NationStates Jolt Archive

Parental Definition and Male Parental Disassociation Act

In a society where abortion is legal there must exist a law that allows for male parental disassociation.

Abortion is a sexist practice ignoring the rights of the male where laws do not support the natural right of male parental disassociation. Abortion gives more to the female than the right to her own body, it gives her the right over the fate of the body of an unborn child. Where male parental disassociation does not exist, it provides her with a method to violate the body of the man who fathered the child as well.

(1) In a society where a female can make the ultimate decision over an unborn individuals life or termination, then she shall be the only one to bear legal responsibility for that individual until that individual reaches 18 years of age. The introduction of this individual is the sole decision of the female, for she is the only one to have dominion over her own body and the continued residence of this unborn individual until such time where it can survive without the aid of the female placenta.

(2) All parental rights and responsibilities will fall upon the female even during wedlock. Offspring are always the 100% decision of the female because the woman has right and ability to terminate the pregnancy. No male shall be held responsible for any decisions concerning his life where a separate entity has the sole decision making authority.

(3) A male shall not be forced into parental association and fatherhood against his will.
A male has a right to his own body and the resources that body can produce through labor (work) and use and distribute these resources for his own survival and livelihood or those of others as he sees fit. Any forced parental duties will effectively steal him of those resources and violate his body.

(3) Any child born in wedlock or out of wedlock will be genetically profiled at birth and compared to the genetic profile of possible fathers. The genetic father, if found, will be given 90 days to make a decision from his signature on a document proving his knowledge of the child's existence. This document will be served and signed in the presence of a court appointed official. Failure to respond will result in the summoned persons dissolution of parental duties and dissolution of right to any claim to the child thereafter.

(4) If the child is born in wedlock but is proven not sired by the male spouse , a document shall be presented to the male spouse absolving him of all parental duties if the child is not the product of artificial insemination, surrogate parenting, artificial reproduction agreed to by the male spouse. The genetic father will be given 90 days to choose to take parental responsibilities from his signature on a document which he will be served by a court appointed person. The genetic father’s decision window may be extended up to a year upon request.

(5)If the child is born in wedlock but is proven not sired by the male spouse, a document shall be presented to the male spouse absolving him of all parental duties. The genetic father, upon discovery, will be given 90 days to choose to take parental responsibilities from his signature on a document which he will be served by a court appointed person. The genetic father’s decision window may be extended up to a year upon request.


http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/53280/page=UN_proposal/start=65

:lol: In the light of already passed resolutions I would have to vote an affirmative to this, for the simple fact of maintaining equality and justice. If society is forced to provide the woman the choice to have the child, then she becomes, under law, soul progenitor of the child, and justly the man cannot be fairly forced to provide for the child (else it makes it no more then legalized extortion). While we would have most certainly voted against this, Tekania will lend her support to be morally equitable since the Abortion Rights resolution is in effect. To do any less is a direct, blatant and foul assult upon the principles of equality and fairness as already put forth in UN resolution.....

Anyone who voted for the Abortion Rights resolution, but would vote against this is a hypocrit, does not really believe in what their foul nasty mouthes spurt about "fairness", "rights" and "equality"....

If this bill comes to a vote, I too will vote yes for this! In fact, I'll get my regional delegate to endorse it!

Thank you for your support. Support equallity.

Support equallity.... I'm sorry, but in the process of procreating males and females are NOT equal. Females run the physical risks of the pregnancy and the birth, females run the the social and financial risks of having to raise the child as a single parent. What risks do the fathers run? Bah, sexist, shortsighted proposal.

Social, financial, and emotional risks?

The risk of being effected by a decision that they did not make?

But then, doesn’t everyone?

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588) ~ What can the UN do and what can it do for me?
(http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=151465&highlight=)

This proposal does not maintain equality and fairness and is a transparent backlash against an admittedly ill-advised resolution that offended many nations' sensitivities. The failings of the previous legislation are no justification for a vindictive and iniquitous proposal of this form. The honourable delegate of Pudu is entirely correct.

Janet Blyleven
Temporary Speaker to the United Nations

DP

DP

Support equallity.... I'm sorry, but in the process of procreating males and females are NOT equal. Females run the physical risks of the pregnancy and the birth, females run the the social and financial risks of having to raise the child as a single parent. What risks do the fathers run? Bah, sexist, shortsighted proposal.

