all. You're saying, I guess, 'since these are examples of governmental overreach, another, even more blatant one wouldn't hurt.' Unsound reasoning. I am vocal in my criticism of Gitmo, social services that treat poor people as second-class citizens, and really anything that chips away at basic rights and fair treatment by our government. I was in no way saying "America is better than Canada." I was saying I have an interest in how MY government is becoming more and more of a police state. I have no interest in your country whatsoever. Just pointing out that you're making a terrible suggestion that runs counter to our stated principles. I only guessed that that was possibly based on an acceptance of such governmental overreach in your OWN country. Maybe, it's just your own lack of respect for freedom and privacy that you're voicing. If so, my bad.


edit on 26-9-2010 by joechip because: spelling



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
www.y100.com...

well a partial soloution sort of to one of the problems divorce insurance....kinda sets the wrong example if your getting married but these are the times we live in

i dont even get how you could get one of these policys but the fact that they seem to be comman is kind of surprising


edit on 26-9-2010 by KilrathiLG because: comment



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


Those are actually nothing alike. One is a grown man choosing to ignore the law, the other is a newborn or infant managing to escape while it is still too young to walk.
My "relevant point" was that your shaming of anyone who chose to give a family their child, because you see giving someone the greatest gift they could ever hope for as somehow morally wrong, was unfounded.
And yes, I am "super good" at logic, actually, but that is really not the point here, and also, obviously you will not see that, since you equate a grown man breaking the law to his own advantage to a BABY escaping mutilation of their own free will and skill.


reply to post by joechip
 

I do value a child's well-being over privacy in THIS specific regard. Because it is not private, you are taking care of another human being who cannot take care of themselves, and just because they are made of your sperm or egg does not give you free license to do whatever you please to it.
And as I have said, the government couldn't manage full-out parental screening right now, but adoption agencies could easily handle paternal screening in the cases where a woman wants to give up her child for adoption willingly (which is quite rare compared to how many women keep their children or abort) and also does not want the father to have the child (which usually would either mean either the man is not fit to be a father, or the woman is being stupid and/or petty)
In such a case, rather than a large court procedure, which actually minimizes the man's chance of getting custody because of all the money spent on lawyers, he could go through a simple set of tests, one to ensure he was emotionally and mentally fit to be a parent (which works almost perfectly in adoptive homes so far), maybe one to try to minimize any "down talking" of the mother, because that is damaging to the child to hear from a parent unless they are old enough to understand the complexities of adult relationships and that your opinion is biased due to experience.
And as I said, I think the financial limits should be somewhat more forgiving for relatives, because the financial restrictions currently in place in most places are actually quite high compared to how to majority of the population lives.
And obviously if he thinks the company messed up in some way or another, he could resort to court action if he felt the need to.

It would just add an easier, less biased way for a father to get sole custody (because honestly, unless the mother is SERIOUSLY mentally ill and shows it in court, that won't happen today). Not that the current system would be abolished, but that another one would be implemented, because honestly, I do not think there is any way for a father to dispute the adoption of his child right now, unless they have been a part of "a family" at some point. Especially if it is a baby, the man has absolutely no say in it now, and this way he could have a chance. A chance is better than none, even if you do think it infringes on people's "privacy", I am sure that a man in this specific situation would beg to differ if it would give him a chance to be the dad he wants to be, I don't think he would take a step back and say "Wait a minute, this invades my privacy, so I refuse to be a part of it"



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by BiohazardsBack
 




I do value a child's well-being over privacy in THIS specific regard. Because it is not private, you are taking care of another human being who cannot take care of themselves, and just because they are made of your sperm or egg does not give you free license to do whatever you please to it.


Our courts have long established the right of family privacy based upon the Constitution. What you value is, luckily, not the basis of American law. The nanny state 'screening' you espouse presumes that the government has any legitimate right to infringe on basic privacy and family matters. Our constitution and courts say otherwise. You can disrespect that document all you want. Not your business, really. Not your country, not your Constitution. Not your family being 'screened." But nevertheless, I'll point out the obvious fact that a principle isn't really a principle if you void it, in ANY "specific regard."



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


I have said 3 or 4 times now that I do not think this should (at least in a society like today's) be the role of the GOVERNMENT. I have repeated over and over how it should be PRIVATE ADOPTION AGENCIES who have the *option* of screening for free the biological father for parenthood, in the event that the mother does not want the child and will not willingly give it to him, but chooses instead to give it to an adoption agency.

All these things you are claiming, repeating the phrase "nanny state" in an attempt to sway outside readers to be fearful of what I am saying, bringing up that it is a "constitutional right" to try to make it sound like it is a right of LIFE, where it is actually imposed by a government, and in other cultures people are more likely to jump in and try to teach the parents a thing or two and that assistance is something to be thankful for, rather than something to hiss about it being None Of Their Business how you treat another living being.

