NationStates Jolt Archive

try reading the last couple pages of the thread


how about the one where men have no natural right to their own children or the one where women should be able to decide whether or not men may have anything to do with their own children.

I was just curious to the ones you were thinking about.......

and im saying that if *I* said that "feminazi" would be the nicest thing i would be called.

Well, on the other end of my argument, the man doesn't actually have any responsibility for the pregnancy. either. A "feminazi" surely would not like my stance of a man's ability to get a paper abortion.

and im saying that if *I* said that "feminazi" would be the nicest thing i would be called.

That is true.

Oh good, new knee-jerk terms for a new knee-jerk debate. "Paper abortion." Conveys bad, incorrect imagery by referencing another knee-jerk argument: abortion.

You all win.

That's one of the reasons why I think whoever proposed this law is utterly mad. Currently, barring a history of violence or similar, men have an undisputed right to their kids. If male parenthood is reduced to an 'opt-in' then it will be to the detriment of men everywhere.

That I'm not so sure about. If you look at court records in divorce cases, you will find case after case of the judge extolling the sanctity of fatherhood and the equality of both parties under law before handing the child over to the mother for full custody. By contrast, it's rarely easy for the father to get full custody even if the mother is a heroin junkie. Statistically, it's just unquestioned that a bias exists in the legal system in favor of custody by the mother on the father's dime.

The mother has the right to receive support for the child. The child is not receiving support.

False. You should read the law. Child support goes to the child. However, just like a child actor, the parent gets control of that money, because the child is not capable of doing so himself or herself.

So you admit you are misconstruing things?

I admit you don't understand what we're talking about.

I will no longer respond to anything you say about law unless you provide linked proof that what you say is correct.

http://www.rollanet.org/~childlaw/galdef.htm#GAL
GAL's act in the interests of the child when the court is concerned that no one is. In all legal matters, a child must have someone represent his/her interests. In cases where there is conflict over what the guardians believe is in the best interests of the child or there is a conflict between the interests of the parent and that of the child the court appoints a seperate advocate. Their role is not to do what the child wants, but to do what is in the best interest of the child. Otherwise, unless there is reason to believe otherwise it is expected that a parent acts on the child's behalf.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm
From the UN
1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.

So, the legal guardian of a child can legally waive its supposed legal right to a mother and father, but can't waive its supposed legal right to receive child support?

Um, what are you talking about? Of course, they can do both. They have to so explicitly.

This is ludicrous.
A proufound argument. I am humbled.

That I'm not so sure about. If you look at court records in divorce cases, you will find case after case of the judge extolling the sanctity of fatherhood and the equality of both parties under law before handing the child over to the mother for full custody. By contrast, it's rarely easy for the father to get full custody even if the mother is a heroin junkie. Statistically, it's just unquestioned that a bias exists in the legal system in favor of custody by the mother on the father's dime.

Actually, I posted a link that 40% of cases result in joint custody when they go to court. In cases that don't, it is more likely that mother's will get full custody. It's not the system that's biased. The system is less biased that the parents, apparently.

That I'm not so sure about. If you look at court records in divorce cases, you will find case after case of the judge extolling the sanctity of fatherhood and the equality of both parties under law before handing the child over to the mother for full custody. By contrast, it's rarely easy for the father to get full custody even if the mother is a heroin junkie. Statistically, it's just unquestioned that a bias exists in the legal system in favor of custody by the mother on the father's dime.
did you miss the post by .... jocabia i think.... that said that only somewhere around 4% of custody cases are decided by a judge?

its hard for either parent to get full custody these days. judges arent willing to cut a father out of his kids lives without very good reason.

did you miss the post by .... jocabia i think.... that said that only somewhere around 4% of custody cases are decided by a judge?

its hard for either parent to get full custody these days. judges arent willing to cut a father out of his kids lives without very good reason.

It was me and you're correct. It's the parents who are deciding not to have joint custody much of the time. Some of the people this thread have said they have no interest in custody of their children.

did you miss the post by .... jocabia i think.... that said that only somewhere around 4% of custody cases are decided by a judge?

its hard for either parent to get full custody these days. judges arent willing to cut a father out of his kids lives without very good reason.

Apparently so. It's possible I've been sold a bill of goods. . .

It was me and you're correct. It's the parents who are deciding not to have joint custody much of the time. Some of the people this thread have said they have no interest in custody of their children.

Could you link that again, I can't find it.

EDIT:http://www.divorcepeers.com/stats17.htm

This is very old, maybe I can find something newer.

But in child placement following a divorce, joint custody occurs 17% of the time, sole custody for the father occurs 10% of the time, sole custody for the mother occurs 72.5% of the time.

Here is my earlier post.

Let's inject REALITY into the situation -

http://www.divorcepeers.com/stats18.htm

51% agreed on their own

29% settled without third party involvement

11% decided during mediation

5% resolved differences after a custody evaluation

4% went to trial (of the 4% that initiated litigation, only 1.5% actually completed it)

96% of custody 'battles' are decided outside of a courtroom. And joint custody is the outcome of 40% of courtroom battles. What people decide to do on their own outside of the courtroom is frankly none of our business. Notice the incredibly high percentage settled between the two parents alone.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-225.pdf

Notice that the average annual child support is five grand. Wow, these people paying child support are being gouged. Everyone knows raising a child costs WAY less than that. :rolleyes:

Other important statistics -

Around 18% of custodial mothers are unemployed (compared to about 9 percent of custodial fathers). This hardly represents a majority or even large minority of mothers sitting at home rubbing their hands together and waiting for their five grand to make them rich.

Around 25% of custodial mothers and 15% of custodial fathers are living in poverty. Taking money away from these mothers and fathers is not the answer, clearly.

Around 45% of custodial mothers and 40% of custodial fathers actually recieve all of their $5,000 in child support.

Now, on the child abuse front -
http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/statsinfo/nis3.cfm#perpetrator

78% of children are maltreated (abused) by birth parents. Of those, 75% are maltreated by birth mothers and 46% are maltreated by birth fathers (some are abused by both). Not this all types of abuse (neglect, physical, sexual, emotional, educational).
That means 35% of abuse cases involve birth fathers and 58% of abuse cases involve birth fathers.

Now the important part to note -
Children of single parents had a 77-percent greater risk of being harmed by physical abuse, an 87-percent greater risk of being harmed by physical neglect, and an 80-percent greater risk of suffering serious injury or harm from abuse or neglect than children living with both parents.

In other words, the increased number of children living with their mothers explains the discrepency. Children in single father homes are more than twice as likely to be physically abused. Again, the cited statistics by our friends were more than misleading.