This has little to do with biological equality, but with legal equality.... I too would have nominally been against it, but in light of already present Resolution I would be forced to vote in affirmative to it to be morally and ethical equitable.

At present Fathers have possessed the financial risk as such, ever hear of "child support"? This law would eliminate mandated "child support" which is legally unequitable, and unfair, and unjust, if the woman has soul legal decisions upon the baby, why should father's be forced to support children they did not want? (Watch out how you answer that... because you may just turn around and contradict the very legal ground upon which you stood to pass the Abortion Rights Resolution).

I have no respect for hypocrits... If you voted for the Abortion Rights Resolution, to be consistent in philosophy and equality, you must also vote for this one if it comes to vote. Otherwise you are an hypocrit. Sexism is the belief that one sex has rights beyond those of the other sex.... So the Abortion Rights Resolution as written is sexist, this would simply even the playing field....

Support equallity.... I'm sorry, but in the process of procreating males and females are NOT equal. Females run the physical risks of the pregnancy and the birth, females run the the social and financial risks of having to raise the child as a single parent. What risks do the fathers run? Bah, sexist, shortsighted proposal.

This has little to do with biological equality, but with legal equality.... I too would have nominally been against it, but in light of already present Resolution I would be forced to vote in affirmative to it to be morally and ethical equitable.

At present Fathers have possessed the financial risk as such, ever hear of "child support"? This law would eliminate mandated "child support" which is legally unequitable, and unfair, and unjust, if the woman has soul legal decisions upon the baby, why should father's be forced to support children they did not want? (Watch out how you answer that... because you may just turn around and contradict the very legal ground upon which you stood to pass the Abortion Rights Resolution).

I have no respect for hypocrits... If you voted for the Abortion Rights Resolution, to be consistent in philosophy and equality, you must also vote for this one if it comes to vote. Otherwise you are an hypocrit. Sexism is the belief that one sex has rights beyond those of the other sex.... So the Abortion Rights Resolution as written is sexist, this would simply even the playing field....

Support equallity.... I'm sorry, but in the process of procreating males and females are NOT equal. Females run the physical risks of the pregnancy and the birth, females run the the social and financial risks of having to raise the child as a single parent. What risks do the fathers run? Bah, sexist, shortsighted proposal.

This has little to do with biological equality, but with legal equality.... I too would have nominally been against it, but in light of already present Resolution I would be forced to vote in affirmative to it to be morally and ethical equitable.

At present Fathers have possessed the financial risk as such, ever hear of "child support"? This law would eliminate mandated "child support" which is legally unequitable, and unfair, and unjust, if the woman has soul legal decisions upon the baby, why should father's be forced to support children they did not want? (Watch out how you answer that... because you may just turn around and contradict the very legal ground upon which you stood to pass the Abortion Rights Resolution).

I have no respect for hypocrits... If you voted for the Abortion Rights Resolution, to be consistent in philosophy and equality, you must also vote for this one if it comes to vote. Otherwise you are an hypocrit. Sexism is the belief that one sex has rights beyond those of the other sex.... So the Abortion Rights Resolution as written is sexist, this would simply even the playing field....

I have no respect for hypocrits... If you voted for the Abortion Rights Resolution, to be consistent in philosophy and equality, you must also vote for this one if it comes to vote. Otherwise you are an hypocrit. Sexism is the belief that one sex has rights beyond those of the other sex.... So the Abortion Rights Resolution as written is sexist, this would simply even the playing field....

That is insane. While Leynier vehemently opposed abortion, it cannot condone the abandonment of parental responsibility. Just because the UN passed one horrible resolution doesn't mean another should be passed in retaliation. Children need a father just as they need a mother.

I have no respect for hypocrits... If you voted for the Abortion Rights Resolution, to be consistent in philosophy and equality, you must also vote for this one if it comes to vote. Otherwise you are an hypocrit. Sexism is the belief that one sex has rights beyond those of the other sex.... So the Abortion Rights Resolution as written is sexist, this would simply even the playing field....

'Two wrongs make a right' fallacy. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/two-wrongs-make-a-right.html

This is all about biological and legal rights. Look at nature, most mammals are raised by single mothers. Most male mammals do not provide for their offspring. This law returns us to the natural order of things.

There is no such thing as mandatory fatherhood amongst mammals or in nature. Time to end this male oppression. Men can not and should not be forced to pay for another entities sole decision. Fatherhood should remain a voluntary decision.

