Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 10:24:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2015 5:29:56 GMT -5
not quite. the issue is not the "father's responsibility to pay child support", it is the "parent's ability to opt out". EITHER parent or BOTH parents can do that. legally. logically. and morally. They're equivalent issues. The father has the ability to opt out if and only if paying child support isn't his legal responsibility. Morally, we're off the reservation. Opting out of paying child support is tantamount to abandoning the child as far as I'm concerned, and if the mother aborts because of the father's decision to opt out, he's just as culpable as she is. Forcing the father to pay in spite of his lack of input is actually the lesser of two evils in my world. But if we throw the well-being of the child into the crapper (which everybody evidently has for this debate) I agree that yours is the more logically and morally sound position. It's nice to see you directing your patented rapid-fire wall of DJ attacks at Tall rather than me for a change, though. I cannot understand how some people will argue so vehemently that a gay man has a right to cake, but a child does not have any rights when it comes to parental support. Oped, if I understand her, and maybe I dont, thinks that society has an obligation to the child, but the parent doesnt. That makes no sense to me at all. Richard, if I understand him and I probably do not, thinks the child has no rights at all (maybe some rights if it is a gay child), but no right to the care needed to sustain life. But somehow someone has obligations to the child. I do not understand his view at all, but in my defense I do not think he does either.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 10:24:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2015 6:47:45 GMT -5
They're equivalent issues. The father has the ability to opt out if and only if paying child support isn't his legal responsibility. Morally, we're off the reservation. Opting out of paying child support is tantamount to abandoning the child as far as I'm concerned, and if the mother aborts because of the father's decision to opt out, he's just as culpable as she is. Forcing the father to pay in spite of his lack of input is actually the lesser of two evils in my world. But if we throw the well-being of the child into the crapper (which everybody evidently has for this debate) I agree that yours is the more logically and morally sound position. It's nice to see you directing your patented rapid-fire wall of DJ attacks at Tall rather than me for a change, though. I cannot understand how some people will argue so vehemently that a gay man has a right to cake, but a child does not have any rights when it comes to parental support. Oped, if I understand her, and maybe I dont, thinks that society has an obligation to the child, but the parent doesnt. That makes no sense to me at all. Richard, if I understand him and I probably do not, thinks the child has no rights at all (maybe some rights if it is a gay child), but no right to the care needed to sustain life. But somehow someone has obligations to the child. I do not understand his view at all, but in my defense I do not think he does either. You misunderstand (you try really hard and do it intentionally... don't you?). I never said a child has "no rights". I said a child has no right to support from biological parents. They do have a right to care, as needed and available, from some source, but that source is NOT "required, by their rights to it" to be by a biological parent. Again... if that were the case, voluntary adoption would not exist (because it would be a violation of that right for a parent to give it up in the first place). If children had the right to support by the biological parents, the Courts and Child Services could NOT remove children from unfit parents (because it would be a violation of that right to take the child from those parents).
|
|
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 17, 2015 7:51:00 GMT -5
They're equivalent issues. The father has the ability to opt out if and only if paying child support isn't his legal responsibility. Morally, we're off the reservation. Opting out of paying child support is tantamount to abandoning the child as far as I'm concerned, and if the mother aborts because of the father's decision to opt out, he's just as culpable as she is. Forcing the father to pay in spite of his lack of input is actually the lesser of two evils in my world. But if we throw the well-being of the child into the crapper (which everybody evidently has for this debate) I agree that yours is the more logically and morally sound position. It's nice to see you directing your patented rapid-fire wall of DJ attacks at Tall rather than me for a change, though. I cannot understand how some people will argue so vehemently that a gay man has a right to cake, but a child does not have any rights when it comes to parental support. Oped, if I understand her, and maybe I dont, thinks that society has an obligation to the child, but the parent doesnt. That makes no sense to me at all. Richard, if I understand him and I probably do not, thinks the child has no rights at all (maybe some rights if it is a gay child), but no right to the care needed to sustain life. But somehow someone has obligations to the child. I do not understand his view at all, but in my defense I do not think he does either. Call it anything except "child" until it emerges from the womb, and embrace the view that on this advent minus a day it isn't a new human being and on this advent plus a day it is a new human being. I don't understand it either, but you'll need to accept it as a premise if you want this debate to make sense.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,440
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 17, 2015 8:28:19 GMT -5
