Does he have a valid point?

[Zzyzx]

.

Bill Maher:
"When I hear from people that religion doesn't hurt anything, I say really? Well besides wars, the crusades, the inquisitions, 9-11, ethnic cleansing, the suppression of women, the suppression of homosexuals, fatwas, honor killings, suicide bombings, arranged marriages to minors, human sacrifice, burning witches, and systematic sex with children, I have a few little quibbles. And I forgot blowing up girl schools in Afghanistan."

Some say "The good outweighs the bad." If so what is that weighty good?

Many say "That is just the other religions." Is that true?

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 282 by enviousintheeverafter]

Yes, there is an inequality. A woman may LEGALLY trap a sexual partner and imprison him against his will for three decades. A man has no such legal opportunity. Men should be able to "abort" an offspring by declaring it so in a legal sense. If the mother wants the kid then that's fine and on her dime. (And even then, there's still inequality in that a man still does not have the option to raise a fetus that the mother wishes to abort).

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 288:

Where applicable, please note some of the issues I present also apply to non-custodial females...

...
I am suggesting that fetus/fathers be provided the same rights to disavow an offspring by legal fiat just as the woman can by abortion.

They have that right, by refusing to be a part of their child's life.

There's also the issue of child support, but even here, where a father is incapable of providing monetary support, and can show their inability to do so, they're often (rarely?) not required to - though that threshold may be as low or as high as perspective allows.

So then we get to the issue of the cost to society of supporting that child, through various programs paid for by "my" taxes. Here it's quite reasonable to consider that where "my" taxes are used to support "your" child, if and when you're capable of compensating the taxpayer, you should be expected to do just that. Even here, the father has the right to refuse to pay, up to and including a refusal to work for a paycheck. The rhetorical you also has the option of going "off the grid" to escape having to pay. Granted, the alternative is likely to spend time in jail, but that doesn't mean the refusal to pay can't be made.



That said, I rail against laws that allow for, "We'll collect this money for you, with lawyers provided by taxpayers, even as we refuse to offer the non-custodial parent a lawyer to help defend their rights". The courts never recognized me as anything but wallet. It was painfully, depressingly obvious that my rights meant nothing.

My payments were always a separate issue to my ex-wife's manipulations and refusals to allow me to see my son on the court ordered schedule. I NEVER had my son on his birthday, Christmas eve / morning, or any other important events in his life. I can't count how many times my ex found out I had a date for the weekend, only to have her bring my son over at the last minute, 'cause "he was missing you, surely you won't abandon him (said in front of him, as I'm sure you've gathered)". My gifts to my son would invariably break, go missing, or "took up so much space they had to be sold in a yard sale". A sale in which he never received the proceeds for his loss of the gifts I gave him. At the time, I was quite poor, and couldn't just run out and replace 'em.

I remember one time a chick I knew wanted to take my son and her daughter to Mousy World. All was going to plan, only to have him tell me at the last minute he didn't wanna go. I figured it was 'cause he'd outgrown the whole thing, so I didn't much fret it. But then the ex got remarried the following spring, and sure as grits are groceries, they took the boy to Mousy World, and good on 'em for it. When he returned, he was excited to tell how much fun it was. I won't lie, this upset me a bit. I told him such as, "I wish you woulda gone with us last winter when we went", only to hear the words I still hear to this day, "That's okay, Mom said you were taking me there to kill me". Just matter of fact, as if it was normal for him to hear such about me. It broke my heart. And don't it beat all, I can't pray for her death in a fire, for fear it'd upset our son.

So what could I do? Use what limited funds I had to hire a lawyer to help with these issues, risking a loss anyway, and jail for not paying child support, or pay the child support and continue to have a manipulative, vengeful woman restrict my rights, and the rights of my son?

/rant, I just thought it important to tell it.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 290 by JoeyKnothead]

Prospective fathers should have the right to refuse fatherhood and child support obligations in accordance with abortion laws. In essence, a fathers abortion.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 279 by Hatuey]

Agreed. Try telling that to a militant feminist, though. Why does a woman get the right to destroy a potential offspring up to a certain month of gestation but not a father. Answer: inequality.