It's a travesty for men to be forced into fatherhood. It's an outrage. It's an atrocity. Every man has the right to his own body and the resources that body can produce through labor.

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/68777/page=UN_proposal/start=45

This is all about biological and legal rights. Look at nature, most mammals are raised by single mothers. Most male mammals do not provide for their offspring. This law returns us to the natural order of things.

In nature males are sometimes killed by their mate after fulfilling their sole purpose, impregnating the female. So should we kill men after they impregnate us?

This only happen in invertebrates. I clearly stated mammals, if you want to pry deeper into the animal kingdom, you'll find even more single mothers.

BTW, Female mammals don't kill their mate. Female vertebrates don't habitually kill their mates. Males on the other hand, well . . .their only hand in child rearing is insemination of the female.

Let's get Darwinian. MALE PARENTAL DISASSOCIATION IS A NATURAL RIGHT!

Forced child support is oppression, it's virtual slavery. Males should not be responsible for the sole decisions of the female.


In nature males are sometimes killed by their mate after fulfilling their sole purpose, impregnating the female. So should we kill men after they impregnate us?

This has nothing to do with "two wrongs don't make a right" idea. It has to do with equality, rights, and fairness. It also had to do with justice... Basically what you're saying is women can be little whores and sluts, fuck around all they want, and have no accountability for the child they conceived.... But men must be held accountable for doing the same.... Excuse me, but that is unjust. Pure and simple.

The UN has already abandoned "parental responsibility"... legalization of abortion abandoned it. We cannot be just in forcing one party into a situation the other has complete control over. Therefore if the choice is provided to one, it must, to be just, fair and equitable, be given to the other as well...

I had Abortion rammed down my throat by liberal morons... And I have to adopt this stance to be fare... Prior to it, I would not have (there's no need to provide the male the right, as such, if the female does not have the right in the first place).... To force men, who have no legal say in the matter, at the discretion of the female, who is granted full legal say in the matter, is penalizing men based on sex, it's no different then any other type or form of sexism....

[quote="TekaniaAt present Fathers have possessed the financial risk as such, ever hear of "child support"? This law would eliminate mandated "child support" which is legally unequitable, and unfair, and unjust,[/quote]

If the father hadn't gotten the woman pregnant then the baby wouldn't exist to support.

In short The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites will not support this proposal.

Bob Flibble
UN Rep.
Rogue Nation of Flibbleites

(OOC: I Already Fricken Wrote Something Genius, But The ****ty *** Reply Wasn't Submitted, So I Lost half an hour of writing, thank you super slow unreliable server :evil: :shock: )

In Normal Circumstances, I Would Not Allow Abortion Except Wherein It Was Life Or Death For The Mother, However, Since It Is Still Allowed, I Figure I shall Make Sure That Sexism Against The Father Is Not Permitted. In A Society Where Women Have Been Subjugated To Sexism And Abused Rights For Many A Century, It Should Not Allow For Men To Be Punished For Actions Done Long Ago. Rights Need To Be Equal To Prevent Reverse-Sexism And Sexism In Society. The Idea Of Both Parents Of A Child To Each Have An Equal Say In That Child's Life Should Not Even Be An Issue. They Both Created The Child, And They Both Should Say Whether It Lives Or Dies. Now, In The Case Where The Mother Can Choose Between Herself Living Or The Baby, That Would Be Her Own Decision. But The Fact Remains That Both The Mother And The Father Have Equal Rights In Their Child. But, This Can Also Be Changed In That The Father Shows No Interest In The Parenting Of The Child, In Which Case The Father Would Not Have The Right To Choose, And Vice-Versa For The Mother.

In Conclusion: Both Parents, With Exceptions, Have Equal Rights To The Decision Of Life For The Child.

Izrathian Represenative To U.N.

This has nothing to do with "two wrongs don't make a right" idea. It has to do with equality, rights, and fairness. It also had to do with justice... Basically what you're saying is women can be little whores and sluts, f--- around all they want, and have no accountability for the child they conceived.... But men must be held accountable for doing the same.... Excuse me, but that is unjust. Pure and simple.

The UN has already abandoned "parental responsibility"... legalization of abortion abandoned it. We cannot be just in forcing one party into a situation the other has complete control over. Therefore if the choice is provided to one, it must, to be just, fair and equitable, be given to the other as well...