They're equivalent issues. The father has the ability to opt out if and only if paying child support isn't his legal responsibility. Morally, we're off the reservation. Opting out of paying child support is tantamount to abandoning the child as far as I'm concerned, and if the mother aborts because of the father's decision to opt out, he's just as culpable as she is. Forcing the father to pay in spite of his lack of input is actually the lesser of two evils in my world. But if we throw the well-being of the child into the crapper (which everybody evidently has for this debate) I agree that yours is the more logically and morally sound position. It's nice to see you directing your patented rapid-fire wall of DJ attacks at Tall rather than me for a change, though. I cannot understand how some people will argue so vehemently that a gay man has a right to cake, but a child does not have any rights when it comes to parental support. Oped, if I understand her, and maybe I dont, thinks that society has an obligation to the child, but the parent doesnt. That makes no sense to me at all. Richard, if I understand him and I probably do not, thinks the child has no rights at all (maybe some rights if it is a gay child), but no right to the care needed to sustain life. But somehow someone has obligations to the child. I do not understand his view at all, but in my defense I do not think he does either. Did someone say cake?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 17, 2015 9:23:30 GMT -5
They're a lot easier to rebut if they counter my actual arguments. He's mis-stated me several times here. Regardless, you've added nothing, as usual. It's exceedingly rare to see anything added to a discussion by one who targets the poster(s) instead of the subject of the discussion. Usually true, but not when I do it. I'm good that way.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,445
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 17, 2015 10:27:47 GMT -5
They're equivalent issues. The father has the ability to opt out if and only if paying child support isn't his legal responsibility. Morally, we're off the reservation. Opting out of paying child support is tantamount to abandoning the child as far as I'm concerned, and if the mother aborts because of the father's decision to opt out, he's just as culpable as she is. Forcing the father to pay in spite of his lack of input is actually the lesser of two evils in my world. But if we throw the well-being of the child into the crapper (which everybody evidently has for this debate) I agree that yours is the more logically and morally sound position. It's nice to see you directing your patented rapid-fire wall of DJ attacks at Tall rather than me for a change, though. I cannot understand how some people will argue so vehemently that a gay man has a right to cake, but a child does not have any rights when it comes to parental support. i never claimed that a child has no right to support. neither did anyone else.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,445
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 17, 2015 10:29:37 GMT -5
I cannot understand how some people will argue so vehemently that a gay man has a right to cake, but a child does not have any rights when it comes to parental support. Oped, if I understand her, and maybe I dont, thinks that society has an obligation to the child, but the parent doesnt. That makes no sense to me at all. Richard, if I understand him and I probably do not, thinks the child has no rights at all (maybe some rights if it is a gay child), but no right to the care needed to sustain life. But somehow someone has obligations to the child. I do not understand his view at all, but in my defense I do not think he does either. Call it anything except "child" until it emerges from the womb, and embrace the view that on this advent minus a day it isn't a new human being and on this advent plus a day it is a new human being. I don't understand it either, but you'll need to accept it as a premise if you want this debate to make sense. it might aid your understanding if you stick to claims that are actually made.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,445
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 17, 2015 10:31:18 GMT -5
i see. so the man is now on the hook for someone else's religious beliefs? wow. ok. didn't see that coming. No, he is not off the hook because a woman could have an abortion but doesn't. you say toe-may-toe, i say toe-mah-toe.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,445
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 17, 2015 10:34:06 GMT -5
So, he's responsible for a choice that she makes 100% on her own and against his wishes. Again, that doesn't strike you as the least bit unfair to him? No it doesn't. Nature has given him the automatic advantage of not being able to get pregnant. The right to an abortion if she chooses it is also a nature given advantage. The fact that she can have an abortion does not mean she has to or that the child has to sacrifice it's rights because she didn't. Those are two things each sex has to live with and you don't get any compensation for it. If you want to discuss rights and responsibilities once a child is born we can talk. i think SDG is talking about NOT having an abortion. and i think you are conflating the two. again. and you will blame us for talking about abortion. again.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,445
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 17, 2015 10:41:11 GMT -5
Let's make this really simple. You chose to bring up the idea of a non-consenting other having a decision forced on them. You honestly don't see the double standard there since we're already talking about a decision that's 100% up to the woman, with no input whatsoever from the man, but he's held responsible for her decision? Like, really? Then you accuse me of being obtuse. Seriously, just admit that there's a double standard, or that bringing up the non-consenting other meme in this context was a blunder. It's not that hard. Continuing to pretend you can't see the double standard is making you look ridiculous. Yes, let's make it really simple.
