Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 4:29:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 18:17:03 GMT -5
Forget being forced to carry, should a woman be able to sign her baby over to the father at birth and never pay support....
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 4:29:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 18:18:17 GMT -5
Forget being forced to carry, should a woman be able to sign her baby over to the father at birth and never pay support.... Any woman who wants to do that is a loser.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 4:29:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 18:21:05 GMT -5
I wasn't discussing character judgement. I asked if she should be allowed to legally...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 4:29:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 18:23:07 GMT -5
I wasn't discussing character judgement. I asked if she should be allowed to legally... No, parents should support their children.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 4:29:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 18:38:05 GMT -5
Hickle is at least being consistent in that he thinks neither should be able to abdicate.
I would love love for anyone to be able to terminate support at birth. Logistically though if that means society supports the child, we need to understand we are making that decision from the onset.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 4:29:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 18:39:14 GMT -5
Forget being forced to carry, should a woman be able to sign her baby over to the father at birth and never pay support.... As long as the father WANTED the baby... yes. She should be allowed to. ETA: To clarify... Just as she shouldn't be allowed to force financial support for a child he didn't want, she also shouldn't be allowed to force the baby on him (because that would be forcing support on him as well as forcing the child on him).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 4:29:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 18:46:33 GMT -5
Hickle is at least being consistent in that he thinks neither should be able to abdicate. I would love love for anyone to be able to terminate support at birth. Logistically though if that means society supports the child, we need to understand we are making that decision from the onset. why should people be allowed to walk away from responsibilities? I understand adoption is a choice that sometimes needs to be available for the best interests of the child, but walking away from your duty to provide for your child, while making the childs life poorer is wrong, imo.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 4:29:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 18:50:06 GMT -5
Actually if parents can't prioritize a child, I think walking away generally is in the best interests of the child.
Better to get them earlier than to wait until neglect, etc have taken a toll.
That said, it is trickier when one removes themselves and the other does not and thus standard of living decreases, which can have an impact.
It would not be the only area in which the state (and by extension it's citizens) decides to pay in order to protect rights..,
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 4:29:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 18:57:54 GMT -5
You're looking at it wrong. Why should one person be able to force a two decade long responsibility onto another unwilling person?Both Richard and I have said multiple times that the ability to abdicate should come with some provisions, namely that it must be exercised before the baby is born. There's no child to support at the time the decision is made. There's a fetus. The man would declare in no uncertain terms that if the woman goes through with the pregnancy and keeps the child he will not be helping to support it. She can make her decisions accordingly. It would work the same way in the reverse instance. If the guy really wants the kid the woman would be telling him in no uncertain terms up front that he's on his own with it. If he keeps the baby he does so alone. The intentions are declared while there's still time to explore other options, like abortion or adoption. Because that "responsibility" is a child with rights. From the child's point of view what is so great that he was abandoned by one parent before birth rather then after?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 4:29:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 19:39:49 GMT -5
You're looking at it wrong. Why should one person be able to force a two decade long responsibility onto another unwilling person?Both Richard and I have said multiple times that the ability to abdicate should come with some provisions, namely that it must be exercised before the baby is born. There's no child to support at the time the decision is made. There's a fetus. The man would declare in no uncertain terms that if the woman goes through with the pregnancy and keeps the child he will not be helping to support it. She can make her decisions accordingly. It would work the same way in the reverse instance. If the guy really wants the kid the woman would be telling him in no uncertain terms up front that he's on his own with it. If he keeps the baby he does so alone. The intentions are declared while there's still time to explore other options, like abortion or adoption. Because that "responsibility" is a child with rights. From the child's point of view what is so great that he was abandoned by one parent before birth rather then after? Not in the timeframe we are suggesting. In the time frame we are suggesting, it's a fetus with no rights. And there is no right to two parents. nor even a right to support from two parents. You keep forgetting that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 4:29:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 19:42:27 GMT -5
I personally think there'd be fewer one parent kids out there wondering. If the mother knew she couldn't get support from the guy she wouldn't go through with the pregnancy.It wouldn't completely eliminate the problem, because there'd still be a lot of guys that say they'll stay with her and raise the kid because they really mean it at the time they say it. Then the reality of raising a kid sets in and they bail. Or (in the cases of "gotcha" pregnancies) women would be MUCH LESS likely to become pregnant in the first place... once they knew that "gotcha"s wouldn't work anymore.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 4:29:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 19:46:16 GMT -5
How is a man abdicating his parental rights prejudiced against women? They still have all the options they currently do, abortion, adoption, raising the child. When the reason given is that all these evil women are trapping them with gotcha pregnancies it shifts responsibility from them to women. That is the part of this that is prejudice against women. If a man wants to abdicate his parental rights own it, the way women have to.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 4:29:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 19:48:59 GMT -5
How is a man abdicating his parental rights prejudiced against women? They still have all the options they currently do, abortion, adoption, raising the child. When the reason given is that all these evil women are trapping them with gotcha pregnancies it shifts responsibility from them to women. That is the part of this that is prejudice against women. If a man wants to abdicate his parental rights own it, the way women have to. No one but YOU has ever said they are all done that way for that reason. It's been repeatedly pointed out that it happens... not that it's always the case.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 4:29:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 19:52:16 GMT -5
There is a difference between allowing your body to be used as an incubator for a parasite and being financially responsible for your offspring. You can not use a woman's right to choice in that as a justification for men to abdicate parental responsibilities. Find another reason because that ain't it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 4:29:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 19:57:15 GMT -5
There is a difference between allowing your body to be used as an incubator for a parasite and being financially responsible for your offspring. You can not use a woman's right to choice in that as a justification for men to abdicate parental responsibilities. Find another reason because that ain't it. Actually there's not. Not when the choice to be an incubator or not REMAINS WITH THE WOMAN. If she chooses to keep the pregnancy and then keep the child she is choosing to take her half of the responsibility. She should not get to force her choice on another person.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 12, 2015 19:58:07 GMT -5
Take responsibility for your own preventive measures, or deal with the results. Everyone's got that choice.