Or in other words, you believe two wrongs make a right. Concession accepted.

And mind going easy on the language?

This is sexist dribble.

Women have the legal authority to kill a fetus. Abortion = a child is the sole decision of a female.

That question you should be asking is, "Why does a woman need to force a male to pay for a child that only she wanted, a child whose life she had the right and oppotunity to terminate?"

The right to abortion absolves the male from any sort of parental responsibility because it basically implies that the progeny is the sole decision of the female. The male is just there to lend a chromosome and that's it. It's the woman's decision to grow it and culture it in her placenta.

Men should not be forced into parental duties. It's like forcing an architect or the home depot to pay for the maintenance and taxes on your house just because they provided you with some materials to build it.



If the father hadn't gotten the woman pregnant then the baby wouldn't exist to support.

In short The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites will not support this proposal.

Bob Flibble
UN Rep.
Rogue Nation of Flibbleites

So your whole argument is based on the nonsensical idea that no woman would ever consult a man before having an abortion, that no woman can ever get pregnant by accident, and that no woman will ever have religious or moral convictions that would make her reject the idea of getting an abortion?

And don't you think the child should have some right to have it's father around?

And don't you think the child should have some right to have it's father around?

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fatherhood should be voluntary, not forced. A child does not have the right to impose fatherhood on a man, neither does the mother. That child is the sole decision of the mother. Neither child or mother have the right of imposing fatherhood on a man. Plain and simple.

Come on delegates, we need your support. We need to bring this to a vote.

Fatherhood should be voluntary, not forced.

It is voluntary, if the man doesn't get anyone pregnant than they won't be a father.

Bob Flibble
UN Rep.
Rogue Nation of Flibbleites

Fatherhood should be voluntary, not forced.

It is voluntary, if the man doesn't get anyone pregnant than they won't be a father.

Bob Flibble
UN Rep.
Rogue Nation of Flibbleites

Kinda makes the philosophy behind the Abortion Rights resolution meaningless doesn't it :?: If the woman didn't want to be pregnant, she shouldn't have had sex :idea: .......

:!: Hypocracy in action :!:

Daryn opposed the so-called Abortion Rights Resolution, and will oppose this. You speak of the rights of the father. I speak of the rights of the child to grow up with two parents in a stable household. I also speak of personal responsibility -- if a man doesn't want to be a father (or if a woman doens't want to be a mother, for that matter) there are a number of options -- barriers, spermicide, oral contraceptives, the rhythym method, even abstaining from vaginal intercourse. This resolution encourages individuals to write off consequences of their actions onto others. Yes, the so-called 'Abortion Rights Resolution', poorly worded as it was, also encourages this. If you lose your thumb to an accident, you do not go 'To hell with it' and chop off the hand. You work aroudn it.

There is also the equality matters. Let us review the steps to be declared a non-parent if this resolution is passed. For a woman to be declared a non-parent she must undergo either an awkward medical procedure that still carries some risk, even when performed by a liscenced physician or she must undergo a full pregnancy and birth -- another awkward and risky procedure -- and arrange for the child to be adopted (uncertain -- most couples seem to prefer having their own children to adopting another's). She must foot the expenses of this by herself or ask for the state's aid or her family's -- uncertain depending on her coutnry and family. A man can just sign a form. And somehow this is fair and equal and good.

Bitch, please. Daryn voted against the "Abortion Rights Resolution" and will vote against this.

Minister Mar Darenka
Ambasador to the UN
The Most Serene Republic of Daryn

Incidentally:

Men should not be forced into parental duties. It's like forcing an architect or the home depot to pay for the maintenance and taxes on your house just because they provided you with some materials to build it.

False analogy. If an architect designed me a house that required 15-18 years of additional work before it could stand up on it's own I would demand he funded the additional work.

Incidentally:

Men should not be forced into parental duties. It's like forcing an architect or the home depot to pay for the maintenance and taxes on your house just because they provided you with some materials to build it.

False analogy. If an architect designed me a house that required 15-18 years of additional work before it could stand up on it's own I would demand he funded the additional work.

False ideal, Architechs don't build, they design... so if you contracted an architect to design your house, you get blueprints to the house... you still have to pay for the materials and workmen to build it...... if you bought the materials, you would still need to contract in workmen to put it all together....