And by all means, yes, my family SHOULD have been screened. I am full of problems because my mother was too young to be mentally stable enough to care for a child. Maybe if she had some sort of guidance on how to control her emotions and keep them from biting at me in her words, I would be a happy person, instead of having been near-constantly depressed since I was in grade school, due to her unknowingly making me feel as though I had ruined everything in her life. And that was unintentional! Think of the damage that can, and has been done by people who are simply cruel.

And please, please note that nowhere in my original post did I say "The government of the united states should do this". I was not insisting that this was "the right choice" for your country.
Your blasé comments about how you do not Care what my government does, paired with your insistence on believing that everyone who speaks about what "the government" should do is talking about YOUR government, shows one of the many reasons why I could never live in the US, along with the tragedy that is the only Western country without some form of health care, and the complete lack of the values most citizens claim to hold dear and yet did nothing to stop from being taken away from them. No, this does not specifically mean you personally did nothing, just that the country as a whole has done nothing to make sure the things they want get done, and the things they don't want, don't get done. And honestly, if what you've "done" is ranted on a forum, you've really done nothing at all.
So by all means, rally against screening of parents. It isn't me you'll be affecting. It is your country's children.
And I try my best to be all "Oh won't someone PLEASE think of the children" but it is hard to overlook the simple FACTS.

In 2007, approximately 794,000 children in the US were the victim of some form of abuse or neglect. And because of when census data is taken, it was hard to track down figures for 2007, but in 2006, there were an estimated 73.7 million children under 18 years of age. That is about 1%, or if you think of it in terms of actual people instead of just statistics, 1 in 100 children. Given that the average number of children per elementary school is somewhere in the 350-500 range, that means about 4 children per school. But not really, because 32% of victims are under 4 years old, so they are too young to have been taught to tell anyone, and too young to even have anyone to tell, such as a teacher.
It is not, as some claim, "an immigrant problem", as 46% of the victims were white. It is a part of your country's society, and cannot be pinned on anyone else. Not that I think you as a person might do that, just that it is my experience that many people
Nearly 80 percent of perpetrators of child maltreatment (79.9%) were parents. 87.7% of the "parents" were actual biological parents.
This means that ~550,000 parents (because almost all cases are either of an only child, or of only one child in the household suffering from abuse) could have benefited from this kind of training, as could their children. And that is only the reported cases, there are plenty unreported.
And that is also only ONE YEAR of reported cases. Seeing as how 30% of victims are under 4, one can extrapolate that they have a chance each year of being a victim, so their odds would be higher than 1 in 100. Forgive me if my math is wrong, but I would say that makes it 1 in 25? That seems like an inordinately high risk to me, one that justifies an intrusion of privacy.



posted on Sep, 26 2010 @ 10:41 PM
link   


have said 3 or 4 times now that I do not think this should (at least in a society like today's) be the role of the GOVERNMENT
reply to post by BiohazardsBack
 


If it was a law that all parents be screened, it wouldn't matter if private agencies preformed the screening or not. The law itself and not the screening would be the overreach that I find objectionable. Just as "private prisons" are actually government agents due to their contract to do government work. And if it weren't mandatory, I would have no problem with it, though without incentives, nobody would sign up for screening. And it would still represent, at least on the Federal level, a task beyond the prescribed scope of our government. However, if individual privacy rights were not being violated, I personally wouldn't complain.
Are we done?



posted on Sep, 27 2010 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by BiohazardsBack
 



Those are actually nothing alike.


You don't know what a Metaphor is either.


Let me spell it out for you:


We used to have Laws that prevented Women from Working. And that's not so bad... because they could have just ignored the law anyways.


One is a grown man choosing to ignore the law, the other is a newborn or infant managing to escape while it is still too young to walk.


You don't know what Communication Consists Of.

You are Throwing Emotions At Me.

Stop It.


Words MEAN things... Get that Through your Head.


My "relevant point" was that your shaming of anyone who chose to give a family their child


Because she wasn't responsible enough to raise the child on her own, any yet, made the decision to engage in Reproductive Intercourse, Anyways.


because you see giving someone the greatest gift they could ever hope for as somehow morally wrong, was unfounded.


I'm sure that your nightmarishly labyrinthine "Emotional Cortex" tells you that.

That sentence was not relevant to the discussion at all.

I am discussing the Mothers Legal Right to DROP ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR A CHILD THAT SHE GIVES BIRTH TO BECAUSE SHE MADE THE DECISION TO HAVE SEX.

(That was *ALL* Shift.)


And yes, I am "super good" at logic


You have already proven that you are not.


actually, but that is really not the point here, and also, obviously you will not see that, since you equate a grown man breaking the law to his own advantage to a BABY escaping mutilation of their own free will and skill.


What choice does a Fetus have.... Against Abortion, oh Blessed Disciple of the Free Will of the Child?


Or is it STILL only a HUMAN when it is CONVENIENT FOR YOU?

