Should Men be Allowed to Renounce Paternity?

[Only Molecules]

freeziereezie

x-Kemetic Phoenix-x

freeziereezie

It just seems to make sense. If a woman doesn't want a child, all she needs is a surgery. But with the current system, even if a man doesn't want a child, if the woman wants to carry the child to term, it's out of his hands and he'll have to pay child support for almost 2 decades.

I don't think a man should have to raise a child if he doesn't want to as much as I don't think a woman should have to. It's not civilized.

Agreed.
This should also be reversed: If a man wants the child, and the woman doesn't, it should work like a surrogate. He pays for everything, she has the child, she gives up custody, he keeps the child.

HOWEVER:
You can't renege in the event the kid becomes a superstar athlete, or something to that effect. You didn't raise them, you get no benefits.

Um, no, that doesn't make much sense to me. You're still forcing a woman to give birth, which I'm not going to pretend like it's just some small thing. You can't just force someone to do something like that, it's ******** up.

Agreed, if I were to become pregnant, and of course, did not want the child but the "father" did, I would still not go through with the pregnancy. In all reality being pregnant and giving birth are life altering events that take up too much of a being to endure.

[- Ishki -]

Tactical Leg Sweep

Electrik Cloud

Tactical Leg Sweep

Electrik Cloud

ExodusNirvana

Electrik Cloud

I think the man should of know that something like a unwanted pregnancy could occur. If he really doesn't want to paying child support or marry the woman than he shouldn't make her a mother, even on accident.

A man can't make a woman a mother, that's up to the individual woman to decide. Men have no say whether or not she keeps or aborts. So even if it's found that the woman were to impregnant herself through dubious means, he would still be obligated to pay out. There have been instances where women have used sperm samples and even rape to get financial support from men. This is abortion for men, men deserve choice just as much as women.

A man can make a woman a mother through unprotected sex. Even if the law says he isn't, if a blood test were to say he's the father, than he's the father. The law can't change who's sperm or egg created a baby. To me, men are more concerned about keeping their money in their pocket than the welfare of their own creation.

Kind of like women are more concerned about not having to go through pregnancy than the welfare of their own creation when they have abortions, right?

If they abort it then the welfare of the child isn't a concern.

Right except for that whole thing where the child is ABORTED before it's born.

I feel like I'm pointing out the obvious here, but children don't get aborted. Embryos and fetuses get aborted.

[Ethicus Tangere]

If a man has no say in whether a woman gets an abortion, the woman should have no say in whether he contributes to a conceived child's financial upbringing during and after birth.

If you're going to say that men do have a say, then they are equally financially responsible for any child conceived.

Just saying.

[Agent Cougar Draven]

Ethicus Tangere

If a man has no say in whether a woman gets an abortion, the woman should have no say in whether he contributes to a conceived child's financial upbringing during and after birth.

If you're going to say that men do have a say, then they are equally financially responsible for any child conceived.

Just saying.

This is really the only valid solution to this argument. If men want to renounce the requirement that they pay for children that they don't want, then they have to deal with the fact that if the woman doesn't want the child, and they do, they have no say in the matter whatsoever.

[Meroko_Love]

Agent Cougar Draven

Ethicus Tangere

If a man has no say in whether a woman gets an abortion, the woman should have no say in whether he contributes to a conceived child's financial upbringing during and after birth.

If you're going to say that men do have a say, then they are equally financially responsible for any child conceived.

Just saying.

This is really the only valid solution to this argument. If men want to renounce the requirement that they pay for children that they don't want, then they have to deal with the fact that if the woman doesn't want the child, and they do, they have no say in the matter whatsoever.

I agree.

Though I find it troublesome that there are still men out there that think they should have a say in what a woman does with her reproductive system. I doubt it's about the child; I think there is an underlying contempt for not being able to legally control that woman's body. Afterall, throughout human history, women have largely been viewed as vessels to propagate the man's line since the majority of world cultures are patriarchal.

[Agent Cougar Draven]

Meroko_Love

Agent Cougar Draven

Ethicus Tangere

If a man has no say in whether a woman gets an abortion, the woman should have no say in whether he contributes to a conceived child's financial upbringing during and after birth.

If you're going to say that men do have a say, then they are equally financially responsible for any child conceived.

Just saying.

This is really the only valid solution to this argument. If men want to renounce the requirement that they pay for children that they don't want, then they have to deal with the fact that if the woman doesn't want the child, and they do, they have no say in the matter whatsoever.

I agree.

Though I find it troublesome that there are still men out there that think they should have a say in what a woman does with her reproductive system. I doubt it's about the child; I think there is an underlying contempt for not being able to legally control that woman's body. Afterall, throughout human history, women have largely been viewed as vessels to propagate the man's line since the majority of world cultures are patriarchal.

Mm. Agreed.

Interesting story, though. I saw an image on Tumblr the other day, one of those amusing eCards or whatever, that said "I bet you're one unplanned pregnancy away from being pro-choice." It reminded me of when my daughter was born. I'm pro-choice, my (soon-to-be-ex) wife is pro-choice, yet...it was never really a question for us. Odd, looking back on it.

[Meroko_Love]

Agent Cougar Draven

Meroko_Love

Agent Cougar Draven

Ethicus Tangere

If a man has no say in whether a woman gets an abortion, the woman should have no say in whether he contributes to a conceived child's financial upbringing during and after birth.

If you're going to say that men do have a say, then they are equally financially responsible for any child conceived.

Just saying.

This is really the only valid solution to this argument. If men want to renounce the requirement that they pay for children that they don't want, then they have to deal with the fact that if the woman doesn't want the child, and they do, they have no say in the matter whatsoever.

I agree.

Though I find it troublesome that there are still men out there that think they should have a say in what a woman does with her reproductive system. I doubt it's about the child; I think there is an underlying contempt for not being able to legally control that woman's body. Afterall, throughout human history, women have largely been viewed as vessels to propagate the man's line since the majority of world cultures are patriarchal.

Mm. Agreed.

Interesting story, though. I saw an image on Tumblr the other day, one of those amusing eCards or whatever, that said "I bet you're one unplanned pregnancy away from being pro-choice." It reminded me of when my daughter was born. I'm pro-choice, my (soon-to-be-ex) wife is pro-choice, yet...it was never really a question for us. Odd, looking back on it.

