forgot password register

reset password

register

patrick.net


#housing #politics #investing more»
757,246 comments in 78,013 posts by 11,102 registered users, 2 online now: HEY YOU, WillyWanker

new post

12

Equal post-conception rights for men

By someone else   2017 Jan 19, 7:41am 21897 views   522 comments   watch   quote      

Unmarried men should have equal post-conception rights including ability to refuse financial obligation for a child where the woman unilaterally decides to continue the pregnancy.

Let's call it the affirmative consent law, requiring men to give affirmative consent to paternity.

This would achieve equality with a woman's "her body her choice" right to ignore the man's request for an abortion or to give the child up for adoption. Rights which only women have.

If she has the right to refuse responsibility for the baby, he should also have the right to refuse responsibility for the baby. In recognition of the biological reality that it is the woman who physically has to have the abortion, if she wants to abort, the man should have to pay the entire financial cost of the abortion.

Married men should be assumed by the fact of marriage to have given their consent to financial support for legitimate biological paternity.

It is not fair that a woman should have the right to entrap a man with one night sex, obligating him to 20 years or more of financial liability, when she has the right to simply opt out of the same situation. Without a man's affirmative consent to paternity, it's rape.

#politics

« First    « Previous     Comments 483 - 522 of 522     Last »

483 Dan8267   2017 Jan 26, 8:19pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

FP says

sterillizing women is neither necessary nor sufficient condition for preventing this

Prove it. Oh, and the sterilization does not have to be permanent. That's why I said chemical spaying.

484 Dan8267   2017 Jan 26, 8:21pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

FP says

So your solution is to sterilize poor women?

My solution involves preventing women or men from continuing to choose to produce more children when they have failed to take care of the ones they already have. And yes, that is the path of least evil in this situation. It is far less evil than what you propose: slavery, childhood poverty, and debtor prisons (which are in the status quo you are defending). Rapists are chemically castrated so they cannot rape again. The justification is that they should not have the freedom to commit more of the same harm. Why should irresponsible parents be allowed to commit more of the same harm?

485 FP   2017 Jan 26, 8:51pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

Dan8267 says

Prove it.

Ah, nonsense. We both know I'm right. In any case, you are the one who must prove it is necessary and sufficient.

486 FP   2017 Jan 26, 8:55pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

Dan8267 says

It is far less evil than what you propose: slavery, childhood poverty, and debtor prisons (which are in the status quo you are defending).

1. Paying child support is not slavery.

2. See above about necessary and sufficient condition.

3. You and I obviously have different views on evil.

487 someone else   2017 Jan 26, 9:10pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

FP says

1. Paying child support is not slavery.

Paying a large percentage of your income under threat of violence if you do not, for the majority of your working life, is an approximation of slavery.

As the percentage approaches 100%, the situation does indeed approach slavery.

488 FP   2017 Jan 26, 9:10pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

Dan8267 says

Why should irresponsible parents be allowed to commit more of the same harm?

Again, how do you define irresponsible? Having income below certain level?

Harm - to your wallet?

Too bad society does not view you using all your income, as you wish, for your pleasure only, regardless of what you've done, as your irrvokable right. But I am fine with it. After all, you are breathing the air of my children. And you are getting old and useless. Why should we tolerate your existence? I say we need license for living. You have lived irresponsibly, not raised descendants to take your place and to take care of you in your old age. Why should we allow you to continue doing the same thing?

489 FP   2017 Jan 26, 9:14pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

Patrick says

As the percentage approaches 100%, the situation does indeed approach slavery.

The percentage can be varied. I do not claim that the current laws are perfect and should not be changed.

Is there any percentage you find acceptable?

Do you find a governmental allowance acceptable?

490 Dan8267   2017 Jan 26, 11:22pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

FP says

1. Paying child support is not slavery.

Patrick says

Paying a large percentage of your income under threat of violence if you do not, for the majority of your working life, is an approximation of slavery.

Slavery, like almost every evil, can be throttled. There are degrees of it, and yes, forcing someone at gunpoint to either work for you or be locked up in a cage is, by definition, slavery. Like all other laws, child support laws are enforced with the barrel of a gun.

491 Dan8267   2017 Jan 26, 11:24pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

FP says

3. You and I obviously have different views on evil.

Yes, mine is based on do no harm to others. Yours is based on if you have fun, you have to pay a price.

492 Dan8267   2017 Jan 26, 11:25pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

FP says

Dan8267 says

Why should irresponsible parents be allowed to commit more of the same harm?

Again, how do you define irresponsible? Having income below certain level?

Harm - to your wallet?

Harm to the children they create and to society that must deal with the systemic inter-generational poverty and crime that results from irresponsible reproduction.