-Edrick (CoatHanger, the Other Deadbeat Parent)



posted on Sep, 27 2010 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


Human status is legally granted at birth. I am not, unlike you, of the religious standing. I do not believe in souls or the sanctity of something that has not yet taken a breath. But I will adamantly protect anything that at alive, which, yes, does require the ability to breathe in the case of human beings.
And the fetuses that are aborted in North America legally are done so at a point in their development where scientists have shown that they do not react to pain, which in all likelihood means they do not feel it, the same as someone in a coma does not feel it when you pinch them.

And I'm not going to argue with you about your false perception of my intelligence or logic-based reasoning skills, because you are using only your emotions and personal beliefs to fuel this fire, so obviously there is no way to prove something to you that you do not have the capacity to understand.

And no. Adoptive parents tell me that. They thank their luck constantly that they were able to find the child they so desperately wanted. You shift between calling me Emotional and insinuating that I am heartless.
And the sentence was relevant to OUR discussion. If you'd like to talk about irrelevancy in the thread, I will point towards you bashing abortion and adoption in a thread based on a father's fight for the right to refuse to pay child support, in a series of posts not even referencing the main topic.

"I am discussing the Mothers Legal Right to DROP ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR A CHILD THAT SHE GIVES BIRTH TO BECAUSE SHE MADE THE DECISION TO HAVE SEX."
Yes. She has that right, and she has had that right and has done such things for thousands of years, whether it is allowed by law or not, women will continue to give their babies away. What you were ACTUALLY doing was shaming women who have given up their babies for adoption by calling it all sorts of unpleasant things and shouting about it. What I was saying was that her decision which you deem selfish actually benefited others who were unable to conceive, to try to show you that it was not as entirely evil as you claim.
"(That was *ALL* Shift.) "
I assume you mean you held the Shift button rather than using Caps Lock? What does this add to the discussion? This is how I write my capital letters as well, it does not negate the fact that you are coming across as yelling.

"Because she wasn't responsible enough to raise the child on her own, any yet, made the decision to engage in Reproductive Intercourse, Anyways."
Not all intercourse is had for the purpose of Procreation. If you think the sole reason to have sex is to create a child, you will be a highly unsatisfied human being.
On this line of thought, are condoms "wrong"? Are they a couple Refusing Their Responsibility? Or just a couple Being Responsible?
Because legally, a condom is the same as an early-term abortion. It is a form of birth control. And if you don't believe in birth control as a whole, then really everything else is a moot point, and you simply condemn any sexual activity not intended to create a child, which really is irrelevant to this thread, because this is about people who DO NOT want a child, and saying "You are all wrong, make sex for babies only and no other reason" isn't really helping the issue at hand at all. People have sex. People are having sex RIGHT NOW. People are going to continue to have sex and not want the child that may result from it.
That is not what this thread is really about, it is about the lack of Father's Rights in the face of the Mother's Rights. It is about an inconsistency in equality that either should or should not be fixed, depending on your standpoint. It is not about how so-and-so other COMPLETELY unrelated thing is right or wrong.
It is about a genetic father's rights or lack thereof, and a genetic mother's rights or lack thereof, in the case that a child IS born.
The facts are these:
A father can have sex with any woman, lover, friend, or stranger, and be held accountable financially for it without any opt-out system if the woman gets pregnant.
A mother can have sex with any man, lover, friend, or stranger. If she gets pregnant, she has several options. She can abort it immediately, eliminating all responsibility to both parties. This is not up for debate. She can, and this is not the point of the thread. The father has no right to say "no you cannot" or "you have to do this". She can give the baby to someone else, either through adoption, or simply giving it to a trusted family member or friend, again eliminating all responsibility to both parties. Again, not up for debate. Again, the father cannot say "you have to" or "you cannot".
She can keep the baby. Under this heading, there are several options.
She can take care of it with the father, who does so willingly. They will have shared responsibility. This is most people's "ideal" situation for what has happened.
She can allow him to take care of it on his own, essentially "adopting" it out to him, and can even fill in the paperwork to do so.
She can take care of it herself, refusing him access (or allowing some) but also not demanding his help.
She can take care of it herself, refuse him any more than the most basic, court ordered access (which is sometimes still zero contact whatsoever) and demand that he pay child support to help her financially.
And there is the inconsistency. The woman can DEMAND something from the man due to having his baby. The man cannot demand anything from the woman for having his baby, nor can he legally refuse her demand once it has gone through the court system successfully.

And so, this thread is not about the many options women can take, and the rightness or wrongness thereof. It is about the "options" men have, and the fairness or unfairness of it.

"You are Throwing Emotions At Me.