Oh yeah, those eCards can be very funny.

You have a daughter? How nice! How old is she?

[Agent Cougar Draven]

Meroko_Love

Agent Cougar Draven

Meroko_Love

Agent Cougar Draven

Ethicus Tangere

If a man has no say in whether a woman gets an abortion, the woman should have no say in whether he contributes to a conceived child's financial upbringing during and after birth.

If you're going to say that men do have a say, then they are equally financially responsible for any child conceived.

Just saying.

This is really the only valid solution to this argument. If men want to renounce the requirement that they pay for children that they don't want, then they have to deal with the fact that if the woman doesn't want the child, and they do, they have no say in the matter whatsoever.

I agree.

Though I find it troublesome that there are still men out there that think they should have a say in what a woman does with her reproductive system. I doubt it's about the child; I think there is an underlying contempt for not being able to legally control that woman's body. Afterall, throughout human history, women have largely been viewed as vessels to propagate the man's line since the majority of world cultures are patriarchal.

Mm. Agreed.

Interesting story, though. I saw an image on Tumblr the other day, one of those amusing eCards or whatever, that said "I bet you're one unplanned pregnancy away from being pro-choice." It reminded me of when my daughter was born. I'm pro-choice, my (soon-to-be-ex) wife is pro-choice, yet...it was never really a question for us. Odd, looking back on it.

Oh yeah, those eCards can be very funny.

You have a daughter? How nice! How old is she?

She's 2. She'll be 3 in a few months.

I haven't seen her since my wife left me.

[Wee Little]

I think its a reasonable idea. A man has little say over a womans body, but he should have some say in both incidents, whether she wants it and he doesn't, or he wants it and she doesn't.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Olya

I will be very grateful if we can get a few things squared out of the way before I continue to respond to this.

1. Your writing is painful. I have refrained from pointing this out up till now, but you damn near give me an aneurysm every time I have to read what you type. Perhaps you are tired. Perhaps English is not your first language. Perhaps you are bilingual and do not use English often enough. I don't know what the problem is and frankly I don't care. I can promise you that regardless of the problem, I am sympathetic. All I ask is that if you continue to refuse using proper punctuation and correct number of verbs, you would at least be kind enough to break your run-on sentences down into manageable smaller sentences. As things stand, you can give Margaret Mitchell a run for her money. Good for you, but I cannot keep reading this word salad.

2. Please, refrain from condescending name-calling. I am not your "sweetie," "hon," "toots," or any other such term you may wish to use to sustain your Swiss cheese arguments. If you continue, I will have to report you for sexual harassment. I will not be asking again.

3. If you are unable to put away your emotions and bile when carrying a civil discussion, then it is best for us to agree to disagree. From the beginning of this conversation (and it has become especially evident in the last post), you have expressed what appears to be a puzzling deep personal resentment toward the promiscuous male. If you don't mind me asking, have you been raised without a father figure? Is that where the resentment stems from? Or is there another "close to home" issue at play? If that is the case, I can both understand and sympathize, but it will terminate any further discussion between us on this subject as I do not see a point in canvasing a topic that would best be discussed between you and a family psychologist. In my experience, it is best to deal with our demons and skeletons with trained professionals as opposed to venting those feelings in a public forum.

These three points are not up for discussion and debate. All I am asking for is literate post, common courtesy, and a bit of disclosure if it is necessary.


****************************************************************************

Riviera de la Mancha

Hey, I wasnt the one who conflated the two.

I had no idea that the term "conflate" can be used to describe separation of motive for action and justification of an action. In my experience, it means quite the opposite.

Quote:

Huh, didnt know I was dealing with a clairvoyant who was capable of discerning why women who fought for and supported Roe v. Wade.

I always knew that statistics were not as reliable as people claim them to be. However, I have never pictured a parallel between statistics and clairvoyance. I have presented statistical reasons for why women abort. For the fear of repeating myself, 93% of the time women abort because they are not ready for motherhood (a.k.a. do not want the burden of a child at this point in time). I have no compelling reason to believe that there is a significant difference between why women want abortions today versus why they wanted them in mid 20th century. If you believe that their is a justifiable cause to question the pertinence of these statistics as we move backward in time, you are welcome to provide me with counter-data. As you have not done so and instead resulted to poultry attack, I will, for now, assume that you have nothing of value to add at least on this subject.

Quote:

You ever worked with a woman's shelter? All I got to say is work at one for a while, talk to someone women there, then come tell me how many have the physical ability to leave, or who see their physical ability as separate or unaffected by the psycho-social.

I am going to venture a guess that when asking me this question you've already made two assumptions.
1. You assumed that the answer is "no." Otherwise, I doubt you would have asked.
2. And you assumed that a negative answer would somehow change the fundamental psychological and statistical truths about the nature of abuse.

Let me run some things by you:

1. First, some trivia. Did you know that one of the reasons given in defense of Prohibition (back when that argument was on the table) was that drinking men were more likely to beat their wives and children? At least in the developed world, spousal abuse has not been socially acceptable for a long time. That is why we have all these wonderful resources available for victims of abuse. Now, I do understand that within the developed world there are tight-knit ethnic communities that have carried their third-world values over into the host country. I am well aware of the fact that there are cultures where beating your wife and children is very socially acceptable. Hell, in India, it is quite normal to sell a female family member into prostitution. However, because we are talking about the developed world, in the case of North America in particular, even tight-knit ethnic communities are socialized to some extent with the mainstream society and culture and thus women in those communities have far more resources and far greater opportunity to leave. Leaving an abusive household is a hard choice - I have never disputed it, but by God that choice exist! Fortunately, we do not stone single women and there are places where these women can go.

2. Here is an interesting concept. Did you know that " emotional attachment to the abuser is one of the primary reasons battered women give for why they choose to stay?" Source

3. And here are some statistics about abuse:

• Given the chance to escape their abusers, many women - at least one study reports 50 percent - return to their abusers after a shelter stay.
  
• Men and women abuse each other at similar rates, although men's injuries are often less serious and they are much more reticent to report them.
  
• Women frequently strike out at their partners, and not simply in self-defense; in 24% of violent American marriages, the woman is the only abuser.
  