If you contract out the Architech to design the house, he then delivers blueprints, and demands payment... and you take him to court for not building it.... about the only thing that will happen is you will be under court order to pay him for his services you agreed to in contract, and be laughed out of court for being stupid.

Incidentally:

Men should not be forced into parental duties. It's like forcing an architect or the home depot to pay for the maintenance and taxes on your house just because they provided you with some materials to build it.

False analogy. If an architect designed me a house that required 15-18 years of additional work before it could stand up on it's own I would demand he funded the additional work.

False ideal, Architechs don't build, they design... so if you contracted an architect to design your house, you get blueprints to the house... you still have to pay for the materials and workmen to build it...... if you bought the materials, you would still need to contract in workmen to put it all together....

If you contract out the Architech to design the house, he then delivers blueprints, and demands payment... and you take him to court for not building it.... about the only thing that will happen is you will be under court order to pay him for his services you agreed to in contract, and be laughed out of court for being stupid.

Nonsense. If an architect designs buildings that collapse when he was contracted to create buildings that stay up he will get his ass sued for negligence and he'll never design another building again. If it took 15-18 years of extra work his company would get sued for the costs of his negligence.

And there's no such fallacy as a 'false ideal.'

Fatherhood should be voluntary, not forced.

It is voluntary, if the man doesn't get anyone pregnant than they won't be a father.

Bob Flibble
UN Rep.
Rogue Nation of Flibbleites

Kinda makes the philosophy behind the Abortion Rights resolution meaningless doesn't it :?: If the woman didn't want to be pregnant, she shouldn't have had sex :idea: .......

:!: Hypocracy in action :!:

On the contrary, the Rogue Nation of Flibbleites opposed the Abortion Rights resolution.

Bob Flibble
UN Rep.
Rogue Nation of Flibbleites

Let me clear this up. ARCHITECTS ONLY PROVIDE SCHEMATICS FOR A STRUCTURE! A WOMAN CAN CHOOSE HER ARCHITECT!!!

An architect is not liable for how long a building takes to make, he only provides the plans. It's up to the client to choose or abandon his plans. If it takes 15-18 years to build, it's the clients problem. THe client had the opportunity to reject his design. HE DOESN'T HAVE TO HELP YOU BUILD IT!!!

A male in a sexual partnership is only a half architect; he only provides 1 chromosome for a child. It's the woman who provides the other half and decides to raise it in her placenta! She is the client, contractor, and owner.

All the man does is provide half a blueprint to a child, it's not his problem how long the child takes to reach maturity. It's not his decision to build it.


MEN SHOULD NOT BE FORCED INTO FATHERHOOD!!!!

All the man does is provide half a blueprint to a child, it's not his problem how long the child takes to reach maturity. It's not his decision to build it.


MEN SHOULD NOT BE FORCED INTO FATHERHOOD!!!!

Yes, because poor men are frequently forced to have no control over themselves and are totally innocent parties.

No man should ever be expected to have any control over his own genitals.

I concur with GMC. If a man makes a choice to engage in behavior that impregnates a woman, he is absolutely responsible for his actions. If he didnt' want to have a child, he'd disassociate from the behavior...not the child.

While Hak-Generale provides rights for would-be fathers in cases concerning abortion, we support the father's right to take responsibility for the child if the mother does not wish to care for it. We'd never absolve a man of his repsonsibility by virtue of abortion existing.

This is ludicrous, and the authors of this resolution should be ashamed at this boldfaced poo-poo of a law they find unpalatable. In short, Hak-Generale suggests that the only legislation that should be proposed in this regard concerns men learning to ZIP IT if they don't want to face the consequences.

That, gentlemen, is CHOICE AT WORK.

Response to Hak-Generale (hopefully before Tekania):

“I concur with GMC. If a man makes a choice to engage in behavior that impregnates a woman, he is absolutely responsible for his actions.”

AP would normally agree. But since the other party is not held to this same standard, nor should the father.

This bill would not be necessary if the following were true: If a woman makes a choice to engage in behavior that results in her becoming impregnated by a man, she is absolutely responsible for her actions.

Not doing so is sexism.


“If he didnt' want to have a child, he'd disassociate from the behavior...not the child.”

AP agrees. This is a good point. However, it is a point that should hold true for both sexes.

The statement should be: If a person does not want to have a child, he/she should disassociate from the behavior...not the child.

Not doing so is sexism.