Children are greater danger of nearly everything in single-parent homes because the decrease in support and increased stresses on the family. This is widely accepted to be true. Earlier cited statistics by our friends were obviously not explained in order to be inflamatory.

Could you link that again, I can't find it.

EDIT:http://www.divorcepeers.com/stats17.htm

This is very old, maybe I can find something newer.

But in child placement following a divorce, joint custody occurs 17% of the time, sole custody for the father occurs 10% of the time, sole custody for the mother occurs 72.5% of the time.

You are actually at the right site, just need to look in a different place. That's the point there, 17% overall and when settled in court it's 40% joint custody. That means it's the couples who are biased not the courts.

Also note this -
Fathers want sole possession only 33% of the time but want to give up custody 29% of the time
Mothers want sole custody 82% of the time and only wish to give up custody 3% of the time.

That statistic is staggering. That means that joint custody is reached more often than either parent wants it to be and that 3 in 10 fathers don't even want any custody. It's shocking. How broken must our society be that people view parenthood in such a way?

But that was never a factor brought up. TBF was dicussing it in relation to a person who doesn't want a child in a singular sex act.

Then that person should (a) not have sex at all (b) find some way to sterilize themselves temporarily or (c) use all the birth control they can, but still be prepared to take care of a child if one should result.

No, actually. America is a selfish society and sees no need to take care of or be responsible for anyone but themselves. Society is not responsible for a child's welfare here, the parents are. If they can't provide it, they should find some one who can, not pretend they can themselves.

What "America" sees it self as being has nothing to do with actual responsiblity. It just means that much of America is selfish and irresponsible. In my opinion, society aboslutely is responsible for the welfare of every child.

After going over the article again, I don't see how anyone can make the argument either way what the case says because even the basics of the case arn't outlined. It just says reproduction rights. In fact, there are no specific specifics of the case released.

The man who is suing claims that the woman in question told him she was sterile, and that he made it clear he didn't want children. Those are pretty specific, methinks.

You should really keep up with Jocabia's statements if you intend to argue parallel to them. He said both that "a child has a legal right to a father" and "a child has a natural right to a father."

Yes, but it is exceedingly clear that by "a father", he means a child's biological father, not just any random male.

You hold a narrow view of the adoption process. A child can be prepped for adoption while stille in the mother's custody, or even womb. Adoption is not just a thing found in the state foster care system.

"Prepped for adoption" is not the same as "up for adoption." Until there is a child (ie. out of the womb), there is no child, so a child obviously cannot be up for adoption. And even if a child is in the mother's (or father's) custody while up for adoption, the fact that the process has begun means that the biological parents have already stated full intentions to get out of the child's life.

Let me interject this, again.
Parents are nothing more than glorified legal guardians.

Let me repeat my reply: You obviously are not a parent and have no idea what parenting is.

If the father has already infringed on the child's (imaginary) right to support by his "father," then what right does the state have to force the father to support the family financially? If the mother can't do it, she shouldn't have it. This is not my opinion of what should happen, just a response to your statement.

Yes, we should remove a loving parent from a child just because the parent is financially hard up - even though money can come from *anywhere* and emotional support can only come from those willing to give it.

But the state doesn't require the father to support the children if there is no reason to.

Yes, it does. Unless both biological parents have given up the child, the state does require any biological parent to either be in custody of the child or be providing support. The state will not go out of its way to enforce this unless the custodial parent is in need of more money, but the requirement is still there.

My mother point blank told the state that she didn't need or want child support from my father. The state still mandated it.

I have stated that that only applies to unplanned pregnancies.

....which makes it inconsistent. First, you state that, because a woman carries a child to term, she has full and complete control over that child and gets to decide whether or not the man can be a part of the child's life.

Then, you turn around and say, "Well, only in unplanned pregnancies." In other words, men *do* have a right to their children, even if the mother wants them out.

Father's have rights to children, however, the right to a child begins at birth, and established by the mother's representation for the child.

This is completely inconsistent with your statement that unplanned pregnancies are the only ones that count. If the right is established at birth, by the mother, then whether or not the pregnancy was planned is irrelevant.

Once named the father (which must occur before birth) the father has all of the same rights.

If the right begins at birth, why must the father be bamed before birth? THe mother could pop the baby out and say, "John Doe is the daddy," and that would immediately give rights to John Doe.

In situations of planned pregnancies and marriage, if a father has an expectation of recieving parental rights as a result of sex, then he will recieve those rights.

Then your statement that a right is established at birth, by the mother, is wrong. It is impossible to reconcile that statement with this one.

EDIT: I don't believe that ejaculation should give a man entitlement to a child.

.....unless he asked for it before ejaculating, apparently.

Oh good, new knee-jerk terms for a new knee-jerk debate. "Paper abortion." Conveys bad, incorrect imagery by referencing another knee-jerk argument: abortion.

You all win.

Wow, you don't follow debates well, do you? The entire argument that you and others have been making is that, because the woman can abort, the man should be able to do something similiar - on paper. Calling that a "paper abortion" is perfectly legitimate. It was you and others arguing for the idea that brought in a discussion of abortion.

What "America" sees it self as being has nothing to do with actual responsiblity.
Yes it does. Responsibility is a societal standard; it's subjective. How America sees itself has everything to do with it.

In my opinion, society aboslutely is responsible for the welfare of every child.
Not in America.

The man who is suing claims that the woman in question told him she was sterile, and that he made it clear he didn't want children. Those are pretty specific, methinks.
Which has nothing to do with the specifics of the case or your opinion of what you think is going on in it. Your argument is that the case is to allow all men to be able to not support their children not just those in specific cases like this, which there is no support for in the article. When you defend yourself, try make the defense inline with what you already said.

Yes, but it is exceedingly clear that by "a father", he means a child's biological father, not just any random male.
Duh.

"Prepped for adoption" is not the same as "up for adoption."
Please don't tell me what I mean. By "prepped for adoption" I mean has found an adoptive family and is in the works of preparing to hand over the child after birth.

Until there is a child (ie. out of the womb), there is no child, so a child obviously cannot be up for adoption.
There is a child if there is the intention for the child to be born.

And even if a child is in the mother's (or father's) custody while up for adoption, the fact that the process has begun means that the biological parents have already stated full intentions to get out of the child's life.
Giving up legal custody and being out of the child's life are not the same thing.

Let me repeat my reply: You obviously are not a parent and have no idea what parenting is.
I could say many things here, but I won't say them so you can sit there and think of what they are and fume.
Legally speaking parents are nothing more than glorified legal guardians.

Yes, we should remove a loving parent from a child just because the parent is financially hard up - even though money can come from *anywhere* and emotional support can only come from those willing to give it.
Money can come from anywhere but you insist it come from the birth father regardless of circumstance. If the mother cannot support the child in any way, it is in the child's best interest to be taken away and given to a family that can. Isn't that your argument? Child's best interest?