Lucky for men that militant feminists like that aren't running the country.

Yes, men and women aren't equal in their sexual organs. It's so UNFAIR of the feminists to hog all of that birthing and keeping all that good luck away from the men.

Maybe once medical science improves a bit, men will be equal and be able to have the baby the woman doesn't want.

Then, the WOMAN would have to allow her mate to have an unwanted baby.
And then THAT would be unfair to the WOMEN.

So, who should decide if the pregnant person ( male or female ) should abort or not?

Whatever limit is set for women to abort, so should the father have that same right.

But the father isn't having the pregnancy in his body. I agree that the father should have rights over his OWN body. Can you tell me why he should have rights over someone else's body?

No more women telling men that they're on the pill,

You think that men should force women to take birth control or not?

carrying a fetus to full term without the fathers knowledge,

You think we should force women to tell the father of their pregnancy?

then at birth telling the father that he is a slave for the next three decades through infant hood through college degree.

I agree that those laws seem unfair. Men should not be forced into economic fatherhood if they didn't consent to raise a child with the mother.

What's right for the goose is right for the gander.

Gooses and ganders have different sexual organs, so in this case, this sexual case, the proverb doesn't apply as they are NOT the same in this regard.
If a woman can have a baby without the consent of the father, the father should not be forced to pay, at least not for all of it.. Times have changed.. some laws are not keeping up.

Let's agree, for the sake of the argument, that it IS unfair for a man to pay for an unwanted child... that still doesn't mean the man should tell what a woman should do with her body.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to Blastcat]

You misunderstand my position. Please read back over my previous posts as I don't intend to defend positions that aren't mine that you erroneously attribute to me.

Example: NEVER have I even once implied that men have any rights at all over what women do with their bodies. I even stated the opposite in one of my posts of rebuttal. It'd be like me accusing you of approving of the flood and gods behavior therein.


If you care to debate my actual position then I will answer questions or concerns you have, then.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 292 by Blastcat]

My SINGULAR point is that men should not be forced into economic fatherhood without consent. THAT IS HE POINT.

Men have ZERO rights over any woman's body. Duh. Never even implied otherwise.

Men should LEGALLY be allowed to denounce ALL responsibilities of fatherhood until past the date when an abortion would be legal for the mother. (Unless uninformed of the fact--then the father should be given an appropriate amount of time to decide upon fatherhood).

In other words it should not be LEGAL for fatherhood to be thrust upon any man who is not aware of has not agreed to such a role. THAT would be equality.


Of course men can't bear children or force the mother into any action with her body. How ridiculously absurd. The issue is that of LEGAL entrapment and slavery of men who had no choice in being a father. Simple. Really. Think about it.

Blastcat, since you had access to all my posts and were wrong to cut them into sections that did NOT express the clear intent I stated, I expect an apology and an a outline of joe our positions are in exact and complete agreement. Your fault for not reading into comprehension.

[BwhoUR]

[Replying to post 285 by suckka]

Nobody is suggesting that a man have any control over a woman's body or that she should be forced to carry a baby longer than she wishes. I am suggesting that fetus/fathers be provided the same rights to disavow an offspring by legal fiat just as the woman can by abortion.

I think I understand your position now and have no doubt this thread will solve it. Really, it should be bronzed. Pregnancy can be hard to detect. The pill can fail. A woman may be against abortion. What could persuade the law to think of the man over the " best interest of the child?" What if the man changes his mind and begins a relationship with the child, what if the child wants it? Hard questions deserve a lot of thought.

[BwhoUR]

[Replying to post 295 by suckka]

The extreme position which gives the most weight to the father is the instance of a woman calculatingly trapping a man, somehow, even though the man used a condom. A fatal attraction, if you will. Is that right? And he could prove it, right, that she lied or messed with his condom? How does he prove it if he didn't know he would have to?