493 Dan8267   2017 Jan 26, 11:29pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

FP says

Why should we tolerate your existence?

You should tolerate other people's existence because if you don't, they won't tolerate yours. This is called war.

FP says

I say we need license for living.

So murder and population control are the same thing? I think not.

FP says

You have lived irresponsibly, not raised descendants to take your place and to take care of you in your old age. Why should we allow you to continue doing the same thing?

Becoming a parent is the most selfish act you can commit when there are 7+ soon to be 10 billion people on the planet and already a third of them don't even have sufficient drinking water, and we've killed off half the wildlife on the planet in the past 40 years, and we're polluting it to the point of drastically changing the climate. So no, being childless is being selfless. We should strongly encourage that.

People should not reproduce like locus and consume everything in their path. That is not being responsible, and it harms all future generations.

When the world population drops below 10 million, then you can complain that we need more children. Until then such a claim is ridiculous.

494 Dan8267   2017 Jan 26, 11:30pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

FP says

Ah, nonsense. We both know I'm right. In any case, you are the one who must prove it is necessary and sufficient.

This is the lamest argument posted on PatNet ever.

495 iwog   2017 Jan 27, 7:15am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

Well this has reached a dead end, mostly because the pro-slavery side wont respond to the key points.

Summary:

1. All decisions pertaining to men regarding monetary support, parenthood, abortion and adoption should be decided in favor of the welfare of the child first and the whim of the woman second.
2. All decisions pertaining to women regarding support, parenthood, abortion, adoption, or anything else should be decided in favor of what the woman wants.

I find these rules abhorrent however I cannot find a single exception in this very long thread of an opinion by FP or anyone else on the regressive side that violates them. If I'm wrong, please point out the example.

496 FP   2017 Jan 27, 7:49am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

Dan8267 says

Yes, mine is based on do no harm to others. Yours is based on if you have fun, you have to pay a price.

Yours are based on selfishness and bearing no responsibility.

497 iwog   2017 Jan 27, 7:54am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

FP says

Yours are based on selfishness and bearing no responsibility.

The way all women have it now?

498 FP   2017 Jan 27, 7:54am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

Dan8267 says

Harm to the children they create and to society that must deal with the systemic inter-generational poverty and crime that results from irresponsible reproduction.

And how do you determine this before they've had children? Based on wealth and income? I hope you realize the implications of this, especially considering how wealth is "earned" in our society.

By the way how is child poverty in the Scandinavian countries, or Japan?

499 FP   2017 Jan 27, 7:55am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

Dan8267 says

FP says

Ah, nonsense. We both know I'm right. In any case, you are the one who must prove it is necessary and sufficient.

This is the lamest argument posted on PatNet ever.

This is the lamest argument posted on PatNet ever.

500 FP   2017 Jan 27, 8:06am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

Dan8267 says

So murder and population control are the same thing? I think not.

Just continuing your line of logic, one small step further, to illustrate its absurdity.

Do you really believe that people will allow you to decide who can and who can't have children? To sterilize their wives and daughters? That there are no better solutions for population control (what is the natural growth rate in the developed countries again?)? Just so that you can save some dumbfuck who can't use a condom (or the taxpayers) a few bucks needed to provide for their children.

501 FP   2017 Jan 27, 8:08am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

Now I have a very important article to submit to a high profile journal. We can continue with this silly argument later if there's still interest.

Iwog, I may reply to you if you behave in the meantime.

502 iwog   2017 Jan 27, 8:10am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

FP says

Iwog, I may reply to you if you behave in the meantime.

You mean for the first time ever?

503 Dan8267   2017 Jan 27, 8:21am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

FP says

Dan8267 says

Yes, mine is based on do no harm to others. Yours is based on if you have fun, you have to pay a price.

Yours are based on selfishness and bearing no responsibility.

Bullshit. My entire proposal is based on the principle that a child is a person, not an accessory like a purse. Yours is based on the principle that children are the property of their parents and parents can act as selfishly as they want and force others into slavery to compensate for their irresponsibility.

You don't get to declare good policies evil and evil polices good simply because you say so.

504 Dan8267   2017 Jan 27, 8:23am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

FP says

Dan8267 says

Harm to the children they create and to society that must deal with the systemic inter-generational poverty and crime that results from irresponsible reproduction.

And how do you determine this before they've had children? Based on wealth and income?

The exact same way Child Protective Services determines this after children are born. Same standards. It's already being done for children post-birth. The exact same thign can be done pre-birth.

If you want to argue that Child Protective Services should be disbanded and the state should never be able to take children away from unfit parents, then grow a pair of balls and argue that. You'll lose that argument though.

505 Dan8267   2017 Jan 27, 8:26am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

FP says

Do you really believe that people will allow you to decide who can and who can't have children?