Yes, it does. Unless both biological parents have given up the child, the state does require any biological parent to either be in custody of the child or be providing support.
After seeing your incredible grasp of law, I must ask you prove that by citing something.

The state will not go out of its way to enforce this unless the custodial parent is in need of more money, but the requirement is still there.
Tell that to state child support departments.

My mother point blank told the state that she didn't need or want child support from my father. The state still mandated it.
Anecdotes are not a substitute for proof.

Wow, you don't follow debates well, do you? The entire argument that you and others have been making is that, because the woman can abort, the man should be able to do something similiar - on paper. Calling that a "paper abortion" is perfectly legitimate. It was you and others arguing for the idea that brought in a discussion of abortion.
It is a term which does not describe what it is. It is designed to get people riled up by invoking their opinions of abortion, which are statistically unfavorable.

Please don't tell me what I mean. By "prepped for adoption" I mean has found an adoptive family and is in the works of preparing to hand over the child after birth.

Someone putting up a child for adoption can change their mind up until the birth. Know why? Because there is no child until that point.

http://laws.adoption.com/statutes/state-adoption-laws.html
Written consent must be executed by the birth mother no sooner than 48 hours after the minor's birth. The father may execute consent at any time after the birth of the child.

May be executed any time after the child's birth

A mother may only consent after the child's birth.

These laws are available. Please look them up.

There is a child if there is the intention for the child to be born.

Wow. On what do you base this. Is there a house if I intend to build a house. There is a child, when a child comes into being.

Someone putting up a child for adoption can change their mind up until the birth. Know why? Because there is no child until that point.

http://laws.adoption.com/statutes/state-adoption-laws.html
Linking to a general page proves nothing more than you probably have no proof.

These laws are available. Please look them up.
This quite obviously isn't a real debate.

Oh and while we are at it, tell me where I said the adoption had been finalized before birth. I believe I said "preparing to hand the child over after birth."

Wow. On what do you base this. Is there a house if I intend to build a house. There is a child, when a child comes into being.
If you intend to sell the finished product of a house there is.


PS. The only law relevant to myself is this one:

Any time prior to or after the birth of the child
http://laws.adoption.com/statutes/alabama-laws,3.html

Zing.

I still don't see why a father should have to pay if he doesn't want the child and their was a pre-arranged understanding that no child will be born.

Amazing.

So people are actually saying it is impossible for a man to turn down sex, even though he knows a child might result, and that because that eventuality is inconvenient to him, he should be able to just walk away from the consequences of his choice.
Some men can't turn down sex. Some women can't turn down sex. More of both sexes can. But in the heat of the moment, being filled with lust, few members of either sex would be albe to turn it down.

It's about time you accepted it!

Look under his kilt.
What a Eutrusca-esque post.

Yes it does. Responsibility is a societal standard; it's subjective. How America sees itself has everything to do with it.

If it is subjective, then when I am talking about it, it is how *I* see it that matters.

Which has nothing to do with the specifics of the case or your opinion of what you think is going on in it.

The specifics of the case have nothing to do with the specifics of the case? :confused:

Your argument is that the case is to allow all men to be able to not support their children not just those in specific cases like this, which there is no support for in the article. When you defend yourself, try make the defense inline with what you already said.

THe proposed legislation would make it available to all men.

Duh.

Then VO should stop arguing otherwise.

Please don't tell me what I mean. By "prepped for adoption" I mean has found an adoptive family and is in the works of preparing to hand over the child after birth.

And yet, no documents signed before birth are binding. At birth, a birth mother can say, "Never mind. See ya," and walk away with her new child. Yes, she can start making preparations ahead of time, but no adoption has gone through until the baby is born and *then* she signs the documents.

There is a child if there is the intention for the child to be born.

I have the intention of getting a Ph.D. Does that mean I already turned in my thesis?

Of course not. There is only a child once there is a child - after birth. Before then, we are talking about possibilities.

Giving up legal custody and being out of the child's life are not the same thing.

They usually are.

I could say many things here, but I won't say them so you can sit there and think of what they are and fume.
Legally speaking parents are nothing more than glorified legal guardians.

That's nice, but rather irrelevant.

Money can come from anywhere but you insist it come from the birth father regardless of circumstance.

No I don't. I think it *should* come from the birth father and the birth mother and I think any birth father or mother not providing support for their children - including emotional support - are deadbeats who are or have been incredibly irresponsible.

If the mother cannot support the child in any way, it is in the child's best interest to be taken away and given to a family that can. Isn't that your argument? Child's best interest?

If she cannot support it "in any way"? Yes, but that isn't what we were talking about. The best situation is that the child is in a loving home and there is money for him coming from somewhere - preferably from the birth parents, but if that is impossible, it could come from the state, charity, etc.

After seeing your incredible grasp of law, I must ask you prove that by citing something.

The laws have been cited time and time again. If it weren't true, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Tell that to state child support departments.

They already know. Like pretty much all government agencies, they only go after something that has been brought to their attention.

It is a term which does not describe what it is. It is designed to get people riled up by invoking their opinions of abortion, which are statistically unfavorable.

Then maybe you guys shouldn't start the debate by saying, "Women can have abortions. Men should have a similar option."

Linking to a general page proves nothing more than you probably have no proof.

I quoted three random states and when you quoted a fourth I showed you the law in that one too. I am amused by what amounts to proof for you.

This quite obviously isn't a real debate.

You figured that out. In a "real" debate, people educate themselves PRIOR to make claims about the law. You can't be arsed to do that I see. Below, you couldn't even be arsed to read a page that has about fourteen bulleted points on it.

Oh and while we are at it, tell me where I said the adoption had been finalized before birth. I believe I said "preparing to hand the child over after birth."

Ah, the last desperate act of someone who sees they've lost a debate. "Prove I said something that I only implied." I guess when Dem was talking about adoption doesn't really actually occur until there is a child, and you said there is a child the moment a parent decides there's one, you weren't implying anything. I appear to have mistakingly assumed you were following the line of thought Dem was offering up.

If you intend to sell the finished product of a house there is.

Um, no. There is intent to sell a house and it works different than adoption, but there is no house until there is a house. It's a truism.

PS. The only law relevant to myself is this one:

http://laws.adoption.com/statutes/alabama-laws,3.html

Zing.

I love when that works. I noticed that as well and I was hoping you would. Now, when can consent be withdrawn? Go ahead. I know you can see. Within 5 days of when the agreement takes affect. That's birth, friend. They can withdraw consent for up to five days after the birth. As some would say, Zing. Next time read the whole page.

