MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 15, 2015 15:45:29 GMT -5
Isn't there already a way to opt out of fatherhood? The parent can waive their parental right - no child support but also no visitation.
|
|
TheHaitian
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 27, 2014 19:39:10 GMT -5
Posts: 10,144
|
Post by TheHaitian on Aug 15, 2015 16:00:15 GMT -5
Isn't there already a way to opt out of fatherhood? The parent can waive their parental right - no child support but also no visitation. Lol!!! If only it was that easy no black man would be dodging fatherhood like it was a life sentence. "I just waive my rights your honor " and be done! The only time I have personally witness it worked in "real" life was the actual father was a good for nothing loser and the mother was married to a good man willing to adopt the child. Since there was already a father figure present , willing to do the job and legally adopt the child (step dad) the judge was willing to grant the request for the biological to waive his rights so step dad could go ahead and adopt the child. |
|
TheHaitian
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 27, 2014 19:39:10 GMT -5
Posts: 10,144
|
Post by TheHaitian on Aug 15, 2015 16:02:24 GMT -5
Isn't there already a way to opt out of fatherhood? The parent can waive their parental right - no child support but also no visitation. I haven't heard of that. I'm not in favor of people opting out of their financial obligations regardless of the visitations - I think that is two separate issues.
A father (or mother) who doesn't want to be a part of their child's life is a dooshbag, but they can make that choice. But you're still on the hook financially. Unless both parents agree with it - then that's a decision between two consenting adults and the government should stay out of it. That seems like an extreme example, but the dad goes to prison for some kind of child molestation charges and also says "I want nothing to do with this child." Well yeah, I think that's reasonable for the mom to want to sever all ties financially since he won't be contributing anyway and also "parentally" since he's such a bad influence.
You can have no visitations to your child due to past abuse or whatever and still be expected to pay child support. Just because you are an asshole does not absolve you of the obligations of financially supporting your child. |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,626
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 15, 2015 16:08:59 GMT -5
He has an absolute and solo right to opt out of parenting if he chooses...BEFORE a pregnancy exists. No one will ever argue that. After its existence, he does not have a solo right. SHE has a solo right since it is her body being impacted. His "right" is then tied to hers. If she chooses to opt out, he is opted out automatically. If she does not, then he is not. His responsibility is to the child, IF there is one, as is hers . He does not owe anything to the fetus, in my opinion, which DOES differ from the mother. She does have a responsibility to the fetus if she chooses to carry it.
I could quibble with more than that. First, even at 30% of implanted embryos (or 15-20% of confirmed pregnancies) it is not a small number. And second, induced abortion may not be a natural occurrence, but spontaneous abortion (or miscarriage) occurs much more often than a live birth.
Finally, if you and Richard, et al., are so concerned with fairness and equality, and particularly since you accuse me of ducking the question (or dodging the point), can I get a response from you to the question in #480?
|
|
TheHaitian
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 27, 2014 19:39:10 GMT -5
Posts: 10,144
|
Post by TheHaitian on Aug 15, 2015 16:09:21 GMT -5
Carl you and Dark are making this between the mother and the father and it isn't. It's between the father and the child. The question is what does the father owe the child. ETA - in the case of the fertilized eggs I think he has the right to abort at this point. A fetus isn't a child, and honestly my answer is nothing. If you accept that a fetus comes with the rights of a child, how can you also support abortion? It makes no sense. Abdicating parental responsibility violates the inherent rights of a fetus, but having it vacuumed out and thrown away is fine? Seriously, how do you reconcile that contradiction in your head? What he said... The mother owes the fetus nothing and can abort if she so desires while the father owes the fetus 18 years of financial obligations and have no say! How is that right? |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 5, 2024 14:03:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2015 16:15:57 GMT -5
Carl you and Dark are making this between the mother and the father and it isn't. It's between the father and the child. The question is what does the father owe the child. ETA - in the case of the fertilized eggs I think he has the right to abort at this point. A fetus isn't a child, and honestly my answer is nothing. If you accept that a fetus comes with the rights of a child, how can you also support abortion? It makes no sense. Abdicating parental responsibility violates the inherent rights of a fetus, but having it vacuumed out and thrown away is fine? Seriously, how do you reconcile that contradiction in your head? Once it is born it is a child. There is no contradiction. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 5, 2024 14:03:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2015 19:40:58 GMT -5
I'm still looking for a serious response to this:
That has already been answered. It makes it "more fair" for him because it equalizes the ability to "opt out". It makes it "more fair" for her because the choice to keep or abort the pregnancy STILL resides with her. The choice to keep or adopt out the child (if it makes it to birth) STILL resides with her. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 5, 2024 14:03:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2015 20:13:29 GMT -5