“We'd never absolve a man of his repsonsibility by virtue of abortion existing.”
“While Hak-Generale provides rights for would-be fathers in cases concerning abortion, we support the father's right to take responsibility for the child if the mother does not wish to care for it.”

This is because Hak-Generale allows the father rights in cases of abortion. Other NS do not. Since the UN has taken a role in such domestic issues (which AP wishes it had not), a resolution such as this is necessary. Or, UN law should be modified to allow the father a role in the decision making process. Currently, the father has responsibility irregardless of what the mother does.

"This is ludicrous, and the authors of this resolution should be ashamed at this boldfaced poo-poo of a law they find unpalatable."

Not sure you are saying what you want to say with this statement. Try rewording for clarification. The author does find it palatable, otherwise it would not have been written. Maybe you find it unpalatable, That would be a better statement, and say what I think you mean.

“In short, Hak-Generale suggests that the only legislation that should be proposed in this regard concerns men learning to ZIP IT if they don't want to face the consequences.”

Your statement should be: In short, Hak-Generale suggests that the only legislation that should be proposed in this regard concerns PEOPLE learning to ZIP IT if they don't want to face the consequences.

Not doing so is sexist

That, gentlemen, is CHOICE AT WORK.

Statement should be: That, PEOPLE, is CHOICE AT WORK.

Again, Sexism.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/two-wrongs-make-a-right.html

To your entire statement.

Also, it's kinda traditional to use the [quote] tag when quoting.

I once thought doublethink was a system of thought one would only find in a book. Instead, it is a system based on human observation.

I havent figured that quote thing out yet. Advice on how it operates would be greatly appreciated.

I havent figured that quote thing out yet. Advice on how it operates would be greatly appreciated.

I havent figured that quote thing out yet. Advice on how it operates would be greatly appreciated.

Sorry about the message being repeated. It was not intentional.

Don’t worry about the TP it happens to the best of us.

For quotes its [quote] [/quote.]

Only you take out the full stop.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588) ~ What can the UN do and what can it do for me?
(http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=151465&highlight=)

I havent figured that quote thing out yet. Advice on how it operates would be greatly appreciated.

Type at the start of what you want to quote, and at the end. If you want a name to appear, type [quote="<name>"]

With regard to your analysis, AP made the statement: UN law should be modified to allow the father a role in the decision making process.

AP is not advocating that not requiring the father to be a parent will remedy the situation. AP is stating that current law is sexist, and that this works to remedy the injustice.

If you want me to say abortion should be unlawful because it is sexist, fine: abortion is unlawful because it is sexist.

Also: I do not agree but must say that Abortion would be lawful if the legislation authoring were not sexist.

Not once has AP said that abortion is wrong, and that allowing males not to be a parent makes it right.

Please specify where you feel this fallacy is taking place. I will retract my statement on it if found to be true. It is not done throughout.

Type X at the start of what you want to quote, and /X at the end.

Thank you both :D

The problem is that since UN resolutions cannot be repealed or amended at present [see the 'before you make a resolution' sticky at the top of this forum] the current abortion resolution won't be taken off the books unless a repeal mechanic is added to the game [which it may be].

As a result of this, this resolution is really just being made out of spite.

NO IT WASN'T!!!



It's a rational and reasonable proposal. It was not made in retaliation. You really need to read more.

Male parental disassociation is the original and most basic reproductive right in nature. About 99.99% of all vertebrate species are raised by single mothers.

Humanity has proven time and time again that it is not a naturally monogamous species. The law of the land implies reproduction is the sole responsibility of the female.

Repeal abortion or amend it, MALE PARENTAL DISASSOCIATION IS A NATURAL RIGHT and should be recognized!!!

There is nothing wrong about it. It's about time men freed themselves from the chains. Reproduction is not their responsibility and they should not be forced or coerced into virtual slavery by females who wish to rob them of their resources for the cultivation of their progeny.


As a result of this, this resolution is really just being made out of spite.

I may have posted a similar reply before, but I forcefully give my standard objection to policies that are not worth being considered as legitimate:

No, no no! and GODDAMNIT, NO!!

"In nature males are sometimes killed by their mate after fulfilling their sole purpose, impregnating the female. So should we kill men after they impregnate us?" (Economic Determinist)


Hey, you can kill me any time...

sorry about that, I clicked one too many times.