Stop It. "
What emotions are in the statement I made? Can someone of an outside perspective show me how a grown man breaking the law (which is not an emotional statement, because I have "broken the law" as have most people either intentionally or unintentionally in their past. I do not state it as a good thing or bad thing, just as a fact) is equivalent to a baby managing a super-human feat and escaping mutilation.
Again, no emotion there. A baby physically cannot escape genital mutilation, which is what you had brought up as an equivalent in an earlier post. This is again a fact. I am not crying about baby mutilation, because while I know the horrors of it, what with being an active participant in places far from the cozy comfort of safe, reliable, reasonably sane ATS, and have heard the stories of the girls who are older and still not physically able to escape the process due to being restrained by people much stronger than themselves. In some countries, they can be shot if they try to run away from it. This is nothing like a father choosing not to give someone his money, despite being told to do so by "The Authority". Unless they garnish his wages, he does not logistically have to pay. They cannot put him in jail for it, all they can do is repeat their demand. These are all facts. I rarely succumb to emotions on this board, at least in my words. The person behind the screen is of course, another case altogether, but there were no emotions in that statement. Your perception is different from the reality, as I had already seen in previous posts.

But by all means, if someone other than you can logically point out how the statement that babies cannot physically escape mutilation is somehow a figment of emotion rather than fact, by all means. I will review my statement yet again and try to see the angle they are coming from, as I have just done with you.


"We used to have Laws that prevented Women from Working. And that's not so bad... because they could have just ignored the law anyways. "
No, again, you are wrong here. There were not laws that refused women the right to work. There were laws that refused women the right to keep the money they earned by working. This meant that their husbands could force them to work for much less pay and much more difficult work than men did, and then he could take her money and spend it however he wanted to, be it a gift for her or the children, or booze for himself and a hooker or two. This was the problem.
Women have always worked, they just gained the right to not have their money stolen by their husband.
And they did ignore the law. They worked secretly, and hid the money. But the man could then beat her for hiding it from him, or have her thrown in jail for it.
In this case, the man breaking this law has almost no ramifications. They cannot be put in jail, they cannot be fined any more than they already owe. They can be dragged back to court, but that can happen even if they are paying what they are told, if the woman decides she "needs" more.


reply to post by joechip
 


And again, what I proposed in this thread was that there should be some sort of law forcing agencies to do the screening for FREE. Fathers can already plead with the agency to get their child back. They won't get it, because many agencies get money for placing babies in homes.
It would be a VOLUNTARY screening, the man would choose to go through with it if the mother refused to give him the child and instead put it up for adoption.
What you are now building off of is how you deemed it ridiculous and said it would lead to screening of all parents, to which I replied, "that's great"
It was not the original topic, it is not related to paternal rights, whereas adding the right to get your child for free and not having to pay the adoption agency they are given to certainly is related to adding paternal rights.

"And if it weren't mandatory, I would have no problem with it, though without incentives, nobody would sign up for screening."
It isn't mandatory in my suggestion. It is an option a father can take if he so chooses, in the case that the mother is giving up the child without his approval.
"And it would still represent, at least on the Federal level, a task beyond the prescribed scope of our government."
In my situation described, it would be one law to pass and then the government would not deal with it again. They could probably manage it just fine, or if not, then things would stay the way they are, with genetic fathers unable to retrieve their baby from an adoption agency.

"However, if individual privacy rights were not being violated, I personally wouldn't complain. "
Good, then I suppose after this clarification post, we are done

Since it is a matter of personal choice to do so, in the same way prospective adoptive parents choose to do so in order to get a child, then it shouldn't infringe on privacy rights at all, yes? I assume that the inherent lack of privacy in adoption screening is acceptable if the person chooses to go through the process of their own free will?


Aaaand it is now 4 AM, so I am done for the night.



posted on Sep, 27 2010 @ 04:48 AM
link   


Yes, some people SHOULD be screened before becoming parents. And since you can't pick them out of a lineup, that means ALL parents should be screened. Just. In. Case.
reply to post by BiohazardsBack
 


As you can see here, your own words belie your further "clarification." You know, it's okay to realize you were wrong about an issue and retract your statement. We weren't discussing this exclusively in an adoption scenario, but let's do that if you wish. If we're talking about adoption only, we still have the problem of the baby being the mother's with no question, and the father's if he can prove, not paternity, but fitness.(And the mother waives her parental rights, which he cannot do) Different standard, unequal protection. Unconstitutional. Accepted in America today. Your solution doesn't fix it. And if we screen unwed mothers as well, before allowing them to become parents (never happen, but if) to address the unequal protection, we then have unequal protection between married and unmarried people. Then we have to screen married couples, too. Get it?
The statement above stands on its own, and is an example of governmental overreach being embraced for the so-called "greater good."



Since it is a matter of personal choice to do so, in the same way prospective adoptive parents choose to do so in order to get a child, then it shouldn't infringe on privacy rights at all, yes? I assume that the inherent lack of privacy in adoption screening is acceptable if the person chooses to go through the process of their own free will?


Privacy rights are not mutually exclusive of "personal choice." Quite the opposite. Because I choose to have and raise a child does in no way mean I've chosen to be screened by an adoption agency. My fitness to parent is assumed if I am:
1) a single woman who is a biological mother
2) a married couple who are biological parents
Not if I am a single man who is a biological father. That was my original point, and it stands. You can't keep adding to the overreach to address the inequality. Justice addresses unjust inequality by removing the injustice, not applying it to everyone equally.
Yeah, I think I'm done, anyway, because I reread our posts, and I've made my point clearly enough already.


edit on 27-9-2010 by joechip because: to add



posted on Sep, 27 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


Well as I said in my last post, that comment was in response to you claiming that "next I would want all parents to be screened" in an attempt to make me take back my idea, which obviously did not work. That was not from the original post and idea, it was from an extreme offshoot that was entirely my opinion of how to world should work, and there is absolutely no way to change that opinion, because I already know the facts and have made up my mind. Deeming it Unconstitutional does not make it Wrong in my opinion.