1. Both parties are responsible for the pregnancy. Both have implied consent and assumption of risk issues with regard to the pregnancy. Therefore neither can in any way be considered to be non-consenting with respect to the pregnancy.
2. In the context of this discussion and any case relevant to this discussion, the woman would be considered non-consenting to any proposed right of the man to abdicate responsibility for the pregnancy or any outcome of it.
3. He is not having responsibility forced on him by her decision. He already has that burden as a result of having unprotected sex which then resulted in a pregnancy. She could choose to absolve both parties of responsibility, but is under no obligation to do so. Not making that decision does not alter the shared responsibility. It remains unchanged.
i have many disagreements with #3: a) sentence one is totally false. since she ALONE has the right to choose the outcome of her pregnancy, she does, indeed, have the power over the man's responsibility. she can CHOOSE to absolve him entirely, or make him 100% liable. you saying over and over again that she does NOT have that choice is false. b) nobody said anything about unprotected sex. you made that up all on your own. perhaps that is your hangup, not ours. but even if it WERE true, if the man was told that the woman was sterile, using the BCP, or had an IUD or other fairly safe BC method, the assumption would be that she was not going to become pregnant. she might have even ENCOURAGED him to not wear a rubber. or the rubber may have broken or leaked (which is what i had assumed). whose fault would that be? c) if she can choose to absolve him of responsibility, that directly contradicts with a). i can almost see your position, if you were assuming that the man had unprotected sex without regard to outcome. i didn't.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,445
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 17, 2015 10:44:55 GMT -5
I am not for a second 2nd guessing the fact that a woman's right of choice entitles the man to nothing. That in no way justifies giving him the right to abdicate his parental responsibilities. The woman's right to give the child up for adoption is something that should be open to the man as well, or some kind of equivalent right. However! and it is a big however, if either the mother or father chooses to raise the child alone we do need to think about what rights a child has. no, we already know that.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,445
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 17, 2015 10:48:11 GMT -5
Virgil I can appreciate that is how your mind works, thankfully the law doesn't see it the same way. actually, Virgil's statement is PRECISELY how the law works.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,445
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 17, 2015 10:51:18 GMT -5
More to point out the absurdity of their argument. They've spent fourteen pages telling us that allowing her to unilaterally decide to get an abortion or keep a pregnancy is fair to both parties, so surely allowing him the same unilateral right would be fair as well. If they don't think it is, listening to them explain why should be entertaining. that is not the most absurd part. the most absurd part is the vociferous denial that these facts are not the equivalent of ASSIGNING responsibility to a party that would have none of it. that, to me, is not only absurd, but utterly unfair.
|
|
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 17, 2015 16:56:43 GMT -5
The root of the injustice is the mother's ability to abandon responsibility in the first place. Tall is right in one critical sense: regardless of what the courts say, the parents' responsibilities begin when the child is conceived. Damnable precedents don't change this, and hypocritical though Tall and Later's position may be, they at least recognize parental responsibilities begin at conception, as a result of conception. Despite fathers being cheated out of their rights, I'd rather they be required to fulfill their responsibilities (i.e. support their children) than they be granted the same license as the mother to abandon them.