Or do you want us to tackle the harder scenario of, oops, we're pregnant and she says she can't abort, she loves Jr. aleady? Harder because what surprised guy wouldn't "opt out" financially if he "wasn't ready."

If you use the second scenario, most kids of young males wold be unsupported. Not that child support even comes close usually. It's hard to generalize where everything is fair to everyone. I guess that's why courts don't try and think of the child first. Mothers who bear children knowing the fathers are completely against it are no winners to be sure and the biggest casualty is the child. Tough debate.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 294 by Hatuey]

My SINGULAR point is that men should not be forced into economic fatherhood without consent. THAT IS HE POINT.

Thank you for your clarification. Your opinion is clear.

Men have ZERO rights over any woman's body. Duh. Never even implied otherwise.

Thank you for answering the question. Your opinion is very clear.

Men should LEGALLY be allowed to denounce ALL responsibilities of fatherhood until past the date when an abortion would be legal for the mother. (Unless uninformed of the fact--then the father should be given an appropriate amount of time to decide upon fatherhood).

In other words it should not be LEGAL for fatherhood to be thrust upon any man who is not aware of has not agreed to such a role. THAT would be equality.

Thanks again for your opinion on the topic.

Of course men can't bear children or force the mother into any action with her body. How ridiculously absurd. The issue is that of LEGAL entrapment and slavery of men who had no choice in being a father. Simple. Really. Think about it.

We agree that men can't bear children at this time.. ( I think???)

And we agree that men should not force women to bear children against their will.

The issue you are raising is that of the legal entrapment and slavery of men who had no choice in being a father.

Thanks for your opinion on that, too.

Blastcat, since you had access to all my posts and were wrong to cut them into sections that did NOT express the clear intent I stated,

I cut people's posts up in little pieces to address the ideas of the little pieces. I'm doing that now..

Do you think this is a bad technique?

When I quote someone. I at LEAST am not trying to misrepresent their words.
If there is a misunderstanding, we can clear it up in debate.

I didn't intentionally cut your words up to misrepresent them, I guarantee. It's just not something that I do. I DO however, sometimes MISUNDERSTAND what people mean.. and then I usually ask questions so that I can understand.

Not a good method, in your estimation?
I didn't do it well in this case?

Could you give me examples of where I went wrong?
I can guarantee you that if I find a mistake. I will gladly correct it.

But vague accusations don't help me learn.
I learn a LOT by my mistakes.. so don't hesitate to show me where I went wrong.

I expect an apology and an a outline of joe our positions are in exact and complete agreement. Your fault for not reading into comprehension.

Sorry, but that's not going to happen right now, as I don't think I misrepresented you or did anything wrong, really.

I will apologize quickly if it's pointed out to me. I just don't think I DID anything wrong that I should apologize for, at this time.

That's why I asked you for quotes.
As an ardent skeptic, I want evidence.. not just claims.

Are we on the same page when it comes to evidence and claims?

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 290 by JoeyKnothead]

That's a terrible situation Joey and reminiscent of what I said earlier, about thinking of that gorgeous thing thrashing in bed with you, and her capacity to be a decent mother. I don't know how a guy could ever possibly know such a thing. It's one of those unpleasant 'risks' one takes when one does what comes most naturally Your situation is a real tragedy, in my book.

Hatuey might be onto something with his purported 'law'. It would level the playing field in the event the woman you had sex with might be a horrible person.

I'm not one to support 'legislating against stupidity', and yet I can see a place for legislation in place of foresight and planning. Sex is too important, whether we think it should be or not, and the way it turns off a person's higher functions can almost be construed as worthy of something like Hatuey's idea.

That no law like this has been put forth means something important about public sentiment. Perhaps they're too busy crafting 'shame laws' for single pregnant mothers or promoting abstinence? And what if the parents, sometime down the road, want to change their minds? Legislating human action at this level inevitably has unforeseeable consequences, and those would have to be reasonably fleshed out. Maybe they have been, and that's why no such 'law' has come forth?