And again, this is in the case of a mother NOT wanting the man to be the father, and NOT wanting him to have access to the child.
If a man calls up social services on the woman who had his baby, yes, they will come investigate. This is essentially the same thing as a S.S. investigation, just done beforehand so that the child doesn't have as much chance of suffering. The woman has already said that she does not think he can be a good parent. She has already expressed doubt as to his ability to adequately raise a child. This is not a random screening inflicted upon the Poor Underprivileged Men.

Why do you think the average mother giving up her child would not want the father to have it?
There are 2 options, one is she is mean. The other is he is not fit to be a parent in her eyes.

There is nothing saying that the woman cannot up and give the child to the father if she so chooses. We are talking about IF the she thinks he shouldn't have the child. What do you think then, in that case?
Because most women have a good sense for this sort of thing, if we assume that they are telling the truth, as per your Presumed Innocence.
She may have circumstantial evidence that points to him being unable to provide a stable home for her child.

Obviously you are only seeing the benign reasons behind this (selfish mom, slight problems in dad that are not going to affect the child). There are plenty of probable reasons a mom would have to think a man was unfit to be her child's parent.

"If we're talking about adoption only, we still have the problem of the baby being the mother's with no question, and the father's if he can prove, not paternity, but fitness."
Right now, he doesn't even have a chance. Or, he can, but he will have to pay the adoption agency fees, and he doesn't REALLY have a chance, because waiting lists for healthy newborns is in the category of years, not months. His child would be long gone by the time he was at the start of the list, and also the restrictions would probably prevent him from getting on The List in the first place, due to probably being single, or at least unmarried, and due to not having enough money to do a court proceeding instead, which is currently the only way to get your child that is being put up for adoption by someone else.
And again, all my points about merely putting sperm into an egg not qualifying you as an adequate father, or even babysitter in many cases.

".(And the mother waives her parental rights, which he cannot do)"
Are we not in a thread discussing whether or not the father should have the right to waive paternal rights? Have I not repeatedly said that unless he is doing so multiple times, it seems like a valid point?
We are not talking about the mother's right to give up her child, nor are we (in this conversation) talking about the father's lack thereof. We are talking about his lack of rights to HAVE his child in his life, which is a related but different parental right issue.


As to your second part of your post, again, in my last post I made it clear that the CURRENT method of attaining your child from the mother should remain in place. That method is through the court. It is therefore his CHOICE whether he wants to deal with this "invasion of privacy", or deal with the current invasion of privacy that is the court system. It is not the choice to try to get his child that results in this. It is his choice to try to do so for free, that is the choice that results in the process you deem undesirable.
But from the men I know who have faced harsh custody battles, this is by far the preferable method.

So tell me, what do you think of the current system in place to decide custody and visitation? Not it's fairness, but it's "constitutionality" (honestly, do not have another word or phrase to describe it. I bet you guys have one, but I don't know it. In case my made up word makes no sense, is it constitutionally acceptable or not?)



posted on Sep, 27 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by BiohazardsBack
 



I am not, unlike you, of the religious standing.


Oh, I love this Game... Now tell me what my Religion *IS*!

Who do I worship???

Who were my Ancestors?!?!?

What am I thinking!???

Your assumptions paint you as a desperate incompetent.



I do not believe in souls or the sanctity of something that has not yet taken a breath.


And why does oxygen play such a pivotal role in your decision to recognize something as Alive?


But I will adamantly protect anything that at alive, which, yes, does require the ability to breathe in the case of human beings.


Nope, I'm sorry... but that is merely an arbitrary classification of stupidity that you have thrown in there to justify Murder.

Oxygen respiration is QUITE ACTIVE in any fetus...

But, given that their own lungs are submerged in amniotic fluid, they must get all of their oxygen from the Mother's Bloodstream.

Therefore, the child is ACTUALLY Breathing.


So, let's just add Science and Biology to the list of things that you know nothing about.


And the fetuses that are aborted in North America legally are done so at a point in their development where scientists have shown that they do not react to pain, which in all likelihood means they do not feel it, the same as someone in a coma does not feel it when you pinch them.


So, you are saying that If I put you in a coma, you wouldn't have a problem with me stabbing your brain with an icepick then?


And I'm not going to argue with you about your false perception of my intelligence or logic-based reasoning skills


Oh, I'm sorry... I didn't realize that what we Were ALREADY DOING, wasn't an argument.

Silly me, reading the Dictionary and all that...




because you are using only your emotions and personal beliefs to fuel this fire


Wow, if that's not the Pot calling the Kettle Black.