Is it fair? No. But it's the lesser of two evils.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 10:24:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2015 17:03:23 GMT -5
The root of the injustice is the mother's ability to abandon responsibility in the first place. Tall is right in one critical sense: regardless of what the courts say, the parents' responsibilities begin when the child is conceived. Damnable precedents don't change this, and hypocritical though Tall and Later's position may be, they at least recognize parental responsibilities begin at conception, as a result of conception. Despite fathers being cheated out of their rights, I'd rather they be required to fulfill their responsibilities (i.e. support their children) than they be granted the same license as the mother to abandon them. Is it fair? No. But it's the lesser of two evils. Can you explain Tall's hypocrisy to me. I do not see any.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 10:24:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2015 17:05:52 GMT -5
I can respect that position because at least you're intellectually honest enough to admit that it's not fair even if you morally agree with it on the grounds that it's the best option for a bad situation. What I can't respect is the posters spending twenty pages talking til they're blue in the face using twisted logic to explain how the situation is actually fair in the first place. I see that neither of them has responded since I put up the compromise. Interesting. I really wanted to see the mental gymnastics that would go into describing that system as fair in odd numbered years and unfair in even ones. Now I have this whole bowl of popcorn and nothing fun to watch while I eat it. what is your compromise?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 10:24:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2015 17:13:58 GMT -5
I've decided we should compromise. Since we can't agree on whether giving one parent the entirety of the decision making ability but holding both responsible is fair, we'll switch off. In odd numbered years the woman gets to decide whether a pregnancy should be aborted or carried to term. If it's carried to term, both parents are financially responsible. In even numbered years the man gets to decide, and if he decides that it should be carried to term, both parents are financially responsible. There's apparently no inequality about having one person make the decision for both of them, so surely later, tall, et all won't object to letting the man make the decision half the time that way both genders get a say. I thought you were suggesting something serious. Is that what you want for your daughters? Some guy to decide for her what happens inside their body? Is that what you would want for yourself? You get to decide what happens inside some woman's body?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,445
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 17, 2015 17:29:41 GMT -5
I've decided we should compromise. Since we can't agree on whether giving one parent the entirety of the decision making ability but holding both responsible is fair, we'll switch off. In odd numbered years the woman gets to decide whether a pregnancy should be aborted or carried to term. If it's carried to term, both parents are financially responsible. In even numbered years the man gets to decide, and if he decides that it should be carried to term, both parents are financially responsible. There's apparently no inequality about having one person make the decision for both of them, so surely later, tall, et all won't object to letting the man make the decision half the time that way both genders get a say. I thought you were suggesting something serious. it is as serious a compromise as is deserved, imo.
|
|
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 17, 2015 18:44:08 GMT -5
The root of the injustice is the mother's ability to abandon responsibility in the first place. Tall is right in one critical sense: regardless of what the courts say, the parents' responsibilities begin when the child is conceived. Damnable precedents don't change this, and hypocritical though Tall and Later's position may be, they at least recognize parental responsibilities begin at conception, as a result of conception. Despite fathers being cheated out of their rights, I'd rather they be required to fulfill their responsibilities (i.e. support their children) than they be granted the same license as the mother to abandon them. Is it fair? No. But it's the lesser of two evils. Can you explain Tall's hypocrisy to me. I do not see any. He holds that parental responsibilities begin at conception. He sees the mother's responsibility as burdensome enough that he supports her right to terminate the pregnancy, but the father's responsibility as insufficiently burdensome to grant him the same right. In so doing, he fails to acknowledge that the law simply doesn't work this way for other matters. No one party is granted privileged status solely due to gender, and indeed matters where men were given preference in the past have been systematically torn down, irrespective of any empirical or biological basis, in service of equality. It is hypocritical to value gender-privileged status over equality in issues favouring women but value equality over gender-privileged status in issues favouring men.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 10:24:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2015 18:51:48 GMT -5
Can you explain Tall's hypocrisy to me. I do not see any. He holds that parental responsibilities begin at conception. He sees the mother's responsibility as burdensome enough that he supports her right to terminate the pregnancy, but the father's responsibility as insufficiently burdensome to grant him the same right. In so doing, he fails to acknowledge that the law simply doesn't work this way for other matters. No one party is granted privileged status solely due to gender, and indeed matters where men were given preference in the past have been systematically torn down, irrespective of any empirical or biological basis, in service of equality. It is hypocritical to value gender-privileged status over equality in issues favouring women but value equality over gender-privileged status in issues favouring men. That is my view also. I am not sure how it is a gender privilege to allow woman to abort. Men cannot abort due to the nature of pregnancy. God created men and women different with different roles in bringing children into the world. Sometimes I do not get her sarcasm or humor. Are you being serious?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 10:24:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2015 19:28:46 GMT -5