Bottom line for me is, "If you don't want to pay, don't go play."
The analogy would be that you can make dinner at home if you can't afford a restaurant. But if you do go out, you don't do a "dine-and-dash." You get prosecuted for that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 4:29:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 20:19:09 GMT -5
There is also merit to what tall guy is saying there. I don't find this one easy to black and white...
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 12, 2015 21:00:57 GMT -5
Why would she have them?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 4:29:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 21:35:25 GMT -5
Maybe they were in his night stand and he went to pee.... or to get her a glass of water... or any number of reasons.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 13, 2015 0:50:05 GMT -5
If you're living with someone you don't know well enough to trust, you probably deserve what you get. Just sayin'....
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 13, 2015 0:57:18 GMT -5
Delusion does not negate the point.
ETA: I wouldn't have to. They'd likely be doing it themselves. But for the record, bad choices do not often yield good results.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 13, 2015 1:24:05 GMT -5
I'm perfectly willing to double down on the idea that if you don't know your partner any better than that, you have no business living together, yes. And her actions may not be his fault, but putting himself into that position is.
Rashly entering into something for reasons that are not sustainable? Yes, you deserve what you get. Grow up first. Figure out who you are. Then figure out who your partner is. If it works, go for it. But don't delude yourself into thinking that just because you are legally an adult that you are either intellectually or emotionally one as well. Life has much more to it than that, and mistakes sometimes hurt. That's so you don't keep making them.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 4:29:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2015 4:41:26 GMT -5
Because that "responsibility" is a child with rights. From the child's point of view what is so great that he was abandoned by one parent before birth rather then after? Not in the timeframe we are suggesting. In the time frame we are suggesting, it's a fetus with no rights. And there is no right to two parents. nor even a right to support from two parents. You keep forgetting that. if there is not an abortion, the fetus becomes a child you keep ignoring that. I am not concerned with the child.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 13, 2015 5:12:17 GMT -5
Bottom line for me is, "If you don't want to pay, don't go play. Don't want to incubate, don't screw your date. ... Well, I guess that plan didn't turn out too well, did it?
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Aug 13, 2015 8:31:35 GMT -5
This issue is the prejudice against women and that is what I am addressing. This thread started with the express purpose of accusing Feminists of playing the victim and quickly stocked up on a couple of men playing the victim for what Feminists do to them and then what women in general do with the gotcha pregnancies. There was absolutely no reason to accuse women of anything if you want to talk about men having the right to abdicate their parental responsibility. You not only see no problem with that, you support it and take pride in the fact that you're not one of those hypocritical women that won't admit how bad women are. Ummm, ok? I guess I don't understand this. Threads branch out in different modes of discussion all the time. Especially when two contentious areas are so closely intertwined. In fact I would argue that one of the points of discussion/debate is to bring different viewpoints that one may not be able to consider from their own worldview. So saying branching out a line of discussion in a thread is the equivalent of misogyny and hating women is a bit of a stretch IMHO. But then again, that's the nice thing about having a discussion, we can disagree and then discuss.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 13, 2015 10:59:54 GMT -5
Forget being forced to carry, should a woman be able to sign her baby over to the father at birth and never pay support.... if he wants the child and she doesn't? of course! she should be able to do that at ANY TIME.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 13, 2015 11:00:35 GMT -5
I wasn't discussing character judgement. I asked if she should be allowed to legally... No, parents should support their children. booo!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 13, 2015 11:02:55 GMT -5
Hickle is at least being consistent in that he thinks neither should be able to abdicate. I would love love for anyone to be able to terminate support at birth. Logistically though if that means society supports the child, we need to understand we are making that decision from the onset. why should people be allowed to walk away from responsibilities? I understand adoption is a choice that sometimes needs to be available for the best interests of the child, but walking away from your duty to provide for your child, while making the childs life poorer is wrong, imo. there are lots of reasons: addiction, terminal illness, mental illness, poverty, etc. the RESPONSIBLE thing to do is to make sure the child is adequately cared for, not that it has it's biological parents.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 13, 2015 11:04:33 GMT -5
You're looking at it wrong. Why should one person be able to force a two decade long responsibility onto another unwilling person? Both Richard and I have said multiple times that the ability to abdicate should come with some provisions, namely that it must be exercised before the baby is born. There's no child to support at the time the decision is made. There's a fetus. The man would declare in no uncertain terms that if the woman goes through with the pregnancy and keeps the child he will not be helping to support it. She can make her decisions accordingly. It would work the same way in the reverse instance. If the guy really wants the kid the woman would be telling him in no uncertain terms up front that he's on his own with it. If he keeps the baby he does so alone. The intentions are declared while there's still time to explore other options, like abortion or adoption. or, a more amicable solution, such as single parenthood.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 13, 2015 11:09:28 GMT -5
Take responsibility for your own preventive measures, or deal with the results. Everyone's got that choice.
Bottom line for me is, "If you don't want to pay, don't go play."
The analogy would be that you can make dinner at home if you can't afford a restaurant. But if you do go out, you don't do a "dine-and-dash." You get prosecuted for that.
are you advocating abstinence, tall? because if not, pregnancy is not 100% avoidable by ANY method of BC short of sterilization.
|
|