• Studies of dating violence reveal a disturbing trend about girls' relationship violence: When only one partner is violent, it is more likely - some studies have shown twice as likely - to be the female partner.
  
• The popular conception of domestic violence in which the female victim lives in terror of her controlling abuser only represents a small fraction of American couples struggling with violence today.
  
• Violent partners often learn these patterns of relating in childhood from their mothers, fathers and siblings - in time, these experiences influence young people to become the next generation's victims and abusers.

Source

I especially like this last article because it provides links to scholarly research, none older than 2000 and majority originating in 2008. If you wish to challenge any of these points, I suggest you find hard recent data. I am getting tired of you resorting to baseless claims and arguments of passion and emotion rather than hard cold fact.

Quote:

1.) I never claimed that a man had a right to make a choice easier, so your whole counter-point is irrelevant. I said it preserves a constitutional right. More specifically, I argue this because to allow men to unilaterally cut his responsibility without any attempts by the court or any agency at findings of fact places what the law calls an undue burden on the exercise of this right.

You strike me as a man who has, very firmly, planted his a** on two chairs. Do you remember your claim that allowing a father to relinquish his parental rights and responsibilities places an undue burden on the taxpayer? Where is the taxpayer in this scenario? Let me run this by you. Single mothers who do not earn enough to support a child are entitled to reduced cost housing, food stamps, medicare, reduced or free school lunches for the children, and other such measures to ensure that the family can survive. The university I went to took $20 off each student in order to provide free daycare for students and faculty with small children. A woman without a male is not without resources or choices. Not having a male does not strip her of her constitutional right to chose nor does it limit her feasible choices to only abortion. If you have any hard proof to the contrary, I would like to see it.

Moreover, this is America. Sewing each other is the favorite past time of its citizens after celebrity gossip. I do not recall arguing for taking away a woman's right to seek the help of the courts. I recall arguing for limiting cases in which the courts can impose parental obligations on the father. But surely, if the mother feels that she has sufficient proof of some form of domestic partnership, she may attempt a court battle. However, in cases where there is no evidence of domestic partnership, courts would have a much harder time contesting a man's waiver of his paternity.

Quote:

2.) Yeah, all you said there was that people who support this notion dont advocate for total liability negation. Funny thing is, neither did I. My argument is specific to this case alone of men opting out. I argue that to allow this policy creates an unheard of exception within liability law that really cant be justified on any previously existing concept within liabilities. It would allow a person to, ex post facto of some situation where normally the justice system endeavors to find whether he is liable, to do an end-run around this policy and cut it out entirely.

I am familiar with British Common Law. So, let's be honest about what it is. Although judges often take advice from prior rulings, there is no provision where a judge is absolutely bound by president. That is what makes Common Law much more fluid and responsive than Civil Law. So, your argument "can't be justified by precedent" is not entirely pertinent.

Ex post facto? What does ex post facto have to do with this? How is persecution for an act that was not a crime at the time it was committed relevant to this situation? I see your "ex post facto" and raise you "ubi pus, ibi evacua!"

Again, any policy can be challenged in court! This is the country where people sue McDonalds for being fat! How you jump to the conclusion that greater legal protection for an unattached male is somehow above the rule of law is beyond me! Defining a relationship where no duty is owed from one party to another is not the same as asking that no proof be provided. No one is advocating systematic allowance of fraud. To receive any legal document, a person must first amass legal paperwork of his own. In this case, proof of no cohabitation, proof of no financial support, proof of length of relationship, etc. And yes, if a woman has proof to the contrary, she can involve herself in the process. Does she have to be involved? No, simply notified by a reasonable date.

Quote:

3.) You again dont address my point. I am saying that, by creating this loophole, you truncate the rule of law by letting individuals cut it out of even fact-finding, arguably its most base function. Its totally unheard of.

You continue to astonish me. How is having simplified and streamlined legal means of wavering parenthood equivalent to protection from inquiry? I'll touch on your hypocrisy a little later when we're hitting the adoption section.

Quote:

4.) Swing and a miss. I never argued for forced child support in all cases. I argue for continuing to allow the courts do what they do now- make findings of fact and assessments of support on a case by case basis. Its you who are arguing for a general rule of law that would allow even players who lie a woman into bed to get off scot-free. Hell, if I was a player, I would just go down to the court house, pick up a few filing papers for this exemption and have them pre-filled out, with pre-made checks with the filing fee amount filled out waiting my signature. I would just wait for the call and bounce down to the court house. Problem solved, no matter how at fault I may be.

Are you claiming rape here? Or are you trying to say that women are stupid, weak, and in need of protection? Do you have any evidence that a woman who goes home with a man she met 30 minutes ago in a bar is at any loss about his motives and intentions? Consensual sex with no strings attached is not reserved for men alone. It may astonish you, but women are fully capable in participating in it, initiating it, and enjoying it.

Have you ever obtained a government-issued document? The last time I had to update my driver's licence, I had to show either my birth certificate with proof of immigration status, prior driver's licence that had not yet expired, or a valid passport. And that's just for a driver's licence! I have yet to see people walk in and out of government institutions with a wad of blank forms which they can then submit at any time with no proper documentation. You have a very active imagination.

Quote:

5.) Sorry sweets, but its an argument, whether you want to agree with it or not. I am saying that this kind of policy would essentially negate the entire process of child support, because the only reason it was made was to get people who ought to pay (as the courts determine) pay what they owe to their wives. Decent fellas who pay what they owe have little need for court orders mandating them to pay child support. They do it anyway. Child support was made for those men who (in the eyes of the law) do owe money but otherwise wouldnt pay unless the law was pressing them to do so.

Entire process of child support? Show me again where I said that under all circumstances a father should have the right to waiver paternity?

Wives? Where did "wives" come into play? I don't even remember arguing on behalf of legal fathers. Would you like to go back and re-read my post? You are beginning to spiral into nonsense and your sexist language makes it all more evident.

Quote:

6.) The problem with your counter is that it misses that, in an effort to stop promiscuous behavior, yours tilts the scales unfairly for men. Under the current system, both sides are pretty balanced- both can use protection, both can petition the courts for findings of fact, both can appeal, etc. Under your new concept, all a man has to do is do what I advocate for and keep a few papers on file at the ready. A woman has no tools in relations with men, for all a man needs to do is, the moment the woman tells him she is pregnant, head down to the court house. No challenge. No contest. No findings of fact. He just gets to walk away clean as a new-born. The woman? No tools, unless you advocate that she lies to all men, wait for the child to be born, and then tell the man.