Who the fuck said I would be deciding. I said that Child Protective Services would license parents based on whether or not they are fit parents using the same standards they use right now for deciding whether or not children need to be taken away from their parents for their own protection. The only criteria I'm adding is a basic financial solvency test requiring that the parents aren't receiving any kind of financial aid because if they need financial aid to support themselves or their children, then they are not ready to have children. If you can't pay rent or your mortgage, you can't afford a child. Children are expensive, and you do not have the right to inflict abject poverty on them.

506 Dan8267   2017 Jan 27, 8:29am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

FP says

Just so that you can save some dumbfuck who can't use a condom (or the taxpayers) a few bucks needed to provide for their children.

First off, asshole, you're assuming that's the case. Some pregnancies do occur even when condoms are used.

More importantly, you just revealed your real motivations, and they are not noble. You don't give a shit about people or the children. You only care about punishing men who have had recreational sex. This is why your position is evil. You do not seek to decrease suffering or improve the lots of children. You seek to inflict suffering on men because they had some pleasure in life. You are sick.

507 Dan8267   2017 Jan 27, 8:42am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

Well this has reached a dead end, mostly because the pro-slavery side wont respond to the key points.

FP and ch_tah2 refuse to address any argument on the opposing side because they cannot refute those arguments. They merely keep repeating their assertions. They do not even respond to refutations of their assertions.

This entire debate has come down to two positions. The first is
1. All forms of slavery, including indentured servitude, are evil and should not be used.
2. Men and women should be equal under law. Neither should be forced to become a parent against their will.
3. Consent to have sex is not consent to reproduce. Not for either gender.
4. (Dan's position only) Parenting should be license by Child Protective Services to prevent unfit parents who are incapable of taking care of children from having them.

The other side is
1. Men who have recreational sex are scum. They should be punished and exploited.
2. Women should have all rights and make unilateral decisions for both genders. Men should just suck it up.
3. The state should be allowed to use violence to force men into indentured servitude. If the men resist, they are thrown in cages. If they resist being caged like animals, shoot them. They are only men.

It's not hard to see which side has the moral high ground.

508 ch_tah2   2017 Jan 27, 10:47am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

I don't have time to waste on this today, so just one post from me. I find it funny that when I actually completely leveled the playing field and took abortion off the table, Patrick, Dan and Iwog still could not agree that there was equality. Everyone of Patrick's 4 options was completely and perfectly equal. The reason is that the MJW motive on this subject isn't actually for equality (again just like SJWs don't really want equality), it is merely a way for a man to remove any responsibility for a child that is his.

As far as framing the two sides, this is a bit more accurate than Dan's:
One side:
-wants to keep the status quo (thus, not regressive dipshit Iwog) and maintain support for the child from both parents (financial from one and physical, emotional and financial from the other)

Other side:
-wants to allow men to abandon any responsibility for the child or force women to get rid of the child by abortion, abandonment or adoption

It's not hard to see which side has the moral high ground.

Have a good one!

509 iwog   2017 Jan 27, 10:53am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

ch_tah2 says

I find it funny that when I actually completely leveled the playing field and took abortion off the table

I'd like you to please stop lying about this. You did not completely level the playing field and I explained why.

510 Dan8267   2017 Jan 27, 10:54am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

ch_tah2 says

Patrick, Dan and Iwog still could not agree that there was equality.

Equality does not imply justice. Inequality does imply injustice. Just because a statement is true, does not mean its converse is true.

511 iwog   2017 Jan 27, 10:55am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

ch_tah2 says

(financial from one and physical, emotional and financial from the other)

Again we see the clear hatred of men.

ch_tah2 says

-wants to allow men to abandon any responsibility for the child or force women to get rid of the child by abortion, abandonment or adoption

You should probably acknowledge that women can abandon any responsibility right now. That they can force a man to provide for an unwanted child right now. The fact you need to gender this discussion betrays how corrupt you are being.

512 Dan8267   2017 Jan 27, 11:00am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

ch_tah2 says

As far as framing the two sides, this is a bit more accurate than Dan's:

One side:

-wants to keep the status quo (thus, not regressive dipshit Iwog) and maintain support for the child from both parents (financial from one and physical, emotional and financial from the other)

Other side:

-wants to allow men to abandon any responsibility for the child or force women to get rid of the child by abortion, abandonment or adoption

It's not more accurate.

We're not saying that men abandon responsibilities. We're saying that unless a man or a woman chooses to become a parent, they are not responsible for a child. You cannot have that responsibility forced upon you against your will. That is indentured servitude.

If a man chooses to become a parent, then yes, he is absolutely responsible for the child until it grows up or is adopted by someone else. A man who leaves his wife or lover after she gives birth to a child he consented to have with her cannot abandon that responsibility. No one, not Iwog, not Patrick, not I, have proposed that. You are constructing a straw man argument because you cannot defend your position.