Consent can be withdrawn for any reason within 5 days of the birth of the child or the signing of consent, or within 14 days if the court finds it consistent with the child's best interest.


http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/1975/coatoc.htm
(a) A consent or relinquishment may be taken at any time, except that once signed or confirmed, may be withdrawn within five days after birth or within five days after signing of the consent or relinquishment, whichever comes last.

By the way, if you'd like to learn more about child support here is a 93-page document, that pretty much explains everything. That way you can stop making untrue statements.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2005/handbook_on_cse.pdf

Seriously, please make an effort. Having to educate you on every single point of this debate is getting tiresome.

If it is subjective, then when I am talking about it, it is how *I* see it that matters.
Irrelevant if you arn't society as whole.

The specifics of the case have nothing to do with the specifics of the case? :confused:
The specifics of the incident have nothing to do with what the case will be about.

THe proposed legislation would make it available to all men.
What legislation?

Then VO should stop arguing otherwise.
That is irrelevant to Jocabia saying there is a legal or even natural right to a father.

And yet, no documents signed before birth are binding.
Except in certain states, as proved.

At birth, a birth mother can say, "Never mind. See ya," and walk away with her new child.
Adoption proceedings can be halted at any point regardless.

Yes, she can start making preparations ahead of time, but no adoption has gone through until the baby is born and *then* she signs the documents.
Except in certain states, as proved.

I have the intention of getting a Ph.D. Does that mean I already turned in my thesis?
Not even in the same class of comparisons.

Of course not. There is only a child once there is a child - after birth. Before then, we are talking about possibilities.
If there is intention for the child to be born, there is a child in the sense that there will be a child, especially in relation to preparations for adoption being made or consent to adoption already given. If a house is in the process of being built, there is a house in the sense that there will be a house, especially in relation to the house being already bought.

They usually are.
Does not counter my statement. You should know that usually is not a definitive term.

That's nice, but rather irrelevant.
Not legally. Which is the only relevance in this part of the debate.

If she cannot support it "in any way"? Yes, but that isn't what we were talking about.
Yes it is.

The best situation is that the child is in a loving home and there is money for him coming from somewhere - preferably from the birth parents, but if that is impossible, it could come from the state, charity, etc.
What magical thing makes the birth parents the best parents? Even if the child lives at home with his loving mother, if she can't support it financially, she probably won't be there physically or emotionally because she will be working. You are not arguing in the best interests of the child, you are arguing for the birth parents.

The laws have been cited time and time again. If it weren't true, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
No, they havn't.

They already know. Like pretty much all government agencies, they only go after something that has been brought to their attention.
You said they won't go out of their way.

Then maybe you guys shouldn't start the debate by saying, "Women can have abortions. Men should have a similar option."
Save your strawmen for the crows.

I love when that works. I noticed that as well and I was hoping you would. Now, when can consent be withdrawn? Go ahead. I know you can see. Within 5 days of when the agreement takes affect.
Irrelevant. The ability for consent to be withdrawn does not invalidate the fact that consent can be given.

Zing++.

....which makes it inconsistent. First, you state that, because a woman carries a child to term, she has full and complete control over that child and gets to decide whether or not the man can be a part of the child's life.

If planning is involved between the mother and father, the father carries the expectation of fatherhood. In other words, the mother accepted him as the father before conception took place.

Then, you turn around and say, "Well, only in unplanned pregnancies." In other words, men *do* have a right to their children, even if the mother wants them out.

No, in other words, for a planned pregnancy the mother must have granted the man with fatherhood before pregnancy.

This is completely inconsistent with your statement that unplanned pregnancies are the only ones that count. If the right is established at birth, by the mother, then whether or not the pregnancy was planned is irrelevant.

The child does not exist before birth, therefore a father's right to his children cannot begin before birth. Before birth a woman may have an obligation to the man to allow him to be the father, but a man can have no right to a pregnancy.

If the right begins at birth, why must the father be bamed before birth? THe mother could pop the baby out and say, "John Doe is the daddy," and that would immediately give rights to John Doe.

That is true, I don't remember now why I said the father must be named before birth.

Then your statement that a right is established at birth, by the mother, is wrong. It is impossible to reconcile that statement with this one.

The obligation is with the mother. If a man impregnates a woman under the understanding that he will be the father to the child, then the mother has an obligation to name him the father. It is a contractual relationship between the parents.

The child has no obligation to the father.

.....unless he asked for it before ejaculating, apparently.

Planning out a pregnancy takes a commitment.

It is the commitment that makes a father, not money, not sperm, not genetics.

Then by your logic, no commitment means no father and no need to pay?

Then by your logic, no commitment means no father and no need to pay?

Correct.

But the father cannot back out of the commitment.

Irrelevant. The ability for consent to be withdrawn does not invalidate the fact that consent can be given.

Zing++.

You don't get it. The fact it can be withdrawn is evidence that it has no effect until the birth. The ability to sign the paperwork earlier is simply for convenience. Until there is an effect, a locking agreement, it's just paper. Your ignorance of the law has becoming thoroughly tiresome. You can make an agreement to give a child up for adoption prior to ever getting pregnant. It's still not binding until after the birth. Because there is no child, regardless of your intent, there is no child nor any way of transferring a child's custody until the child is born. Every law evidences that fact. You're denial of their existence or attempts to twist them to mean something they don't is simply laughable.

Except in certain states, as proved.
Which states are those?

You don't get it. The fact it can be withdrawn is evidence that it has no effect until the birth. The ability to sign the paperwork earlier is simply for convenience. Until there is an effect, a locking agreement, it's just paper. Your ignorance of the law has becoming thoroughly tiresome. You can make an agreement to give a child up for adoption prior to ever getting pregnant. It's still not binding until after the birth. Because there is no child, regardless of your intent, there is no child nor any way of transferring a child's custody until the child is born. Every law evidences that fact. You're denial of their existence or attempts to twist them to mean something they don't is simply laughable.
Does not negate the fact consent can legally be given before birth. End of discussion.

You can make an agreement to give a child up for adoption prior to ever getting pregnant.
Not a legally binding one.

How dare you chide me about law while you sit there and repeated remove things from context and flaunt them as proof then take laws and abuse what they say to prove whatever asinine thing you are arguing then. I gave you proof that Alabama's law provides legal consent can be given before the child is born, whether or not it can be withdrawn is wholly irrelevant. Your argument that "there is no way to transfer a child's custody before it is born" is utterly and completely false because Alabama law says legal consent to adoption of a child can be given before birth. Regardless of whatever delusion you suffer to the contrary, you are wrong.

Does not negate the fact consent can legally be given before birth. End of discussion.

