Yet more proof that people are stupid and selfish
The jackass admits that he’s going to loose the case. He says he just wants to "call attention" to the issue. I hope that he doesn’t really think this will go anywhere. Conservatives won’t support a man’s right to avoid responsibility because conservatives hate sex and think its evil. They figure that unwanted repercussions from non-monogamous premarital sex will discourage people from having it. Thus unwanted pregnancy and STD’s are a mixed blessing in the republican mind.
‘Liberals I mean Democrats are pretty firmly in the NOW camp and aren’t likely to support anything that might possibly be perceived as harmful to women. Plus child support is another instance of the government taking your money for a good reason and Democrats support that on principle.
Now it is true that women have the power when it comes to deciding what happens in a pregnancy. That’s not really fair. But life isn’t fair in any way I can think of. Accept it or kill yourself. But if you do decide on the coward’s way out then get some life insurance and make it look like an accident. There’s a third person in the situation and it doesn’t matter what you wanted, you’ve got a HUGE responsibility to be a good parent.
posted by Garble at 1:59 PM
.JPG)
.JPG){kind=link}
7 Comments:
"He could have had a lawyer draw up a contract for the woman to sign saying that she waived any financial claims on the father, before she got pregnant."
This contract would be unenforceable because it is not in the best interest of the child.
Of course women never lie about getting pregnant...or rape.
If you want men to fight for a woman's right to abortion then help us get our rights to opt out of parenthood. IOW, it is not selfish for a man to want the ability to chose when he wants to be a parent any more than a woman is a murderer because she has an abortion.
Quid pro quo.
Bear in mind that my post was over-written in an effort to be entertaining. Now I’ll address your points in order.
The contract may or may not be enforceable. You’re correct that if the mother was unable to fully care for the child on her own the court would likely go after that father. But it’s possible to waive your parental rights and responsibilities. They do it all the time with host mothers, sperm and egg donors. It would likely require more than a simple form.
You next wrote: “Of course women never lie about getting pregnant...or rape.”
Bill, are you still a little bitter from the conviction?
Sorry that’s taking us off topic. I’ll freely admit that all people lie about everything. I’m glad that we have courts to sort out that type of dispute. If you’d pointed out that women can lie about paternity I’d agree with you. I think the system in some states is unjust in regards to contested paternity. The injustice typically biases the system against men. But that’s not the issue here. The Jackass isn’t saying the child isn’t his. He’s saying that he doesn’t want to support the child
Your final point has a couple of flaws in it. First I don’t care if you support abortion or not. I never mentioned abortion in my post. I don’t really want to discuss it. Second; paying for some of the cost associated with the child is not the same thing and being a parent. I mixed the two in my post. Someone needs to provide financial support for the child. If it’s your biological offspring I think it should be you.
"Your final point has a couple of flaws in it. First I don’t care if you support abortion or not. I never mentioned abortion in my post. I don’t really want to discuss it. Second; paying for some of the cost associated with the child is not the same thing and being a parent. I mixed the two in my post. Someone needs to provide financial support for the child. If it’s your biological offspring I think it should be you."
The reason I mentioned abortion is the reasoning behind the lawsuit is the same as Roe as first set out in Griswold v Conn. The argument was that there is a right to privacy implicit in the constitution. A woman should have the right to control her body and that right trumps the rights of the fetus or the father. Fair enough. We are arguing that a father should have the right to decide if he wants to be a parent. Forcing fatherhood on a man is nothing less than slavery. you are forcing a human being to work to benefit another. The argument is that this is for the benefit of the child but abortion rights for women have already said that the rights of the child are subordinate to the rights of the child, the father, and society.
The hypocrisy is that supporters of abortion rights are using the old traditionalist arguments of gender roles against men but reject those arguments when it comes to a woman's body.
I hope you give this some more thought and thanks for the response.
In talking about his claim here on your blog, you've helped him achieve his goal. Me too. We've both been picked out by Technorati for having linked to the Mens group who is behind this (of course, I wrote more thoughtful, carefully constructed arguments).
He wins (although not his £500 a month).