A fetus isn't a child, and honestly my answer is nothing. If you accept that a fetus comes with the rights of a child, how can you also support abortion? It makes no sense. Abdicating parental responsibility violates the inherent rights of a fetus, but having it vacuumed out and thrown away is fine? Seriously, how do you reconcile that contradiction in your head? What he said... The mother owes the fetus nothing and can abort if she so desires while the father owes the fetus 18 years of financial obligations and have no say! How is that right? Agree in principal. That said, does the public/system owe the fetus 18 years of financial obligations with no say? Should the party who had sex at least have some greater obligation than the public? Its ok if the answer is no. So long as we recognize what that means. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 5, 2024 14:03:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2015 21:00:27 GMT -5
The fetus does not get 18 years of support. A child does. The father doesn't have to do anything for or about the fetus. Stupid edit feature! Laterbloomer is saying that, not Dark |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 5, 2024 14:03:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2015 21:06:51 GMT -5
Actually I think this was said before, but the father has no obligations until a child is born.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 5, 2024 14:03:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2015 21:10:02 GMT -5
I think Tall Guy won the argument here.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 5, 2024 14:03:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2015 21:14:53 GMT -5
Agreed. That should be child. But if the father can give up rights at the fetus stage means a child goes on public support, that is where the issue needs to be addressed.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,626
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 15, 2015 21:20:37 GMT -5
I'm still looking for a serious response to this:
That has already been answered. It makes it "more fair" for him because it equalizes the ability to "opt out". It makes it "more fair" for her because the choice to keep or abort the pregnancy STILL resides with her. The choice to keep or adopt out the child (if it makes it to birth) STILL resides with her. You can't seriously believe that that answers the question. 
There are two people involved. Person F will be much more impacted by the event in every single case. Person M is much less impacted by the event in every single case. So to make it fair, we are going to reduce Person M's impact and risk to zero. This may or may not increase Person F's impact and risk, but if it does it is by a very significant amount. It also increases in all likelihood the impact and risk to society and its members. Seriously? You are DECREASING fairness by doing that.
I guess this is the Animal Farm version of equal. All are equal, but some are more equal than others....
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 5, 2024 14:03:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2015 21:43:23 GMT -5
That has already been answered. It makes it "more fair" for him because it equalizes the ability to "opt out". It makes it "more fair" for her because the choice to keep or abort the pregnancy STILL resides with her. The choice to keep or adopt out the child (if it makes it to birth) STILL resides with her. You can't seriously believe that that answers the question.
There are two people involved. Person F will be much more impacted by the event in every single case. Person M is much less impacted by the event in every single case. So to make it fair, we are going to reduce Person M's impact and risk to zero. This may or may not increase Person F's impact and risk, but if it does it is by a very significant amount. It also increases in all likelihood the impact and risk to society and its members. Seriously? You are DECREASING fairness by doing that.
I guess this is the Animal Farm version of equal. All are equal, but some are more equal than others....
Yes, I actually can "Seriously believe that answers the question"... because it seriously does answer the question. If you'd like a different question answered, maybe you should post that question. BECAUSE "Person F" will be physically impacted, "Person F" gets ALL the choice in whether or not to carry the fetus to term. Because both will get financially impacted, both should have the "opt out" option... not just "Person F". |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 5, 2024 14:03:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2015 21:56:53 GMT -5
That has already been answered. It makes it "more fair" for him because it equalizes the ability to "opt out". It makes it "more fair" for her because the choice to keep or abort the pregnancy STILL resides with her. The choice to keep or adopt out the child (if it makes it to birth) STILL resides with her. You can't seriously believe that that answers the question.
There are two people involved. Person F will be much more impacted by the event in every single case. Person M is much less impacted by the event in every single case. So to make it fair, we are going to reduce Person M's impact and risk to zero. This may or may not increase Person F's impact and risk, but if it does it is by a very significant amount. It also increases in all likelihood the impact and risk to society and its members. Seriously? You are DECREASING fairness by doing that.
I guess this is the Animal Farm version of equal. All are equal, but some are more equal than others....