I absolutely love this comment, especially after I read the one below. Give me a moment and I will draw a parallel for you.

Quote:

Do you know anything about the English language? My comments are about the general adoption process, with means if you are married or not, the process must be followed.

Wow, wow, wow, wow, wow! What general process? I just made a post where I cited an article that clearly indicated that married and unmarried men had different rights in case of adoption!

Quote:

While I was incorrect about one point, my argument remains- the mother cant simply place a child up for adoption without any input from the father.

Yes, she can. Go back and re-read. She can. She does not need to go through the effort of getting an unmarried father to sign anything. He can attempt a veto, but, as you have read, even if he does attempt a veto, he has very little recourse and his say is by no means final, as would be the case with a married father where both parents must give their explicit consent.

Quote:

The father can challenge and, if he is determined by the courts to be suitable, the child cant he put up.

Except that had the parents been married, this wouldn't even come into question - it'd be double or nothing. Not to mention that in many states a father cannot afford a change of heart. Unless he was there from day one of pregnancy, he has no recourse.

Quote:

This fits in with my earlier comments- if the father is determined by the courts to not be a detriment to the child, then he can take the child. So, while his consent is not needed, he still has the effectual power needed to keep the child if he wants it.

What a leap of logic! Preventing adoption is not the same as gaining custody. In fact, the courts are free to leave the child in mother's custody and force the father to pay child support, part of which often includes making sure that the mother has a roof over her head. And the above scenario is not limited to "unfit" fathers. Custody battles are seldom that simple.

But here is a fun hypocrisy I am noting. You are A-okay with a scenario where an unmarried mother notifies the biological father that she is going to relinquish her maternal rights and if he wishes to stop the process he better get moving, but you are not okay with a father notifying the mother that he wishes to waiver his parental claim and responsibility to the child in event that she chooses to give birth to it and if she wishes to stop the process, she better get moving. In both cases there are certain provisions under which the one party has the ability to challenge the other party's right, but those apply to strictly defined and limited cases. You support this for one parent but not for another and this continues to baffle me.

gaia_angelleft gaia_star gaia_angelright

For someone who claims to take issue with my supposed verbosity, you write at least as much as I do. If you are going to take issue with imagined cogency problems (which you somehow seem to easily overcome and still respond to me), then that is your prerogative.

Sexual harassment? Please- I welcome a Mod to review my comments and see if he or she can find any sexual undertones in my writing. I will not use such terms if you want, but only out of respect to you as a person, not because you are attempting to intimidate me into doing so.

Hey, if I see a spade, I call it a spade. I see a bird, I call it a bird. If you think this amounts to 'bile', then again, that is your prerogative. If you want to use that as a justification to not respond, then do what you feel you must. I wont change how I described men who sleep with women freely and with great risk.

Indeed, you did conflate your arguments there. You said that Roe v. Wade was not about women's right to bodily integrity, and asserted instead it was merely about a woman not wanting a child. I am saying that, when that case was decided, a woman's right to abort did not stem from some kind of respect for their wants or desires. It stemmed from a view that we all, women and men, have a right to bodily integrity, and women, being the only sex of our species can carry a child, have a right to abort.

The following is what you said, "Women did not fight for abortion right because the vague concept of body integrity was so important to them. They wanted to abort because they did not want to be trapped for the next 20 years in maternity they weren't ready for.". I said it once, and I say it again- I did not realize you were a clairvoyant who could read the minds of women who support Roe v. Wade and say why they supported the decision. And sorry, but simply providing stats for why women get abortions has nothing to do with why women support Roe v. Wade. The only way to prove that is to present a study asking women this question. Otherwise, you are simply speculating.

I do enjoy your argument which implies that spousal abuse is strictly or mostly a minority or colored person's issue. Newsflash- its not. This is why I say you have likely not dealt with women's shelters. Otherwise, you would see that its not just an ethnic issue. Though, I suspected as much when you made a division between physical ability to leave and the psychological state. Women who have been abused almost always have psychological problems, which inhibit their ability to use resources. This makes simply throwing money at resources only a small fraction of solving this problem.

1.) I ask you, cite for me one instance where in my tax argument I used the specific phrase "undue burden". Pro-tip: I never did. I did not because that is a specific term that the courts use.

It seems you did not grasp my taxpayer argument, so let me restate it. Read with attention. I never claimed that there are no social services. I said that allowing men to unilaterally opt out of any attempt by the courts to award a woman child support would place a heavy burden (again, 'heavy burden', not 'undue') on tax payers. Did you ever stop and think that, if the amount of use we are seeing now is occurring even under this imagined sue-happy state, then surely it will be much more if we omit the ability for women to seek child support simply by with a man signing a piece of paper? That is a huge problem with the argument, because it will, practically speaking, place women in the situation I spoke about; abort or, in this case, face the fact that you will likely be turned away from welfare services because they are just overwhelmed.

2.) Precedent is very relevant. Yeah, they are not bound to consider it, but ask any judge and they will tell you precedent is huge, which is why I brought it up as a point. This policy of allowing men to opt out so long as there is no domestic partnership has no basis in existing law. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. If you were familiar with Common Law, you would know that judges rarely base court decisions on something that has not even a close parallel in existing law. Why? It screams of legislating from the bench.

This policy would allow people to opt out of something where liability is assumed ex post facto (after the fact, which does not imply a crime as you believe). No where in liabilities can you, after a car accident, opt out of responsibility. Hell, even when people sign agreements stating that there is limited liability, you are not off the hook for all things. That is a huge problem for this position if it cant justify itself from any legal concept.

3.) Yeah, you can 'simplify' and 'streamline' alot when you completely cut stuff out. You again dont address my point that this policy stops the court from even attempting at finding fact. The OP and you have argued that all that would be needed is a signed paper, presumably filing fees, and simply no domestic partnership in law. Never anything else. This is a severe truncation of fact finding.

4.) Still a swing and a miss. I am simply referring to players, or persons who lie to other persons in order to get them into bed. Your policy is essentially a blank check for players, because they exclusively have intercourse free of domestic partnerships of any kind. If a player gets a girl pregnant, the woman has no recourse in your argument, and that is a huge problem.