I believed you answered this adequately with this statement -
Not a legally binding one.
If it's not legally binding, it's simply a convenience to save time. I can make an equally binding agreement prior to pregnancy, which is, of course, not at all binding. Legaling binding means the consent is recognized by law. If it is not yet binding it is not yet recognized.


How dare you chide me about law while you sit there and repeated remove things from context and flaunt them as proof then take laws and abuse what they say to prove whatever asinine thing you are arguing then. I gave you proof that Alabama's law provides legal consent can be given before the child is born, whether or not it can be withdrawn is wholly irrelevant. Your argument that "there is no way to transfer a child's custody before it is born" is utterly and completely false because Alabama law says legal consent to adoption of a child can be given before birth. Regardless of whatever delusion you suffer to the contrary, you are wrong.

Yes, it's relevant. What did you just point out, friend. I'll quote you "Not a legally binding one." The consent is not legally binding. That's the point. I didn't even have to point this is important. You did it for me.

I believed you answered this adequately with this statement -

If it's not legally binding, it's simply a convenience to save time. I can make an equally binding agreement prior to pregnancy, which is, of course, not at all binding. Legaling binding means the consent is recognized by law. If it is not yet binding it is not yet recognized.
Remember what I said about taking things out of context? Yeah.


Yes, it's relevant. What did you just point out, friend. I'll quote you "Not a legally binding one." The consent is not legally binding. That's the point. I didn't even have to point this is important. You did it for me.
Alabama Law § 26-10A-13

During pregnancy and before pregnancy arn't the same thing. You continue to prove that you have no other skill than the excellent ability to take things out of context and use them like they are some sort of proof.

Hm, lack of knowledge of the law, ability to abuse out of context material - you should be a politican!

Remember what I said about taking things out of context? Yeah.



Alabama Law § 26-10A-13

During pregnancy and before pregnancy arn't the same thing. You continue to prove that you have no other skill than the excellent ability to take things out of context and use them like they are some sort of proof.

Hm, lack of knowledge of the law, ability to abuse out of context material - you should be a politican!

It doessn't matter if they are the same in their law. The point is that the consent is not legally binding until AFTER the birth in EVERY state. As you pointed out, unless it's legally binding, it doesn't matter. The ability to put the paperwork together is simply a convenience. It's amusing that you keep suggesting I don't understand the law.

Here - simple question. Is consent legally binding prior to birth in Alabama?

It doessn't matter if they are the same in their law. The point is that the consent is not legally binding until AFTER the birth in EVERY state.
It is in Alabama. The fact that it can be withdrawn does not negate the fact it can be given, for the last time. You try to argue that again, I won't give you the satisfaction of a correction.

It is in Alabama. The fact that it can be withdrawn does not negate the fact it can be given, for the last time. You try to argue that again, I won't give you the satisfaction of a correction.

It can be given, but if it can be retracted that makes it not legally binding. You apparently don't understand the term. If I choose to go forward after birth, it goes forward. If I choose not to, it doesn't. That means the contract is not legally binding in Alabama until 5 days AFTER the birth. Magically, an agreement I reach prior to pregnancy would become legally binding at exactly the same time.

Can I enforce the signed contract if the mother decides she doesn't want to go through with it before five days after the birth? Nope. Because it's not legally binding. Can I enforce the contract if the mother decides she doesn't want to go through with it more than five days after the birth? Yep. That's because it has become LEGALLY BINDING.

http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/1975/coatoc.htm
(a) A consent or relinquishment may be taken at any time, except that once signed or confirmed, may be withdrawn within five days after birth or within five days after signing of the consent or relinquishment, whichever comes last.

Consent may be taken AT ANY TIME. That means prior to pregnancy, after pregnancy, after birth. Consent can be given at any time, but it does not become binding unitl five days after birth or five days after signing, whichever comes last. That means five days after birth is the earliest it can be binding.

I find it amusing that you can look at the actual legal code where it says exactly what I'm saying and keep arguing that I should retract my statement.

It doessn't matter if they are the same in their law. The point is that the consent is not legally binding until AFTER the birth in EVERY state.

It is in Alabama.

Not according to Alabama law, my friend. Perhaps you don't know what legally binding means. Legally binding means you are REQUIRED to follow through with the terms of the contract.

If one party can dissolve the contract at their will within the law they are not bound by the legal contract but instead only by their own will.

There are 6 elements to a legally binding contract.

I trust you all know what they are. If something meets all 6 elements, then it is legally binding.

If you don't know what they are, then look them up, and this discussion suddenly gets much easier.

As for this case:

These fathers are 100% correct! If women don't have to take responsibility for a pregnancy, then neither do fathers. Of course, this assumes that women don't have to take responsibility....

If you don't know what they are, then look them up, and this discussion suddenly gets much easier.
Don't count on it.

There are 6 elements to a legally binding contract.

I trust you all know what they are. If something meets all 6 elements, then it is legally binding.

If you don't know what they are, then look them up, and this discussion suddenly gets much easier.

As for this case:

These fathers are 100% correct! If women don't have to take responsibility for a pregnancy, then neither do fathers. Of course, this assumes that women don't have to take responsibility....

Actually, one of the elements of a contract is that it be a binding agreement. This agreement is not binding that is the point. It cannot be binding if I can simply change my mind.

Also, women do have to take responsibility for a pregnancy, however, this issue is about whether men and women have to take responsibility for a child. In current law, rights and responsibilities are exactly the same for both the mother and the father once a child enters the picture.

Don't count on it.

You know them? I do. We've been talking about one of the elements. Why don't you just admit that you don't know what binding means. You've using it wrong for like three pages.

The six elements of a contract are a binding agreement, assent, competent parties, legal form, consideration and a legal purpose.

Irrelevant if you arn't society as whole.

Does that mean I can't have an opinion about what women should do, since I'm not "women as a whole"?

The specifics of the incident have nothing to do with what the case will be about.

I think you're a little confused about the way the legal system works.

That is irrelevant to Jocabia saying there is a legal or even natural right to a father.

It is relevant to the things VO is trying to tack on, which can't be tacked on if the conversation is specific to the biological father.

Except in certain states, as proved.

You didn't prove anything except that the documents can be signed ahead of time. Of course, since they aren't even a little bit binding until the child is born, that's pretty irrelevant.

Legally, I could sign a document with you right now that I would let you adopt my firstborn child, one day, when I get pregnant. But it wouldn't be binding, and is thus irrelevant.

Not even in the same class of comparisons.

Actually, it is. You are claiming that "prepping for" something equates to already having done it.

If there is intention for the child to be born, there is a child in the sense that there will be a child, especially in relation to preparations for adoption being made or consent to adoption already given. If a house is in the process of being built, there is a house in the sense that there will be a house, especially in relation to the house being already bought.