They can't get to 'equal'. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 5, 2024 14:03:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2015 21:58:59 GMT -5
You can't seriously believe that that answers the question.
There are two people involved. Person F will be much more impacted by the event in every single case. Person M is much less impacted by the event in every single case. So to make it fair, we are going to reduce Person M's impact and risk to zero. This may or may not increase Person F's impact and risk, but if it does it is by a very significant amount. It also increases in all likelihood the impact and risk to society and its members. Seriously? You are DECREASING fairness by doing that.
I guess this is the Animal Farm version of equal. All are equal, but some are more equal than others....
They can't get to 'equal'. No one is trying to get to equal. That would be impossible. What's being suggested is "as equal as possible". |
|
TheHaitian
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 27, 2014 19:39:10 GMT -5
Posts: 10,144
|
Post by TheHaitian on Aug 15, 2015 22:00:26 GMT -5
Because both will get financially impacted, both should have the "opt out" option... not just "Person F". BASICALLY THIS!!!! |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 5, 2024 14:03:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2015 22:02:58 GMT -5
In the fight for equality, a gay couple has a right to cake, but a child does not have a right to parental support.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,690 
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 15, 2015 22:14:24 GMT -5
I think Tall Guy won the argument here. in todo? i am not sure that is the case. he seems to think the man has earned fewer choices in an accidental pregnancy than the woman, and i don't think that several of us agree with that at all- and with pretty sound logic, i might add. i find his argument as unconvincing as your blanket conferral of the superiority of the argument. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,690
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 15, 2015 22:15:08 GMT -5
In the fight for equality, a gay couple has a right to cake, but a child does not have a right to parental support. close enough. adults have different rights than the unborn- that is absolutely true. |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,744
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 15, 2015 22:15:36 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,690
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 15, 2015 22:19:35 GMT -5
that follows, logically, from the Oregon ruling. |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,744
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 15, 2015 22:21:32 GMT -5
that follows, logically, from the Oregon ruling. Yup. |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,626
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 15, 2015 22:22:37 GMT -5
You can't seriously believe that that answers the question.
There are two people involved. Person F will be much more impacted by the event in every single case. Person M is much less impacted by the event in every single case. So to make it fair, we are going to reduce Person M's impact and risk to zero. This may or may not increase Person F's impact and risk, but if it does it is by a very significant amount. It also increases in all likelihood the impact and risk to society and its members. Seriously? You are DECREASING fairness by doing that.
I guess this is the Animal Farm version of equal. All are equal, but some are more equal than others....
Yes, I actually can "Seriously believe that answers the question"... because it seriously does answer the question. If you'd like a different question answered, maybe you should post that question.
BECAUSE "Person F" will be physically impacted, "Person F" gets ALL the choice in whether or not to carry the fetus to term. Because both will get financially impacted, both should have the "opt out" option... not just "Person F". I'm perfectly content with the question as asked, which is basically, "How do you make it more fair by decreasing fairness?"
Here's an example which illustrates the situation:
Man and woman are playing Russian Roulette. She has three bullets in the gun, while he has one. But in an attempt to make it fair, he is allowed to remove the bullet before he spins the chamber. Yeah, I'm just not seeing it.... 
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770 
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Aug 15, 2015 22:23:13 GMT -5
OMG! OMG! OMG! Please, please, please don't get started on the cakes and gays fiasco again! Please!  |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,744
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 15, 2015 22:23:36 GMT -5
In the fight for equality, a gay couple has a right to cake, but a child does not have a right to parental support. You must have missed reply #528. I didn't bring up the beating a dead horse cake issue.  |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,690
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 15, 2015 22:25:13 GMT -5
where is Marie Antoinette, when we need her? |
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Aug 15, 2015 22:26:17 GMT -5
I saw #528, Tennesseer! I didn't find it necessary to use it as a freaking hook! This thread is not about that issue.  |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,626
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 15, 2015 22:29:17 GMT -5
OMG! OMG! OMG! Please, please, please don't get started on the cakes and gays fiasco again! Please! Okay, but if a single person starts a tipping thread, all agreements are off!  |
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Aug 15, 2015 22:31:58 GMT -5
ROFL! The cats think I've lost it! I'm sitting here cackling like an old hen! I swear, if I have to read another 10 page debacle about gays and cakes, I'm gonna lose it! Do you guys want to make these cats right? Do ya?  |
|