5.) I mention 'wives' because that was the original point of child support. This new policy would negate the core function of child support cases completely, because men outside of domestic partnerships can sign this process away. Of course, the people who will use this are the people for whom this process was intended for: those whom the courts would normally assess child support to because, otherwise, they would not pay.

6.) You did not address this, so it remains.

7.) I did read it, and it makes it clear that the man does have options. In adoption proceedings, if he can be found or notified, he must be notified. Upon notification, he has a time frame to lodge his opposition. If the court finds that he is not detrimental to the child, the process is stopped and he can, if he wants, take the child into his ward. I suggest you re-read your source.

Its hardly a leap, as effectually speaking, the same result is achieved- an adoption cant be entered into by a woman entirely free of a man.

I am not fine with your option because its not simply notifying. If it were, it would simply be what the court does now- it makes findings of fact as to whether or not child support is due, makes a ruling, etc. If all you mean to say is that the father can initiate this proceeding where the courts determine if he owes child support, then I dont oppose it. Its pointless, but I dont oppose it.

The OP does not argue this though, and neither do you it seems. You both argue for something that would work like this;

Guy sleeps with girl in a one-night stand thing. Girl is pregnant. Girl notifies man she is pregnant and (through testing) baby is his. Man goes down to court house. Man files paper. Man pays filing fee. Man can no longer be brought to court by woman to see if he owes child support. This I take issue with.

[Tactical Leg Sweep]

Less Than Liz

Tactical Leg Sweep

Kind of like women are more concerned about not having to go through pregnancy than the welfare of their own creation when they have abortions, right?

Let's ditch the bizarre "creation" rhetoric. Men don't support "creations" and women don't abort "creations." There's a distinction between what women are aborting (fetuses) and what men are being told to support (children.) Whatever your position on child support, let's not muddy up the abortion waters to boot. If what women abort and men have to support (lol rhymes) are on equal footing, then let's simply end the discussion here with the logical conclusion of that claim and say abortion should be illegal.

It wasn't my rhetoric to begin with, so you can talk to the other poster about that. As for whether or not they're on the same footing, that's quite subjective, but ultimately arguments against men being allowed to abdicate paternity and the responsibilities therein are the same exact arguments pro-life advocates use, and the irony is that many of those who are staunchly using these arguments in these threads are the same rabidly frothing at the mouth and attacking them in pro-life vs pro-choice threads.

[Olya]

Riviera de la Mancha

Hey, if I see a spade, I call it a spade. I see a bird, I call it a bird. If you think this amounts to 'bile', then again, that is your prerogative. If you want to use that as a justification to not respond, then do what you feel you must. I wont change how I described men who sleep with women freely and with great risk.

But how do you describe WOMEN who sleep with men freely and with great risk. Why the double standard?

Quote:

Indeed, you did conflate your arguments there. You said that Roe v. Wade was not about women's right to bodily integrity, and asserted instead it was merely about a woman not wanting a child. I am saying that, when that case was decided, a woman's right to abort did not stem from some kind of respect for their wants or desires. It stemmed from a view that we all, women and men, have a right to bodily integrity, and women, being the only sex of our species can carry a child, have a right to abort.

The issue in question came to courts because of women wishing to postpone or altogether prevent maternity. Body integrity was an argument to defend the position. If you continue to disagree with this, I would like to see some evidence for why women want the right to abort. If you can find any evidence different from what I provided, all the blessings.

Quote:

The following is what you said, "Women did not fight for abortion right because the vague concept of body integrity was so important to them. They wanted to abort because they did not want to be trapped for the next 20 years in maternity they weren't ready for.". I said it once, and I say it again- I did not realize you were a clairvoyant who could read the minds of women who support Roe v. Wade and say why they supported the decision. And sorry, but simply providing stats for why women get abortions has nothing to do with why women support Roe v. Wade. The only way to prove that is to present a study asking women this question. Otherwise, you are simply speculating.

And I will say again, provide me with evidence that the statistics I have given you lose their relevance when applied to the mid 20th century.

I have no reason to believe this as the financial and social burden of an unwanted child has not changed much in the last couple of decades. If you contest my opinion, then stop trolling and provide evidence of your own. If you cannot provide me with any evidence that would dispute what I have given you, then drop this point.

Quote:

I do enjoy your argument which implies that spousal abuse is strictly or mostly a minority or colored person's issue. Newsflash- its not. This is why I say you have likely not dealt with women's shelters. Otherwise, you would see that its not just an ethnic issue. Though, I suspected as much when you made a division between physical ability to leave and the psychological state. Women who have been abused almost always have psychological problems, which inhibit their ability to use resources. This makes simply throwing money at resources only a small fraction of solving this problem.

What you enjoy and do not enjoy does not change fact.

Domestic Violence by Race and Ethnicity

Native Americans According the Southwest Center for Law and Policy:

• Native Americans are victims of rape or sexual assault at more than double the rate of other racial groups.
  
• For Native American victims of violence, the offender was slightly more likely to be a stranger than an intimate partner, family member or acquaintance.
  
• Native Americans described the offender as an acquaintance in 34% of rapes/sexual assaults, and as an intimate partner or family member in 25% of sexual assaults.
  
  African Americans African Americans, especially African American Women, suffer deadly violence from family members at rates decidedly higher than for other racial groups in the United States. However, it is observed that research concerning family violence among African Americans is inadequate.
  
• Overall, African Americans were victimized by intimate partners a significantly higher rates than persons of any other race between 1993 and 1998. Black females experienced intimate partner violence at a rate 35% higher than that of white females, and about 22 times the rate of women of other races. Black males experienced intimate partner violence at a rate about 62% higher than that of white males and about 22 times the rate of men of other races.
  
• African-American women experience significantly more domestic violence than White women in the age group of 20-24. Generally, Black women experience similar levels of intimate partner victimization in all other age categories as compared to White women, but experience slightly more domestic violence.
  
• Approximately 40% of Black women report coercive contact of a sexual nature by age 18.
  
• The number one killer of African-American women ages 15 to 34 is homicide at the hands of a current or former intimate partner.
  
• In a study of African-American sexual assault survivors, only 17% reported the assault to police.
  