That is my view also. I am not sure how it is a gender privilege to allow woman to abort. Men cannot abort due to the nature of pregnancy. God created men and women different with different roles in bringing children into the world. Sometimes I do not get her sarcasm or humor. Are you being serious? God didn't create women with choice in carrying a pregnancy. If they get pregnant they either miscarry or deliver a baby. They get no say in either outcome. Man (meaning humanity in general not necessarily males) and the legal system created choice for women. What the legal system failed to do when giving women this choice is give the father any say in the outcome, while still holding him responsible for it. God, if you believe in one, created an equal system. Two people fool around, a pregnancy results, they both become parents or not with no decision or say in the outcome. Humans monkeyed with that and created an unequal system where the woman has choice but the man doesn't. You're still dodging the question by the way, would you support a system where the father gets to make the choice half the time? A simple yes or no with a brief explanation why will suffice. No I would not support that. Is, 'its an incredibly stupid idea' brief enough? I do not support men being able to tell women to abort. Short of that I do not know how your idea would work. Women have the choice of abortion because of anatomy and how pregnancy works. I think children have the right to parental support. God did not create an equal system. We are all equal in worth to Him, (I believe) but we are not equal in our responsibilities or abilities or specifically to this thread, reproductive parts.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 10:24:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2015 19:35:57 GMT -5
What if your daughter had an unexpected pregnancy and was opposed to abortion, could you see her deciding to keep the baby? Would you want the father to be able to opt out? He was half responsible for the pregnancy. Many people think abortion is murder. It would be terrible to coerce someone like that into aborting. You would want your grandchild to be more likely to live in poverty so a man can reject his child?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 10:24:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2015 19:43:29 GMT -5
What about fathers who half-assed it? Reject the obligations, and if the mother has the child the father gives a bit of money to be a part of his child's life, but only what and when he wanted. If the mother was strapped for cash, she might accept that. It is a horrible idea that people here are wanting.
|
|
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 17, 2015 20:05:50 GMT -5
He holds that parental responsibilities begin at conception. He sees the mother's responsibility as burdensome enough that he supports her right to terminate the pregnancy, but the father's responsibility as insufficiently burdensome to grant him the same right. In so doing, he fails to acknowledge that the law simply doesn't work this way for other matters. No one party is granted privileged status solely due to gender, and indeed matters where men were given preference in the past have been systematically torn down, irrespective of any empirical or biological basis, in service of equality. It is hypocritical to value gender-privileged status over equality in issues favouring women but value equality over gender-privileged status in issues favouring men. That is my view also. I am not sure how it is a gender privilege to allow woman to abort. Men cannot abort due to the nature of pregnancy. God created men and women different with different roles in bringing children into the world. Sometimes I do not get her sarcasm or humor. Are you being serious? You're talking about respecting reality over equality. If the law was all about respecting reality over equality, there'd be no such thing as Affirmative Action. Employers could fire elderly or disabled workers with impunity if their productivity lagged. Cake bakers could tell customers the truth if they didn't want to bake cakes for them. Western law isn't about reality, it's about forcing people to disregard reality when managing their lives. You of all people should understand this.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 17, 2015 20:06:14 GMT -5
Can you explain Tall's hypocrisy to me. I do not see any. He holds that parental responsibilities begin at conception. He sees the mother's responsibility as burdensome enough that he supports her right to terminate the pregnancy, but the father's responsibility as insufficiently burdensome to grant him the same right. In so doing, he fails to acknowledge that the law simply doesn't work this way for other matters. No one party is granted privileged status solely due to gender, and indeed matters where men were given preference in the past have been systematically torn down, irrespective of any empirical or biological basis, in service of equality.
It is hypocritical to value gender-privileged status over equality in issues favouring women but value equality over gender-privileged status in issues favouring men. As to the bolded, it is not specifically gender-based in principle. It turns out to be so in practice because only women can get pregnant, but if you are serious with this argument it is an important distinction. If men could get pregnant they would have the same status. And it is more likely true that we have had many instances in the past of gender-differentiation in the law, but those are being eliminated as we go on.
|
|
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 17, 2015 20:19:26 GMT -5
He holds that parental responsibilities begin at conception. He sees the mother's responsibility as burdensome enough that he supports her right to terminate the pregnancy, but the father's responsibility as insufficiently burdensome to grant him the same right. In so doing, he fails to acknowledge that the law simply doesn't work this way for other matters. No one party is granted privileged status solely due to gender, and indeed matters where men were given preference in the past have been systematically torn down, irrespective of any empirical or biological basis, in service of equality.