You are angry that any "Man" would tell you that maybe Offing the "Little Piece of Flesh" in your womb isn't such a Holy and Sanctified act....

So, your decision is more important than the Potential Life of a Child?

IS that what You are saying?

Then why isn't a MAN'S decision more important than the potential life of a child?

Answer me that question, if you can.


so obviously there is no way to prove something to you that you do not have the capacity to understand.


That sentence was so full of irony.... I guffawed.


And no. Adoptive parents tell me that. They thank their luck constantly that they were able to find the child they so desperately wanted.


And just think of all of the Many More Happy Couples that would be able to raise adopted children, if the father was able to decide whether he wanted anything to do with a child that he has no choices about.


You shift between calling me Emotional and insinuating that I am heartless.


Oh, and comparing me to the religious right in an attempt to belittle my argumenative point only clearly reveals your motivations in protecting the mothers right to chose, and preventing the fathers from having ANY CHOICE AT ALL.

LIKE THEY ARE SLAVES.



In case I need to Remind You.... the Topic of this Thread *IS*



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




It's called EQUALITY, you know.... where men and women have the SAME AMOUNT OF RIGHTS, instead of women becoming Cruel, State sponsored Tyrants the moment the man places his penis in your Vagina.



See to your inability to comprehend the Concept of Equality, Would you?


You are making yourself look bad.

-Edrick




edit on 27-9-2010 by Edrick because: clarification



posted on Sep, 27 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   


(Second line is All sorts of Relevant)

-Edrick



posted on Sep, 27 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


"but that is merely an arbitrary classification of stupidity that you have thrown in there to justify Murder. "
Ahaha ahahaha ahaha. No. It is the LAW. I did not make up the law, in fact, it was probably in place before I was born.
"But, given that their own lungs are submerged in amniotic fluid, they must get all of their oxygen from the Mother's Bloodstream.

Therefore, the child is ACTUALLY Breathing. "
Breathing requires being in air. Laws (as well as some parts of the bible) dictate that living status is granted "at first breath", which means breathing AIR, not liquid oxygen in a bloodstream. That is not breathing, it is absorbing oxygen. Plants absorb air too, but they do not have lungs, and are therefore not breathing.
"And why does oxygen play such a pivotal role in your decision to recognize something as Alive? "
Not oxygen. Air. And because, as I have stated, it is the law that is in place.

"Oh, I love this Game... Now tell me what my Religion *IS*!

Who do I worship??? "
It doesn't matter, though I could make an extremely easy educated guess. Your insistence that sex is for the sole purpose of procreation labels you immediately as a Christian of some sort.
Your insistence that abortion is wrong is characteristic of militant Christians.
Your ACTUAL religion could be many, but your ideologies and statements are those of a Christian, whether you are one or not, you have obviously been heavily influenced by the more aggressive of the bunch.
More importantly, I do not have any problem with religion or those who are religious, as long as they do not attempt to force others to follow their personal religion's "code of conduct". People can believe that abortion is wrong. I do not argue with them on the morality of it. Morality is subjective, though, and morality is not a basis for laws, mainly because others believe it is alright and not immoral, and forcing them to follow laws based on someone's personal morals is, coincidentally, what this board both advocates and refuses, depending on which religion the morals are coming from. Don't believe me? Ask people about Sharia Law. Almost everyone non-muslim agrees that it should not be implemented in their not-completely-muslim country. And yet, they think that their Christian belief that abortion is immoral should be implemented in their not-completely-christian country.


"So, you are saying that If I put you in a coma, you wouldn't have a problem with me stabbing your brain with an icepick then? "
No. No I would not have a problem with that at all. The law would, but I personally would not. I would not feel the pain, and would not be aware that I had died.

"Oh, I'm sorry... I didn't realize that what we Were ALREADY DOING, wasn't an argument.

Silly me, reading the Dictionary and all that... "
Nowhere did I say I would not argue with you. What I said was that I would not argue with you about my INTELLIGENCE, because hey, quoting your IQ on a forum is both stupid, and useless, as any valid information I could bring up to assert my intelligence level would be immediately dismissed as a lie. I refuse to argue on this point because it is, in fact, fruitless. There is nothing I can bring up and prove as a fact. There is nothing I can say and quote legitimate sources of, because guess what, my level of intelligence is not broadcast by medical reviewers on the internet! I know, shocking, right?

"Wow, if that's not the Pot calling the Kettle Black.
You are angry that any "Man" would tell you that maybe Offing the "Little Piece of Flesh" in your womb isn't such a Holy and Sanctified act...."
When did I say abortion is Holy? I think the entire notion of Holyness is imaginary and made up. Having an abortion can be the right choice, not due to what specific people believe someone in the sky told someone else thousands of years ago, but because of an individual person's circumstances in life.
"So, your decision is more important than the Potential Life of a Child?
IS that what You are saying? "
Fetuses are not children, scientifically or legally. There is no need to bring morality into this, because other people have different beliefs. You should not be allowed to force your belief that something incapable of human thought is a human.
"Then why isn't a MAN'S decision more important than the potential life of a child?
Answer me that question, if you can. "
What man's decision? I don't even know what you are referencing here. Are you trying to say that a man should be able to force a woman to abort? Are you saying that he should be able to force her not to? Are you just stringing together words that don't really relate to the topic at hand in an attempt to confuse me?