Furthermore, consent to have sex is not consent to bear and raise a child. To say so is utterly ridiculous. The vast majority of times people have sex, they don't want a child.

The fact is that you do not care about the men, and you want to punish them. You have no moral authority to inflict punishment on others who have done nothing wrong.

513 Dan8267   2017 Jan 27, 11:07am   ↑ like (2)   ↑ dislike (2)     quote      

iwog says

Again we see the clear hatred of men.

A lot of family law is based on hatred of men and the desire to punish men for their sexual desires while celebrating promiscuity in women.

514 errc   2017 Jan 27, 11:34am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

Dan8267 says

ch_tah2 says

Man, I can't believe Dan seems to be less batshit crazy than you

Disagreeing with your opinions is not insanity. Not having consistent, non-contradicting reasons for believing something is.

There is nothing I have ever written that in any way constitutes any form of craziness. Every fact I've presented has either been true, or in rare cases, immediately refuted once I learned it was inaccurate. I may not be perfect, but I'm damn close because I play devil's advocate with every idea I have. I've attacked my ideas far better than you ever could, and I do that before I present them to anyone. This is why I can hold my ground. If I cannot justify a belief against all challenges, then I do not accept the belief.

If only more people did this.

515 Dan8267   2017 Feb 1, 11:43am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

Another reason that parenting should be licensed.

Infant died of starvation in her bassinet just before Christmas after her parents suffered fatal drug overdoses

But hey, the right to get your stupid genetic code in the pool of over 7 billion genetic instances is way more important than preventing shit like this.

516 FP   2017 Feb 1, 12:37pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

Dan, keep writing; I'm slowly coming around to the idea that birth licensing based on genetic code screening has its merits.

517 goldfish   2017 Apr 11, 9:09am   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote      

@Patrick
why do you think it was a trap after a man enjoy during sex?
do you think a woman will get pregnant just because a trap?
I think it was just an excuse men to escape responsibility.
do you think that unmarried men who have sex can not make a woman pregnant without a trap ..
whether a woman who is pregnant for 9 months without a husband it easy? when men just need to work to make money, a woman must bring a growing belly wherever she went.
do you still think that if a man did the sister or your mother or your daughter?
you right have the right man.
but I think it's different with human rights, because the man should not think like animals.
do not treat women like sex doll that's used only when desired and removed whenever men want.

518 someone else   2017 Apr 11, 9:11am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

Do you think women should have higher rights than men?

519 Dan8267   2017 Apr 11, 10:58am   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote      

Patrick says

Do you think women should have higher rights than men?

Only with regards to abortion because the physical constraints of reality prevents complete equality in that matter. However, that is the only exception. In all other things, including the right to not opt in to legal parenthood, there should be absolute equality under law for both genders. To say otherwise is, by definition, sexist.

520 Dan8267   2017 Apr 11, 11:03am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

errc says

If only more people did this.

More people should do this.

Furthermore, I challenge ch_tah2 or anyone else to provide even a single example of me saying something batshit crazy on PatNet. I've made 25,828 comments and 1,906 posts, so finding crazy should be damn easy if it exists. Yet I doubt anyone could produce a single example. I can easily defend everything that I've stated except for the few things I retracted when presented with valid counter-evidence. Hey, nobody's perfect, and changing one's mind in light of new evidence is always perfectly valid.

521 goldfish   2017 Apr 11, 10:57pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

Patrick says

Do you think women should have higher rights than men?

@Patrick
should be same bcoz im just know about human rights..no one being higher than another. but bcoz of selfish many people feel they are is number one.
why you should make a comparison between men's right and women's right?
why not ask ourselves about our obligations before demanding about rights?
when a men hv sex before marriage..and his women got pregnant..do you think both of them hv rights to kill their child?
so i think dont you said about trap..bcoz no one force them to hv one night sex.

522 someone else   2017 Apr 12, 8:50am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

goldfish says

why you should make a comparison between men's right and women's right?

Because men and women should have the same legal rights, but they do not. Women have more rights.

Obligations also come with rights. To have only obligations but no rights is to be a slave.

goldfish says

do you think both of them hv rights to kill their child?

Any right that the woman has, the man should also have.

We could debate the morality of abortion in general, but that is a separate issue. My own opinion is that an embryo is not a child. I do not see a problem with abortion before any brain has developed.

« First    « Previous     Comments 483 - 522 of 522     Last »

users   about   suggestions   source code   contact  
topics   random post   best comments   comment jail  
10 reasons it's a terrible time to buy  
8 groups who lie about the housing market  
37 bogus arguments about housing  
get a free bumper sticker:

top   bottom   home