  Hispanics
  
• The rate of intimate partner violence for Hispanic women, like women of other races, peaked at ages 20-24.
  
• Overall, the victimization rates of Hispanic women peaked at lower levels than non-Hispanic women in every age group, but spread over a wider range of ages.
  
• 77% of all Hispanic Texans indicate that either they, a family member and/or a friend have experienced some form of domestic violence, indicating that approximately 5.2 million Hispanic Texans are personally affected by the epidemic of domestic violence. If the current prevalence rates remain the same, by the year 2030, more than 12.2 million Hispanic Texans could be personally affected by domestic violence.
  
• 64% of all Hispanic Texans indicate that they or a member of their family have experienced at least one form of domestic violence in their lifetime.
  
• 36% of all Hispanic Texans report being severely abused in their lifetime.
  
• 2 out of every 5 Hispanic Texas females (39%) reported experience severe abuse.
  
• 1 out of every 5 Hispanic Texas females (18%) reported being forced to have sex against their will.
  
• 40% of Hispanic Texans who reported experiencing at least one form of domestic violence took no action.
  
• 63% of all Hispanic Texans recall recent communications concerning domestic violence.
  
• 50% of all Hispanic Texans believe domestic violence is caused by circumstances beyond the batterers control showing that the Hispanic Texas community needs more information on domestic violence.
  
• 82% of all Hispanic Texans believe that it is never appropriate to stay in an abusive relationship, yet 46% acknowledge that leaving an abusive relationship can be more dangerous than staying.
  
• 83% of all Hispanic Texans agree that a husband who abuses his wife is more likely to also abuse his children; yet only 47% indicate a belief that domestic violence passes from generation to generation.
  
• 86% of all Hispanic Texans report that they would vote for a candidate who helps domestic violence victims. They are the ethnic group most likely to indicate such.
  
  Asian & Pacific Islanders
  
• 12.8% of Asian and Pacific Islander women reported experiencing physical assault by an intimate partner at least once during their lifetime; 3.8% reported having been raped. The rate of physical assault was lower than those reported by Whites (21.3%); African-Americans (26.3%); Hispanic, of any race, (21.2%); mixed race (27.0%); and American Indians and Alaskan Natives (30.7%). The low rate for Asian and Pacific Islander women may be attributed to underreporting.
  
  The National Asian Women's Health Organization (NAWHO) interviewed 336 Asian American women aged 18-34 who reside in the San Francisco and Los Angeles areas, via telephone:
  
• 16% of the respondents reported having experienced "pressure to have sex without their consent by an intimate partner."
  
• 12 % of respondents reported that an intimate partner had hurt or had attempted to hurt them by means of hitting, kicking, slapping, shoving, object throwing, or threatening their lives with a weapon.
  
• 27% experienced emotional abuse by an intimate partner
  
  Project AWARE (Asian Women Advocating Respect and Empowerment) in Washington, DC, conducted an anonymous survey in 2000-2001 to examine the experiences of abuse, service needs, and barriers to service among Asian women. Using a sample of 178 Asian women:
  
• 81.1% of the women reported experiencing at least one form of intimate partner violence (domination/controlling/psychological, physical, and/or sexual abuse as categorized by the researchers) in the past year.
  
• 67% "occasionally" experienced some form of domination or controlling psychological abuse; 48% experienced it "frequently" in the past year.
  
• 32% experienced physical or sexual abuse at least "occasionally" during the past year.
  
• Of the 23 women who reported not having experienced intimate partner violence themselves, more than half (64%) said they knew of an Asian friend who had experienced intimate partner violence.
• Smaller proportions of respondents reported that their mothers (9%) and sisters (11%) had experienced intimate partner violence.
  
• 28.5% of the survey participants knew of a woman who was being abused by her in-laws.
  
  Cambodians In a study conducted by the Asian Task Force Against Domestic Violence in Boston, using a self-administered questionnaire at ethnic fairs:
  
• 44-47% of Cambodians interviewed said they knew a woman who experienced domestic violence, by either physical abuse or injury.
  
• 37% of the respondents know a man who is being beaten by his partner.
  
  Chinese In a random telephone survey of 262 Chinese men and women in Los Angeles:
  
• 18.1% of respondents reported experiencing "minor physical violence" by a spouse or intimate partner within their lifetime, and 8% of respondents reported "severe physical violence" experienced during their lifetime. ["Minor-severe" categories were based on the researcher's classification criteria.]
  
• More acculturated respondents (as assessed by the researchers) were twice as likely to have been victims of severe physical violence. [Although the author states "It is possible that traditional cultural values serve as a protective buffer against stressors engendered by immigration", higher rates among more acculturated respondents may be due to their increased likelihood to report abuse.]
  
  Filipinas In a survey conducted by the Immigrant Women's Task Force of the Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights and Services:
  
• 20% of 54 undocumented Filipina women living in the San Francisco Bay Area reported having experienced some form of domestic violence, including physical, emotional, or sexual abuse, either in their country of origin or in the United States.
  
  Japanese In a face-to-face interview study of a random sample of 211 Japanese immigrant women and Japanese American women in Los Angeles County conducted in 1995:
  
• 61% reported some form of physical, emotional, or sexual partner violence that they considered abusive - including culturally demeaning practices such as overturning a dining table, or throwing liquid at a woman.
  
• 52% reported having experienced physical violence during their lifetime. When the probability that some women who have not been victimized at the time of the interview, but may be abused at a later date is calculated, 57% of women are estimated to experience a partner's physical violence by age 49.
  
  Koreans In a study of 256 Korean men from randomly selected Korean households in Chicago and in Queens (which then had the largest Korean population on the East Coast) in 1993:
  
• 18% of the respondents reported committing at least one of the following acts of physical violence within the past year: throwing something, pushing, grabbing, shoving, or slapping their wife.
  
• 6.3% of the men committed what the researcher classified as "severe violence" (kicking, biting, hitting with a fist, threatening with a gun or knife, shooting, or stabbing).
  
  In a survey of 214 Korean women and 121 Korean men in the San Francisco Bay Area conducted in 2000:
  
• 42% of the respondents said they knew of a Korean woman who experienced physical violence from a husband or boyfriend.
  
• About 50% of the respondents knew someone who suffered regular emotional abuse.
  