This resolution has the potential for good comedy, if only it weren't so tragically atavistic.

I applaud the efforts to sink to new lows.

Hak-Generale's position was the following (I do this to clarify quoting):

“I concur with GMC. If a man makes a choice to engage in behavior that impregnates a woman, he is absolutely responsible for his actions.”

AP responded with:
"AP would normally agree. But since the other party is not held to this same standard, nor should the father. "

Hak-Generale believes the mother is in fact held to higher standard. She is repsonsible for deciding the life of the child if the father is not present, whether the pregnancy is terminated or not. A father can (and does) more easily exit the situation, and far too many of them do. In that case, what "standard" are they setting, or should be held to?

"This bill would not be necessary if the following were true: If a woman makes a choice to engage in behavior that results in her becoming impregnated by a man, she is absolutely responsible for her actions.

Not doing so is sexism."

Your position makes no sense, given that a woman at conception IS repsonsible for the pregnancy and its aftermath irrespective of the choice she makes in terms of sexual contact. Hak-Generale concurs that any actions of the part of two conseting parties bears equal responsiblity. Any accident that occurs is ALWAYS borne by the woman.

“If he didnt' want to have a child, he'd disassociate from the behavior...not the child.”

"AP agrees. This is a good point. However, it is a point that should hold true for both sexes."

See above. And in the cases of rape, how should this statement be handled? When a woman rapes a man, she is repsonsible for the pregnancy, he is not. When a man rapes a woman, who ends up bearing the consequences, irrespective of who should?

“We'd never absolve a man of his repsonsibility by virtue of abortion existing.”
“While Hak-Generale provides rights for would-be fathers in cases concerning abortion, we support the father's right to take responsibility for the child if the mother does not wish to care for it.”

"This is because Hak-Generale allows the father rights in cases of abortion."

Yes, and we do not mandate it unless legal action is taken against him, per the system of many countries.

"Other NS do not. Since the UN has taken a role in such domestic issues (which AP wishes it had not), a resolution such as this is necessary. Or, UN law should be modified to allow the father a role in the decision making process. Currently, the father has responsibility irregardless of what the mother does."

That is correct, because it takes two to tango. Absolving fathers because of abortion's existence is ludicrous because it assumes that abortion is a preferred alternative. Most women do not prefer abortion. By legally absolving fathers...how does this help women who wish to seek alternatives to abortion, and JUSTIFIABLY wish the father's support, since he volunteered his sperm?

“In short, Hak-Generale suggests that the only legislation that should be proposed in this regard concerns men learning to ZIP IT if they don't want to face the consequences.”

"Your statement should be:"

Hak-Generale's should be EXACTLY as it was written. We do not require clarification from another nation on a statement that we are quite clear on. If other nations ask for clarification, they will get it, they need not volunteer to re-write it. That is why Hak-Generale has elected to erase the clarification. It was unecessary. If this is about MALE parental disassociation, then Hak-Generale will discuss MALES.

The Leaders of the Commonwealth of Hak-Generale

The only low is the ignorance of feminazis and religious zealots. The feminazis need a reality check. And the religious zealots need to give up on banning abortion. They should just concede and support this point of view.

Abortion is a sexist practice and it ain't goin' anywhere so might as well make it fair by promoting legislation that counteracts the sexism.


The only way for equallity is for men to be allowed a somewhat equal solution to unwanted pregnancies.

ALL MEN MUST TAKE A STAND!!! If you have testicles and a penis don't be manipulated into taking stances that oppress you or screw you over.

This resolution has the potential for good comedy, if only it weren't so tragically atavistic.

I applaud the efforts to sink to new lows.

Abortion is a sexist practice and it ain't goin' anywhere so might as well make it fair by promoting legislation that counteracts the sexism.

The only way for equallity is for men to be allowed a somewhat equal solution to unwanted pregnancies.

ALL MEN MUST TAKE A STAND!!! If you have testicles and a penis don't be manipulated into taking stances that oppress you or screw you over.


Abortion is a practice partially born of the problem of fathers abandoning the children they've sired. Hak-Generale refers to its leaders' original comments on the "zipping it" option, and reminds Mosaic Oa that by absolving men's repsonsiblities to their progeny he increases the likelihood of abortion rather than reduces it.