Bill, You wrote:
"…rights for women have already said that the rights of the child are subordinate to the rights of the child, the father, and society."
Legally "fetus" doesn't equal "child". It's assumed (decided?) by the courts that fetus isn't alive yet. Therefore the fetus doesn't have rights. I could argue that your rational implies that a woman killing a child is justified so long as the biological father doesn't have to pay any financial support for the child unless he chooses.
to be pragmatic about it: It will take money for the kids to survive and have even a chance at being a productive member of society. How do you figure that the biological father has no more responsibility than anyone else? Kids are expensive and parenting is difficult. If a child is poorly raised then there is a good chance that later in life they'll make bad decisions and become a burden on society. So there's a societal interest in good parenting. I think the biological parents should be held accountable for costs associated with the child. The costs are real and I don't want to pay them. I'm not related to the kid. Btw: He's not being forced to parent. He's just being taxed/fined 500/month. I know hard core objectivists view this as slavery, but I prefer to think of it as armed robbery. Society isn't enslaving him, it's robbing him. It's not taking even that much. 500$/mo won't cover the costs of day care in most major cities.
"Legally "fetus" doesn't equal "child". It's assumed (decided?) by the courts that fetus isn't alive yet. Therefore the fetus doesn't have rights. I could argue that your rational implies that a woman killing a child is justified so long as the biological father doesn't have to pay any financial support for the child unless he chooses."
Garble,
A woman killing her child is justified by the fact that the fetus lives in her body. Our objection is that whether that fetus becomes a child or medical waste is under the sole discretion of the woman. Ergo no right, no responsibilities.
El Bow is right that we have already won. Look at the discussion on DailyKos and FreeRepublic, the divisions are the same. Some men defend the status quo. On the right, it is the chivilric male. On the left, it is the feminist male. But men are starting to wake up to the world of female priviledge not just in reproductive rights but in areas of hiring and custodial issues. You can see both of these types of men on Kos and FRepublic.
We are not left or right. We are pro-male and we want to demolish female priviledge wherever it is found.
Wow, lots to comment on there Bill.
“We are not left or right. We are pro-male and we want to demolish female priviledge wherever it is found.”
It was pretty obvious that you had issues with women in your first comment.
Maybe that’s why you continue to use poor logic. Specifically you continue to equate a fetus with a child. You wrote
"A woman killing her child is justified by the fact that the fetus lives in her body."
That's not correct. A woman is justified in aborting a fetus because it's not a separate entity, it's part of her body. (please note I'm not saying I agree with that. But it's the reasoning. ) Since the fetus is part of her body, akin to the appendix for instance, then it’s her decision on how to proceed.
If a fetus is a child then abortion in murder and has to stop now, everywhere.
If a fetus is just another internal organ that has the potential to become life then its outpatient surgery and the decision should be made by the person having it.
Towards the end of your comment you start making sense again:
Our objection is that whether that fetus becomes a child or medical waste is under the sole discretion of the woman.
Okay, now you’re separating the two. I agree with you. At this point the decision about whether to allow a fetus to become a child is up to the woman. This makes perfect sense because before it’s a child it’s just another part of her body.
The man has no decision to make here. However, the decision to have sex is mutual. The decision not to use protection is mutual. The risk associated with birth control failure is well known and accepted. The laws for child support have been around for a long time. There aren’t any surprises and he got to make lots of decisions. But you’re right, this is unfair. Life’s tough all over. Just think about the kid that has to grow up knowing they’re descended from a Jackass like this.
I’m selfish and a pragmatist. I don’t want to pay for this jackass’s kid and I don’t want the kid to grow up to be a burden on society. So I think society will work out better in general and for me personally if we as a state get together, rob the non-custodial biological parent and give the money to the child’s guardian. If that mean a woman pays child support that’s cool to.
Also, who cares what commenter at the Daily Kos think? That’s like saying focus on the family or Pat Buchanan agree with you. DK is mostly annoying communists blinded by rage at their inability to win an election outside of California. Actually that’s not entirely true. Kossacks haven’t won an election anywhere yet. They just don’t mind so much in Berkley.
Post a Comment
<< Home