"And just think of all of the Many More Happy Couples that would be able to raise adopted children, if the father was able to decide whether he wanted anything to do with a child that he has no choices about. "
I don't even know where this comes from either. Are you insinuating that more women would give their babies up for adoption if they could not get child support from the father? That seems highly unlikely to me, once a woman has decided to have her baby, nothing that happens can change her mind, in my experience.
And if it was the "type" of woman to get pregnant just to trick a man into paying child support, then it would result in more abortions, not adoptions, once the law went into effect. There might be one year of extra kids up for adoption, but no longer than it took for these women to realize they weren't going to get what they wanted and stop having babies for any reason other than a desire to have babies.


And ONCE AGAIN, in response to your ignorance of my previous comments wherein you shout about the thread title and about how men's rights are being ignored, I have said numerous times, and at least once to you, that I support the idea of allowing men an additional "out" from being responsible for unwanted children, as long as he is not a repeat offender, poking holes in condoms to make women get pregnant and then abusing the system to get out of paying for them.

"where men and women have the SAME AMOUNT OF RIGHTS, instead of women becoming Cruel, State sponsored Tyrants the moment the man places his penis in your Vagina."
Do you know the statistics of how many women do not ask for child support? No. So calling all women who have sex Cruel Tyrants is yet another form of expressing your emotions, which are both illogical and by definition considered prejudice against women, and Misogyny.
And calling women who believe they cannot handle the responsibility of child-rearing alone names, all the while declaring that abortion and adoption are WRONG and should be ABOLISHED because they are (to you) IMMORAL, that is a double-standard. You want women to be the sole holders of responsibility,and men to have the ability to eschew it for a life of spending their money on themselves? Great. That's perfectly fine. But do not claim to be a Super Special Ambassador Of Equality.
"only clearly reveals your motivations in protecting the mothers right to chose, and preventing the fathers from having ANY CHOICE AT ALL. "
Again, you are replying in a direct thread. I can see the exact places where you chose to ignore the statements you didn't want to believe came from my mouth. I am ALL FOR this choice. I am ALL FOR giving fathers more rights, and more ability to refuse responsibilities in the same way that women can. I have ABSOLUTELY no problem with the idea of giving men the option of trying to show why they shouldn't have to pay child support. I am also a firm believer of child support not putting the father any further below the line of poverty than the mother would be if she had support.
For example: Woman works, makes enough money to pay for rent and food, wants money for her child to be able to buy them clothing and school supplies.
Man works, lives in a building that could easily be classified as a slum, eats ramen for every meal.
No. He shouldn't have to pay child support, because he is worse off than the woman and child.

Woman is disabled. Cannot work, has been declared unable to work for whatever reason, and proven in a court of law. Collects some form of social aid. Has enough to feed child somehow. Lives with family in a small apartment that is infested.
Man works an ok-ish job. Makes enough to scrape by. Isn't poor, but isn't well-off either. Has a tight budget.
Someone should work with both parents to try to make a budget that allows for some money to be given to the woman, so she can contribute to household finances, and move into somewhere safer for the child and/or find ways to bring the living quarters to an acceptable level.

There are all sorts of different circumstances, and in some, the man shouldn't be held accountable (woman has multiple babies by different fathers. Gets child support from all of them. Wears expensive clothing while claiming she doesn't have enough to "take care of her baby") and situations where he should be (man has steady income, luxuries, multiple babies by different women. Pays nothing to any of them. Mothers live in poverty)


Equality is a LOT harder than you think, and neither forcing everyone to be accountable (banning any form of not taking care of your own child yourself, as you have suggested) nor allowing everyone to get away with not being accountable (letting people of either gender milk the system for all it's worth) is the answer. The answer is difficult, and probably in this day and age, impossible. There is no way that the parental court system will have enough resources to check up on every parental dispute to the level needed to achieve actual equality.
Just because I am a realist, though, does not mean I think that it shouldn't be attempted.


""because you are using only your emotions and personal beliefs to fuel this fire"

"Wow, if that's not the Pot calling the Kettle Black.""

Actually, I pointed out all the logic in my statement. I offered you and others the chance to point out what part of my statement was emotionally charged. You have chosen not to do so, essentially sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalallalalala I'm right you're wrong lalalalalala". I assume this is because you could not find any.
So while you will never see the errors in your ways and words, due to a refusal to revisit anything you have previously said from another standpoint, at least others will see your irrationality and not take your accusations as truths.