Moreover, if a man is using his testicles and penis to screw, why should he not be subject to being "screwed over?" Hak-Generale believes that Mosaic Oa's stance is one that suggests a lack of male repsonsibility, and assumes that men must spread their seed freely and without consequence. If your penis and testicles are betraying you to the point that you require male disassociation laws...perhaps you should remove the temptation? Disassociate the offending parts before you must disassociate the entire body from the situation?

Now there's a resolution that would be fascinating on the floor...Hak-Generale would of course suggest humane, surgical alternatives that are state-mandated, rather than have a risk of nations using:

Garrotes tied around the gentials and hot chili sauce for anesthetic, per ancient Chinese practice,

Curved knives and considerable pain tolerance per some instances in Ottoman history,

A hot bath, some opium, and a butcher knife as in the case of the European castrati,

Any other methods that were not supervised by a physician and done under sanitary conditions. All surgery, be it abortion, castration, or sterilization, should be safe. All of these methods will remain with humanity as they have for thousands of years. The difference in our modern world is that we can make them humane.

In conclusion, male disassocation does not make the issues "equal between sexes," it simply give men more license to assume they get a free ride when they milk but refuse to buy the cow. If a bull decides he wishes to be a steer to avoid this, Hak-Generale is certain the cows will moo their approval.

The Leaders of Hak-Generale

ALL MEN MUST TAKE A STAND!!! If you have testicles and a penis don't be manipulated into taking stances that oppress you or screw you over.

This resolution has the potential for good comedy, if only it weren't so tragically atavistic.

I applaud the efforts to sink to new lows.

As a man, I'm embarrassed to be associated with even having to reply on this issue.

Quite frankly this is not an oppression issue. This is a respons-f***ing-bility issue. At the moment it is easy enough for said disassociation to take place. It is not productive, in fact is socially destructive.

This is about the most infantile sexist sort of crackpot proposal I've yet seen. Braaa-vo.

Tone down the flaming, folks.

Getting back onto the subject at hand, without resorting to insulting other members....

Fellow members,

The DSH remains undecided on this matter. The sentiment behind the proposal appears fair - after all if the male involved was against the birth, and the female went ahead with it anyway, why should the male been forced to become involved with the child to the same extent?

Moreover, if the male did not know of the child, how could they be expected to be involved?

however, we accept that regardless of their choice, the male does have a parental responsibility, even if it was one forced upon them....

This matter needs further consideration before we feel we can adequately debate on this matter.

However, what I would suggest for member states to consider the reverse scenario - that males should be granted the right to have an influence in their offspring's lives, and be granted the right to visit their child, except in exceptional circumstances. There are situations when the female will refuse the right of the male to visit their offspring regardless of the legal situation of the matter. Surely this is more worthy of the UN's time, and more likely to receive a consensus?

Thank you for your time.
________________________
Ambassador Hirosami Kildarno
http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/2702/hirotabanner.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/30626/page=display_nation/nation=hirota)http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/6355/england2.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/04605/page=display_region/region=england)

Male parental disassociation is the original and most basic reproductive right in nature. About 99.99% of all vertebrate species are raised by single mothers.
My spidey made-up-figure sense is tingling. Provide a source for this figure. If you can do that, explain also why you believe that because many species do so humans necessarily should too. Many vertebrate species live in burrows in the ground, but I don't see you suggesting we should do that.

Humanity has proven time and time again that it is not a naturally monogamous species.
Natural Law fallacy. Humanity also does not naturally wear suits and work in office blocks 9-5, should we ban that too? Did that computer you're using grow there?

Also, when has humanity 'proven' this, and why does this cancel out the concept of male childcare which has nothing whatsoever to do with monogamy?

There is nothing wrong about it. It's about time men freed themselves from the chains.
The chains of responsibility for their own actions? You want to legislate a man's right to be a playboy without consequence on the basis of some imaginary primeval image of studly alpha males picking up and throwing away as many partners as they felt like?

Reproduction is not their responsibility...
LOL! Takes two to tango.

...and they should not be forced or coerced into virtual slavery by females who wish to rob them of their resources for the cultivation of their progeny.
The second 'their' in this case should refer to the female and the male. If a man is careless enough to get a woman pregnant when he had no intention of marrying her it's his duty to help support his child. Nobody is 'forced' to have sex with women he has no intention of staying with.

Is this imaginary 'slavery' less just than this legislation which would force women on low incomes to have abortions simply because the male parent doesn't want to support his child?