It is hypocritical to value gender-privileged status over equality in issues favouring women but value equality over gender-privileged status in issues favouring men. As to the bolded, it is not specifically gender-based in principle. It turns out to be so in practice because only women can get pregnant, but if you are serious with this argument it is an important distinction. If men could get pregnant they would have the same status. And it is more likely true that we have had many instances in the past of gender-differentiation in the law, but those are being eliminated as we go on. Many professional schools would prefer to admit fewer women because women are more prone to what studies call "family-related career interruptions". In plain terms, in addition to maternity leave, women are biologically more desirous of a full-time relationship with their children, leading many to abandon their professional careers to become full-time moms after relatively few years of practice. This contributes to serious shortages of professional manpower in fields like optometrics, dentistry, and specialized medicine. Having said this, I somehow doubt you'd be OK with professional schools telling otherwise qualified women to take a hike simply because there's a biological basis for the decision. More importantly, the law circa 2015 wouldn't permit such to take place. You wanted equality at all costs, you got it. That includes giving biology the proverbial middle finger even when it doesn't favour women.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 17, 2015 20:20:32 GMT -5
The root of the injustice is the mother's ability to abandon responsibility in the first place. Tall is right in one critical sense: regardless of what the courts say, the parents' responsibilities begin when the child is conceived. Damnable precedents don't change this, and hypocritical though Tall and Later's position may be, they at least recognize parental responsibilities begin at conception, as a result of conception. Despite fathers being cheated out of their rights, I'd rather they be required to fulfill their responsibilities (i.e. support their children) than they be granted the same license as the mother to abandon them. Is it fair? No. But it's the lesser of two evils. So you agree that the responsibility begins at conception. Good. Regardless of your position on abortion, I believe the others arguing against me believe in the right of a woman to make a free decision on whether to abort. But she is not compelled to do so. By doing nothing, everything continues as it was. She is not making an affirmative decision to terminate the pregnancy. That does not necessarily mean that she is making an affirmative choice to carry to term. It is simply the absence of an affirmative choice to terminate. Things continue as they would have without the existence of that possibility.
Since she is doing nothing, the balance of responsibility is not changed. If it were, it is tantamount to removing her rights. It would no longer be a free choice to terminate. It would then be coercive.
And he HAD the right to avoid a pregnancy if he wished. Before conception. He chose not to avail himself of it. He has lost no rights as a result of her inaction.
|
|
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 17, 2015 20:45:56 GMT -5
And he HAD the right to avoid a pregnancy if he wished. Before conception. He chose not to avail himself of it. He has lost no rights as a result of her inaction. Right. Your "don't want to pay, don't play" argument, which I agree with. The difference being that I extend it to the mother. Her responsibility as a parent begins at conception, the same as the father. She had the right to avoid pregnancy if she wished. Before conception. She chose not to avail herself of it. As a result, she (and the father) have wantonly taken on the responsibility of caring for the child. But in that case, rather than putting your foot down with "parental responsibilities are parental responsibilities", lo and behold you fall back to "well, it's not really a child... and the courts think... maybe if the law were changed... it doesn't really count... mom may not be ready... kid probably won't have a good life anyway..." and to hell with parental responsibilities. It's obvious you believe the parents have no responsibility to the child in the womb that can't simply be "opted out" of, so why should we care what you think about the father's inherent and legal responsibilities to the child outside the womb? Why can't he just opt out of those too?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 17, 2015 21:16:27 GMT -5
I'm not sure where you got all of that from. I do believe that the woman has the right to choose whether to terminate. If she instead carries, she absolutely has a responsibility to the fetus. Her actions can have a profound effect on it and its development, so of course she has a responsibility there. The male does not have a corresponding responsibility to the fetus (since nothing he does can affect it) unless and until it becomes a child.
I would also argue against the idea that it all of a sudden "becomes" a human being at birth. It is a very sticky subject since there is no scientific basis for a conclusion either way. I go with the "potential human being" from conception through several months' development. My standard is viability, which is used in other instances as well. It is why late-term (post-viability) abortions are either prohibited or very limited, and why there was a double-murder conviction in the Scott Peterson case.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 17, 2015 21:25:31 GMT -5
No, because he does have responsibility IF it becomes a child.
|
|