As much fun as I have dissecting the words of internet trolls, yours are getting incredibly repetitive. If you intend to keep provoking people, I suggest you find something upon which to build your arsenal.
Because stating that I believe things that I have outright said that I do not believe multiple times isn't really bothersome, except for my nagging worry that you will someday raise a child to be as blind and ignorant as yourself.
And before you claim not to be, re-read this conversation. See where you acknowledged my statement, and then later on where you acted like you have never heard it before. So either you are blind or forgetful, which is fine because I am forgetful as well, but the handy little links at the top of these quaint little "arguments" which I would, at least on my end, call a debate seeing as almost all of my statements were based on actual facts, with the obvious exception of my extrapolation that you are in some way religious, which I admit is entirely based on assumptions and previous knowledge. I cannot prove or disprove it, I can merely say that it is what I have observed, the same as any scientist can and does do when creating an experiment.


edit on 27-9-2010 by BiohazardsBack because: completely forgot that I was not done finishing up an earlier point.



posted on Sep, 27 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by BiohazardsBack
 





Well as I said in my last post, that comment was in response to you claiming that "next I would want all parents to be screened" in an attempt to make me take back my idea, which obviously did not work


If I had actually said that, wouldn't you simply quote it for real, as we have a functional tool for doing so?

Attempting at this point in the discussion to re-contextualize the argument is intellectually dishonest. (And a little silly as these posts are here forever and easy to go back to and check). Here you go, your own actual words from another post in our discussion:



But I am firmly in the belief that parents SHOULD be tested, and trained.


As I said, I reread all of our posts. Nice try. Just admit you're wrong, and we'll move on, okay?



posted on Sep, 27 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by BiohazardsBack
 


This is my first post on the subject.

reply to post by joechip
 

This is your first response on the subject.

Originally posted by joechip
Being "screened" for fitness both places the father in the position of "guilty until proven innocent," something not done with women, as well as illustrates the principle that his rights derive from her, not from his biological relationship with the child. Unequal, yet again.

So you do not say exactly my paraphrasing, no, but you do say something to the effect of it being unfair because women are not subjected to the same thing in my hypothetical situation.
I then do in fact reply with my thought that yes, it should be equal, and yes, mothers should be screened too, but that it wasn't logistically possible. This is due to the overall lack of circumstances in which a woman would have reason to prove she was a fit parent.

I admit that I must have fabricated a sentence or two in our conversation some time over the days that it happened. I apologize for not double-checking, I was just fairly certain that it had happened, and I would like to blame it on being very ill right now and posting when exhausted, but in the end it is still human error.
I was definitely not purposefully trying to make something up.

But I would like to point out that it isn't really a form of presumed guilt in this situation proposed, because the woman has said, listen, he shouldn't be the father, and would probably have to give reasons why not. Whether ot not they are true is a different matter. If he calls CPS and tells them she is beating her children, she will get investigated whether or not it is true, yes? And if it is true she will face consequences and if it is not, she will have still had to go through some sort of testing to ensure that it was not true.
that is really the more accurate comparison in situation, as far as I can see. Because it is not that the government is assuming he is unfit to be a parent. Someone who knows him is saying it, and more importantly, the person whose child it is is saying it.
People who work in Child Care (day care, teaching, etc) have to go through a police screening, is that a presumption of guilt? Not really. It is a way to ensure safety. And they have to do it whether or not someone has said they need to be looked into.
Same goes for foster parents. Again, not being presumed guilty, but being checked out anyways, just in case.
Parents who are reported by anyone to be mistreating the child are checked out to make sure that that is not the case.

This is a similar idea, see? Except that instead of current actions, it is based on previous observations of the mother, ie; no he shouldn't have my child because he a) does/deals drugs b)hit me or was abusive in some way c)has a problem that will inhibit him from being an adequate father.
Of course, the woman could just lie. But she could do that in any circumstance, even if he won custody through a legal battle she could continually report him to CPS right?
This is for the specific situation where the woman has a reason, however fabricated or imagined it might be, that the father should not have the child. Rather than accepting what happens in court, which many parents will tell you showed them in the worst light possible due to the other side's lawyers, the father would be seen in a neutral light, from an outside party to ask the same questions they ask of prospective adoptive parents.



I am honestly just now as I am reviewing this figuring out that you are the person who started this thread. Whoops. So I think I made comments about being off topic. But I guess you can totally do that, I know not by the rules, but by being the theoretical "owner" of the place, in my eyes you can probably rant about whatever you want as long as it is kindof sortof related slightly.
Sorry for any disrespect, intended or perceived.



posted on Sep, 27 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   
How about if either asks for an abortion with 50/50 cost if both agree or 100% cost on the man or woman if the other doesn't agree. Also if the man wants an abortion then the woman will either get one or assume all responsibilities of the child. Forgot to add... and if the man wants the child, but the woman does not, but agrees to take the child to birth, then the man assumes 100% responsibility of the child.

Fair is fair….



edit on 27-9-2010 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick


Who do I worship???



A red bunny rabbit.....




top topics



 
56
<< 73  74  75    77  78  79 >>

log in

join