  South Asians A study of 160 South Asian women (who were married or in a heterosexual relationship), recruited through community outreach methods such as flyers, snowball sampling, and referrals in Greater Boston, found that:
  
• 40.8% of the participants reported that they had been physically and/or sexually abused in some way by their current male partners in their lifetime; 36.9% reported having been victimized in the past year.
  
• 65% of the women reporting physical abuse also reported sexual abuse, and almost a third (30.4%) of those reporting sexual abuse reported injuries, some requiring medical attention.
  
  And here is my personal favorite:
  
  Immigrants
  
• A recent study in New York City found that 51 percent of intimate partner homicide victims were foreign-born, while 45 percent were born in the United States.
  
• 48% of Latinas in one study reported that their partner's violence against them had increased since they emmigrated to the United States.
  
• A survey of immigrant Korean women found that 60 percent had been battered by their husbands.
  
• Married immigrant women experience higher levels of physical and sexual abuse than unmarried immigrant women, 59.5 percent compared to 49.8 percent, respectively. Source
  
  
  When you begin by saying "there are social factors affecting domestic violence," you invite this response. Your statement begged the question "whose social factors are these?" We are not a homogeneous country. People come here from different cultures and with different values and often do not leave those values at the door. I have never said that domestic abuse is a minority-only issue, but minorities do experience it disproportionately. And is it any wonder that they do?
  
  
• two-thirds of the 800 million people in the world who lack basic literacy skills are female
  
• women hold an average of three per cent of seats in national parliaments in Pacific island countries, and an average of 19 per cent of seats in East Asia
  
• half a million women die each year from complications during pregnancy—99 per cent of them in developing countries.
  
• globally 1 in 3 women and girls experience physical and sexual violence with rates as high as 2 in 3 in some Pacific countries
  
  And since you've mentioned that it is sometimes socially unacceptable to report domestic violence, here is a stat for you from Change From Within: Diverse Perspectives on Domestic Violence in Muslim Communities by Maha B. Alkhateeb and Salma Elkadi Abugideiri:
  
  "The American Muslim community is in the early phases of considering domestic violence to be a matter of public concern. The first documented study of the incidence of domestic violence among Muslims, conducted in 1993, reported that 10% of American Muslims experienced physical abuse in their homes (S. Alkhateeb 1999). However, many Muslim advocates estimate that the figure would be much higher if the study had also measured emotional and verbal abuse. The Muslim community as a whole is slowly coming to realize that it is affected by domestic violence as much as the greater mainstream population. As this awareness and recognition is growing, Muslim communities are struggling to understand the phenomenon of domestic violence, to develop appropriate resources within the community to deal effectively with individuals and families impacted by domestic violence, and to identify strategies to prevent further violence in the family."
  
  In other words, this is an ethnic community that only recently decided that "Geeee, Bob, it's probably not okay to hit your wife..."
  
  Religion, education, socioeconomic status, and cultural background all affect whether a woman feels comfortable speaking out about her abuse. And yes, as I have shown, certain religions, certain cultures, and certain ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds are at greater risk. Does this mean that in general North American population considers spousal abuse normal or something to hush up? NO! In fact, as my previous post has shown, as far as the general American population goes, the male is far more likely to not report abuse than the female.

Quote:

1.) I ask you, cite for me one instance where in my tax argument I used the specific phrase "undue burden". Pro-tip: I never did. I did not because that is a specific term that the courts use.

It seems you did not grasp my taxpayer argument, so let me restate it. Read with attention. I never claimed that there are no social services. I said that allowing men to unilaterally opt out of any attempt by the courts to award a woman child support would place a heavy burden (again, 'heavy burden', not 'undue') on tax payers. Did you ever stop and think that, if the amount of use we are seeing now is occurring even under this imagined sue-happy state, then surely it will be much more if we omit the ability for women to seek child support simply by with a man signing a piece of paper? That is a huge problem with the argument, because it will, practically speaking, place women in the situation I spoke about; abort or, in this case, face the fact that you will likely be turned away from welfare services because they are just overwhelmed.

Oh, you are out of your friggin mind! Do you ever check what you're saying... Like at all? There is a difference between having an informed opinion and having an opinion based on... Well, not a whole hell of a lot, actually.

According to the US Census Bureau, 47.3% of custodial mothers (as "obligees" ) received all child support that they were owed and 77.5% received some. Additionally, 46.2% of custodial fathers (as "obligees" ) received all child support that they were owed and 74.5% received some. Source

So, first and foremost, this isn't JUST about deadbeat dads.

The Census bureau also shows that 90% of fathers with joint custody pay all of their child support owed, 70.1% of fathers with access to their children pay all of their child support owed, and only 44.2% of fathers with no access to their children pay child support owed. There is thus a correlation between an active, involved parent, and paying child support.

Child support assessments are made based on a variety of formulae, and vary from state to state in the United States. According to one study 38% of Illinois "obligor" parents not paying child-support said they lacked the money to pay. 23% used non-payment to protest a lack of visitation rights. 69% complained of no accountability over the spending of their child support money, while 13% said they did not want their child or children and 12% denied parentage.

Yes, there is a massive wave of fathers that do not want their children and they CLEARLY account for the majority of child support owed... Oh, wait! 38% of them cannot pay and 69% want more control over how their money is spent!

According to a California study, 76% of the $14.4 billion in child support arrears in California has been attributed to "obligors" who lack the ability to pay. In California, the "deadbeat" parents had a median annual income of $6349, arrears of $9447, ongoing support of $300 per month. One reason given for this was that 71% of the orders were set by default—meaning that person who supposedly owes support was not personally served with a notice to appear before the court or administrative agency. A notice is sent to the last known address, which may have changed. Source

Looks like California dads are even more broke! So, between 38% and 76% of the money owed that you were talking about is actually due to people not being able to pay. Only about 13% of fathers do not want children.

And when you consider that mothers with the LOWEST education and LOWEST incomes are far more likely to keep out-of-wedlock children, you have to ask yourself how much their financial situation is a factor in making these decisions in the first place.