Actually there *might* be a child. There *might* be a house. There is no *will*, unless you are clairvoyant, perhaps?

What magical thing makes the birth parents the best parents?

Nothing. Sometimes birth parents are shitty parents, which is why the rest of society has to step in and boot them out.

Even if the child lives at home with his loving mother, if she can't support it financially, she probably won't be there physically or emotionally because she will be working. You are not arguing in the best interests of the child, you are arguing for the birth parents.

Yes, because a working mom can't possibly be there for her children.

You said they won't go out of their way.

And they won't. Unless it is brought to their attention, the government isn't going to go after someone not paying child support. Plenty of people are told to pay and never do - and they never go to court for it.

Save your strawmen for the crows.

Apparently, you haven't been reading the thread. That was not a strawman - it was the *exact* argument made time and time again in this thread - including by you.

Irrelevant. The ability for consent to be withdrawn does not invalidate the fact that consent can be given.

Actually, it means that consent cannot yet truly be given. There is no contract, nothing is binding. Therefore, consent is not legally given.

I think he thinks "strawman" means, "what to call an argument when you don't have any other reply." I can cite at least three times he called the exact arguments be used in the thread "strawmen". It's pretty silly. Also, you might mark your sarcasm, because I suspect it will go amiss.

Where has the other side of this thread gone?

I haven't been reading anything except responses to my posts, but TPH seems to be much more vehement about this argument than I am.

If planning is involved between the mother and father, the father carries the expectation of fatherhood. In other words, the mother accepted him as the father before conception took place.

So? Expectations and actual occurrences are two different things. Either the mother gets all rights to the child by carrying it, or she doesn't. Which is it?

No, in other words, for a planned pregnancy the mother must have granted the man with fatherhood before pregnancy.

This is hardly true. I was the product of a planned pregnancy - planned solely by my mother, who informed my father that she was going to try and get pregnant and that he need not worry about it.

The child does not exist before birth, therefore a father's right to his children cannot begin before birth. Before birth a woman may have an obligation to the man to allow him to be the father, but a man can have no right to a pregnancy.

Where does this obligation come from? For what reason does he have rights to the product of her womb just because she said so at some point? If she says he can have her kidney, does she then have to give it when his fails?


Not a legally binding one.

I gave you proof that Alabama's law provides legal consent can be given before the child is born, whether or not it can be withdrawn is wholly irrelevant.

You do realize that ability to withdraw consent means that the consent was not legally binding, right? Therefore, it is *exactly* the same as me making an agreement before I ever get pregnant that someone can adopt my child. Neither is legally binding and neither can go into effect until birth has occurred, because there is no child to transfer until that point.

Your argument that "there is no way to transfer a child's custody before it is born" is utterly and completely false because Alabama law says legal consent to adoption of a child can be given before birth. Regardless of whatever delusion you suffer to the contrary, you are wrong.

Consent to transfer is not the same thing as an actual transfer.

So? Expectations and actual occurrences are two different things. Either the mother gets all rights to the child by carrying it, or she doesn't. Which is it?

She gets sole representation for the child. She has full rights for the child. However, due to expectations created by the actions of the two parties, a contract is formed under which the man is to be granted full parental rights in return for his commitment to fulfill the obligations that said rights carry.

The expectations of a transfer of rights can for a contract. If you go up to a drive thru window and order a sandwich, the expectation of your payment has been established.

This is hardly true. I was the product of a planned pregnancy - planned solely by my mother, who informed my father that she was going to try and get pregnant and that he need not worry about it.

Oh Jesus, don't just try and prolong the argument.

I was referring to the way in which a man would recieve the rights of parenthood when there is a planned pregnancy.

Obviously there would be no conflict under your situation, either, the man has no obligation as there was no expectation of parental rights or responsibilities prior to conception or birth.

The key is that, for planned pregnancies, the role of the parents are established. When the roles of the parents are established prior to the pregnancy, each side is protected by contractual law.

Where does this obligation come from? For what reason does he have rights to the product of her womb just because she said so at some point? If she says he can have her kidney, does she then have to give it when his fails?

The obligation comes from expressed contractual duties. The woman has sole right to the product of her womb until she agrees to give them away or share them.

Are you arguing against the enforcement of contracts or that the product of one's body cannot be contractually transferred? Neither one is an argument that can stand.

Where does that right come from? Why does one part of biology give rights that another doesn't? Why does the unique role a woman holds in approximately five percent of the total development it takes to reach adulthood make a man have no rights to engaging in the other 95% of the development that he is capable of engaging in? Why is biology so important for a woman and infer NO RIGHTS for a man?

Where does that right come from? Why does one part of biology give rights that another doesn't? Why does the unique role a woman holds in approximately five percent of the total development it takes to reach adulthood make a man have no rights to engaging in the other 95% of the development that he is capable of engaging in? Why is biology so important for a woman and infer NO RIGHTS for a man?

Because the unique role of the woman is to decide whether any of that development takes place.

The right to make a decision bears the responsibility of that decision.

Because the unique role of the woman is to decide whether any of that development takes place.

The right to make a decision bears the responsibility of that decision.

And prior to abortion who had the right to engage in the other 95% of the developmental process that does not occur in the womb?

The obligation comes from expressed contractual duties. The woman has sole right to the product of her womb until she agrees to give them away or share them.

Are you arguing against the enforcement of contracts or that the product of one's body cannot be contractually transferred? Neither one is an argument that can stand.

All agreements are not equivalent to contracts. Considering that a woman can sign a contract with adopting parents before birth, but then can back out after birth, there is no reason to believe that this would be any different - even if she actually signed it.

Simple verbal agreements rarely have much weight in a court of law, as it becomes a he-said, she-said kind of argument.

These fathers are 100% correct! If women don't have to take responsibility for a pregnancy, then neither do fathers. Of course, this assumes that women don't have to take responsibility....
women have no choice but to take responsibility for a pregnancy. it cant not be dealt with.

I had left this thread because a particular two people are hopelessly shut up in their victim-culture existance to comprehend other ideas. I liken it to an Arab man who doesn't see what is wrong with killing his daughter because she might have had sex, and thus infringed on his family honor. Or stoning a woman to death becasue she fought back against her rapist attacker and killed him. People seem very close minded in their "gender-roles" mentality, whatever those gender roles happen to be in their culture. However, this just seemed so plainly erroneous, I had to speak up again and risk the jeers of "deadbeat" once more.

women have no choice but to take responsibility for a pregnancy. it cant not be dealt with.


That's just splitting hairs, and erroneously at that.

The poster was refering to the claim that once a woman is pregnant, she has the option of abortion, while a man does not. She can choose to not have a child, and thus waives responsibility for caring for one. Meanwhile, a man has no chioce. His life, his future, is totally at the whims of this woman.