Quote:

2.) Precedent is very relevant. Yeah, they are not bound to consider it, but ask any judge and they will tell you precedent is huge, which is why I brought it up as a point. This policy of allowing men to opt out so long as there is no domestic partnership has no basis in existing law. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. If you were familiar with Common Law, you would know that judges rarely base court decisions on something that has not even a close parallel in existing law. Why? It screams of legislating from the bench.

In cases where changes are made to the current law, the precedent is often disregarded. Between 1946 and 1992, the Supreme court has revoked itself on something like 130 rulings.

Quote:

This policy would allow people to opt out of something where liability is assumed ex post facto (after the fact, which does not imply a crime as you believe). No where in liabilities can you, after a car accident, opt out of responsibility. Hell, even when people sign agreements stating that there is limited liability, you are not off the hook for all things. That is a huge problem for this position if it cant justify itself from any legal concept.

Bullshit! Paternal responsibility and rights are assumed not after the act of sex but after the childbirth. Between the act of sex and the childbirth, the fate of the child rests entirely in the hands of the mother. A father is liable for the child after the act of birth. And opting out of paternity prior to birth is what is being argued here.

Quote:

3.) Yeah, you can 'simplify' and 'streamline' alot when you completely cut stuff out. You again dont address my point that this policy stops the court from even attempting at finding fact. The OP and you have argued that all that would be needed is a signed paper, presumably filing fees, and simply no domestic partnership in law. Never anything else. This is a severe truncation of fact finding.

Yes, and? I personally HAVE a paper like that where my own biological father has relinquished any parental claims to me. That doesn't mean this paper has been rubber-stamped and yet it did not require a court hearing. The gist of the argument is that the mother's signature may not be required depending on the circumstances (see adoption and draw a parallel).

Quote:

4.) Still a swing and a miss. I am simply referring to players, or persons who lie to other persons in order to get them into bed. Your policy is essentially a blank check for players, because they exclusively have intercourse free of domestic partnerships of any kind. If a player gets a girl pregnant, the woman has no recourse in your argument, and that is a huge problem.

And the girl has no responsibility or control over whom she sleeps with. Gott'ya.

Quote:

5.) I mention 'wives' because that was the original point of child support. This new policy would negate the core function of child support cases completely, because men outside of domestic partnerships can sign this process away. Of course, the people who will use this are the people for whom this process was intended for: those whom the courts would normally assess child support to because, otherwise, they would not pay.

Again, I have NEVER argued this for married couple. Take this argument and go talk to someone else about it. It has NOTHING to do with me.

Quote:

6.) You did not address this, so it remains.

I addressed it in detail below. I do not like repeating myself and I had no idea that I needed to for you to be able to understand what sentence pertained to what argument.

Quote:

7.) I did read it, and it makes it clear that the man does have options. In adoption proceedings, if he can be found or notified, he must be notified. Upon notification, he has a time frame to lodge his opposition. If the court finds that he is not detrimental to the child, the process is stopped and he can, if he wants, take the child into his ward. I suggest you re-read your source.

Its hardly a leap, as effectually speaking, the same result is achieved- an adoption cant be entered into by a woman entirely free of a man.

I am not fine with your option because its not simply notifying. If it were, it would simply be what the court does now- it makes findings of fact as to whether or not child support is due, makes a ruling, etc. If all you mean to say is that the father can initiate this proceeding where the courts determine if he owes child support, then I dont oppose it. Its pointless, but I dont oppose it.

And yet court does not make findings of fact in all adoption cases. Or did you miss that? The court is there in case the man chooses to contest the decision of a woman to opt them both out of parenthood.

What is asked is the same right for a man. If the woman wishes to contest it, she may, but her rights would be just as limited as those of a man who wishes to prevent an adoption and her window would also be limited - a set amount of time to begin a court process if she so chooses.

Quote:

The OP does not argue this though, and neither do you it seems. You both argue for something that would work like this;

Guy sleeps with girl in a one-night stand thing. Girl is pregnant. Girl notifies man she is pregnant and (through testing) baby is his. Man goes down to court house. Man files paper. Man pays filing fee. Man can no longer be brought to court by woman to see if he owes child support. This I take issue with.

And you are free to enjoy these flights of your imagination. I have explained my position to you in detail. If you have a set understanding that is independent of anything I may say, I hope the condition is not contagious.

gaia_angelleft gaia_star gaia_angelright

[LilPinkCandy]

I don't agree with that at all. If a woman chooses to keep it then he should bear the consequences of having sex. Of course this decision should be made together but ultimately it is up to the woman because it is her body. She may not be ready, may have health problems, etc. A man should be obligated to help pay for the child at least if he is unwilling to be there.

Now, some couples just want nothing to do with each other and some women don't want the child support. A legal document should be an option for these ex-couples as they both agree to the terms of not wanting anything from the other.

[Shooting Stargazer 28]

I have always thought it is crap that a man really doesn't have any say in the pregnancy. If the woman doesn't want to raise a child, she can abort, or place the child for adoption (and yes, you can place without the man ever knowing. I am a birth mom, I heard ways to get around the system from my lawyer). She is not forced to be responsible for the child. If a man doesn't want to raise a child, he is forced by the mom and courts. I don't know about other states, but here a man CAN'T just sign away his rights - there have to be major circumstances to allow it. If a man DOES want to raise the child, but the woman doesn't want to carry it, he has no say. Why is it we as women can either take away or force parental rights on a man? If a man wants an abortion, there is no way anyone would condone forcing a woman into it. Regardless of pro-choice/pro-life, you have to accept this bundle of cells/human was made by 2 people.

[Tactical Leg Sweep]

- Ishki -

Tactical Leg Sweep

Electrik Cloud

Tactical Leg Sweep

Electrik Cloud

A man can make a woman a mother through unprotected sex. Even if the law says he isn't, if a blood test were to say he's the father, than he's the father. The law can't change who's sperm or egg created a baby. To me, men are more concerned about keeping their money in their pocket than the welfare of their own creation.

Kind of like women are more concerned about not having to go through pregnancy than the welfare of their own creation when they have abortions, right?

If they abort it then the welfare of the child isn't a concern.

Right except for that whole thing where the child is ABORTED before it's born.

I feel like I'm pointing out the obvious here, but children don't get aborted. Embryos and fetuses get aborted.

I feel like I'm pointing out the obvious here, but paternity to children wouldn't be being renounced, paternity to embryos and fetuses would.

What's your point?