The problem with this debate is twofold-

First, people who are against abortion/adoption- well, you can't be reasoned with. Even if you don't advocate "sex only for the sake of having a child", you are one small step from it, and thus I invite you to find a religious compound somewhere to find those who cater to such arcane concepts of sex.

And second, (which is what really applies here)- people who are pro-choice, yet are militant in only CERTAIN aspects of it. You see, people such as certain-posters-who-will-remain-unnamed believe completely in abortion rights only because it is a woman's body, and her right to choose. Although that is the most common and most effective argument for abortion, it is only partially correct. There is also the person's fundamental right to choose whether they assume the gargantuan mantle of becoming a parent, and thus assuming the legal, cultural, financial, religious, and et cetera obligation of caring for and raising that child. To assume that a woman's choice for an abortion is only limited to "you know, I don't feel like having something growing in me and don't want to gain weight", rather than the far more likely "I don't want to have a kid, are you nuts? I'm only 18!" is not only vastly naive but inherently infringes upon the rights of another- the man who has no choice, because it is not "his body". THe ONLY way certain-posters-who-will-not-be-named can argue the "her body, so she has a choice and he doesn't, so therefore he is screwed" argument, is if abortion laws were changed. Women whould have to sign a statement saying that she only is getting the abortion because she doesn't want to get sick in the morning or risk getting streach marks. She could not have the abortion because she didn't want to be a mother. Because you-posters-who-will-not-be-named have said that no one has that right. She can only make clinical decisions about her body. I, personally, would need these women to be hooked up to polygraph and voice stress analyzer machines to ensure that they are telling the truth before I would believe that.

I am, of course, not advocating that- I am trying to illustrate a point. By using the "woman's body" argument, you take away what is the actual freedom granted to women by abortion (the right to only be a parent if they wish to), and replace it with something clinical. You also steal that fundamental right from a man.

And prior to abortion who had the right to engage in the other 95% of the developmental process that does not occur in the womb?

Irrelevant, there was no "prior to abortion," and this argument is contingent the full right of a woman to choose to have an abortion.

I had left this thread because a particular two people are hopelessly shut up in their victim-culture existance to comprehend other ideas.

Who? You and tph? You are only two claiming to be victims. None of us are claiming that women, children OR men are victims, only that children deserve to be supported and the people responsible for that support are both MEN AND WOMEN. We are advocating ABSOLUTELY equal treatment of men and women once children are born. Exactly equal. Women should not get sole custody more than men in cases where both want custody. Women and men should have to put equal support into the child financially unless it is otherwise agreed. Neither parent should be permitted to shirk their responsibility to care for the child unless someone else AGREES to take on that responsibility explicitly.

There are only two people claiming that someone is being victimized. You and tph are claiming that women and the system are victimizing men by denying them rights and forcing them to pay for their children. A victim culture is one that treats people like victims and you are begging for people to treat men like victims. You are seeking to create a victim culture and you're angry that people treat you like a person who should responsible for his child rather than like a person who is the victim of a woman and a victim of circumstance. Sorry. We don't accept your requests to be treated as a victim. As you have repeatedly stated a victim culture is undesirable and we won't let you create one.

All agreements are not equivalent to contracts. Considering that a woman can sign a contract with adopting parents before birth, but then can back out after birth, there is no reason to believe that this would be any different - even if she actually signed it.

All agreements are contracts with varying levels of enforcibility.

I don't know anything about the example you gave, but I will assume you're right. The big difference, however, is that the woman giving up a child for adoption is giving up complete parental rights. The woman consenting to a father is only sharing rights. The mother and father have joint parental rights, undivided and equal representation. The woman in effect, is not giving up any of her rights, but is agreeing to share them.

Simple verbal agreements rarely have much weight in a court of law, as it becomes a he-said, she-said kind of argument.

Well then a father who wants joint custody of a child needs to get documentation prior to conception.

None of us are claiming that women, children OR men are victims, only that children deserve to be supported and the people responsible for that support are both MEN AND WOMEN.
Twisting words, your own words this time, sad sad. Your contention is that the child has the "right" to support from the birth mother and father.

We are advocating ABSOLUTELY equal treatment of men and women once children are born. Exactly equal.
Could have fooled me, and a half dozen other people.

Women should not get sole custody more than men in cases where both want custody.
Every time we argue that you start up defenses and accusations and irrelevant parallels in argument.

There are only two people claiming that someone is being victimized.
By the court system.

You and tph are claiming that women and the system are victimizing men by denying them rights and forcing them to pay for their children.
Wrong, now you have gone from twisting your own words to twisting mine. I have only argued the court system is unfair.

A victim culture is one that treats people like victims and you are begging for people to treat men like victims.
Wrong.

You are seeking to create a victim culture and you're angry that people treat you like a person who should responsible for his child rather than like a person who is the victim of a woman and a victim of circumstance.
So, you then contend that there are no points in time when the man is the victim of the woman's manipulation or circumstance?

We don't accept your requests to be treated as a victim. As you have repeatedly stated a victim culture is undesirable and we won't let you create one.
Nice ending, too bad it isn't in any way related to our arguments.

~snip~

I see you did not address the bulk of my argument, but instead pounced on a simple two word phrase and chose to direct your ire at that. I believe TPH has sufficiently addressed that issue.

I am, however, confused by your lack of comment on the rest of my post.

Am I to assume that you agree that women should undergo polygraphs and voice stress analyzers to ensure they are complying with the only right you give them? For that was the point I was making. That you give women a clinical right, but deny them the choice of having children.

Twisting words, your own words this time, sad sad. Your contention is that the child has the "right" to support from the birth mother and father.

Not twisting. They do have that right and it's the reason why they deserve it.

Could have fooled me, and a half dozen other people.

Then you're not following along. Show me where I've advocated a woman being permitted to put a child up for adoption without the father's consent. You can't, because I actually showed the law requires the opposite. Show me where I've suggested that sole custody by the mother should be preferred. You can't, because I've actually stated that joint custody is the ideal. Show me where I've suggested that women should pay less child support than men. You can't, because I've actually stated that children deserve equal support from both parents which would require that both men and women pay equal child support in cases where the other parent is the custodial parent.

You keep making these bizarre statements. How about supporting them with some proof? Show me where I advocated unequal treatment of either men or women?

Every time we argue that you start up defenses and accusations and irrelevant parallels in argument.

Prove it. Quote where I argued that women should get sole custody. I would love it if EVERY case ended up in joint custody. Unfortunately, you cannot force custody on a parent because it's not safe for the child. I posted a link that showed that 30% of the time men don't want any custody of their children at all as opposed to 3% of the time on behalf of women. That has a tendency to skew the outcome of custody battles by, oh, I don't know, 27%. That is the outcome, but it certainly shouldn't be. Show me where anyone here claimed otherwise.

By the court system.

The court system that is only involved in 4% of cases and decides for joint custody more often than decisions made absent of the courts by a far margin?

Meanwhile, you still claim to be victimized. No one is claiming that women are being victimized. The only ones asking for someone to be treated like victims is you guys and you just admitted it.

Wrong, now you have gone from twisting your own words to twisting mine. I have only argued the court system is unfair.

Um, what system did you think I was referring to when I said the system was victimizing men according to you two. And do you think I can find not one single quote of you stating that women are putting men in this position on purpose? Care to make a wager on that? Before you do consider the fact that you make the claim about two more sentences down that women victimize men (with, of course, no mention of the fact that it occurs in both directions with equal frequency).

Wrong.

The weight of this argument is overwhelming.

So, you then contend that there are no points in time when the man is the victim of the woman's manipulation or circumstance?

No, I didn't contend that. I don't think it happens any more often than women are a victim of similar manipulation by men. I recognize that some people are victims and some people victimize. I think those people are marginal on both sides and it is not in the interest of law to make law that victimizes more people in order to address the small number of cases that involve fraud which is already a crime.

I fully advocate charging women who defraud a man with a crime and stated exactly that in this thread. This is the way to deal with that problem not change the laws to make the system more abusive.

Nice ending, too bad it isn't in any way related to our arguments.
Interesting, since you claimed that the courts and women victimize men in this very post. I'm sorry that you broke the paragraph out so much that you forgot how the summary applies. Perhaps you shouldn't do that next time.

I see you did not address the bulk of my argument, but instead pounced on a simple two word phrase and chose to direct your ire at that. I believe TPH has sufficiently addressed that issue.

I am, however, confused by your lack of comment on the rest of my post.

Am I to assume that you agree that women should undergo polygraphs and voice stress analyzers to ensure they are complying with the only right you give them? For that was the point I was making. That you give women a clinical right, but deny them the choice of having children.

It's a strawman. Women don't have a right to not support a child, nor do men. Abortion has nothing to do with a child, it has to do with pregnancy. A woman who has an abortion is permitted to terminate her pregnancy not her obligation to a child. Once a child exists, both parents are equally tied to that child and equally required to support it. Neither parent can forego their rights and responsibilities without finding a surrogate to accept those rights and responsibilities and without the agreement of both parents.

Women cannot waive the responsibility for caring for a child. There is no child in the case of an abortion. That's where your argument falls apart. And I addressed the issue in my response to you, I simply didn't quote. The responsibilities of men and women are exactly equal when a child arrives on the scene.

I had left this thread because a particular two people are hopelessly shut up in their victim-culture existance to comprehend other ideas.

You mean "other ideas," like, "Oh poor ACNAT. Doesn't want to take care of his child and now we should cry for him!"?

People seem very close minded in their "gender-roles" mentality, whatever those gender roles happen to be in their culture.

Is it "gender roles" when you apply the role equally to a man or a woman, a homosexual or heterosexual?

The poster was refering to the claim that once a woman is pregnant, she has the option of abortion, while a man does not. She can choose to not have a child, and thus waives responsibility for caring for one. Meanwhile, a man has no chioce. His life, his future, is totally at the whims of this woman.

She cannot possibly "waive responsiblility for caring for one," as there is no child. It would be like me saying, "I wave responsibility for paying for my yacht. Never mind that I don't have one."

First, people who are against abortion/adoption- well, you can't be reasoned with. Even if you don't advocate "sex only for the sake of having a child", you are one small step from it, and thus I invite you to find a religious compound somewhere to find those who cater to such arcane concepts of sex.

This is ridiculous. I am personally opposed to both abortion and adoption, but I do not even come close to advocating that sex should only be had for the sake of having a child. I just think people who absolutely do not want children should (a) be sterilized (b) refrain from sex or (c) take their chances and then step up to the responsibility if it comes.

And second, (which is what really applies here)- people who are pro-choice, yet are militant in only CERTAIN aspects of it. You see, people such as certain-posters-who-will-remain-unnamed believe completely in abortion rights only because it is a woman's body, and her right to choose. Although that is the most common and most effective argument for abortion, it is only partially correct.

And it is the *only* legal argument - the argument from whence the law stems.

There is also the person's fundamental right to choose whether they assume the gargantuan mantle of becoming a parent, and thus assuming the legal, cultural, financial, religious, and et cetera obligation of caring for and raising that child.

I don't think anyone has such a right. Now, I *do* think that the child has a right to adequate parenting, and I don't think it can come from someone who is forced into it - hence the reason that I advocate a need for consent in parenting - male or female.

To assume that a woman's choice for an abortion is only limited to "you know, I don't feel like having something growing in me and don't want to gain weight", rather than the far more likely "I don't want to have a kid, are you nuts? I'm only 18!" is not only vastly naive but inherently infringes upon the rights of another- the man who has no choice, because it is not "his body". THe ONLY way certain-posters-who-will-not-be-named can argue the "her body, so she has a choice and he doesn't, so therefore he is screwed" argument, is if abortion laws were changed. Women whould have to sign a statement saying that she only is getting the abortion because she doesn't want to get sick in the morning or risk getting streach marks. She could not have the abortion because she didn't want to be a mother. Because you-posters-who-will-not-be-named have said that no one has that right. She can only make clinical decisions about her body. I, personally, would need these women to be hooked up to polygraph and voice stress analyzer machines to ensure that they are telling the truth before I would believe that.

Strawman. A woman who does not want to have a child does not want to be pregnant. Her reasons for not wanting to be pregnant are her own - but it boils down to not wanting to be pregnant in the end.

This is like saying, "You have a right to vote. But you can only vote if you prove that you want to vote because you care about who gets elected. If you are going to vote because everyone else is doing it or your boss expects it or you get the time off from work, then we will remove your right to vote."

I am, of course, not advocating that- I am trying to illustrate a point. By using the "woman's body" argument, you take away what is the actual freedom granted to women by abortion (the right to only be a parent if they wish to), and replace it with something clinical. You also steal that fundamental right from a man.

If that were the actual right, then the woman could actually do what you want the ability to do - bring a child into the world and *then* say, "I don't want to be a parent," something she technically cannot do without the consent of the father.


All agreements are contracts with varying levels of enforcibility.

And verbal agreements have next-to-none.

I don't know anything about the example you gave, but I will assume you're right. The big difference, however, is that the woman giving up a child for adoption is giving up complete parental rights. The woman consenting to a father is only sharing rights. The mother and father have joint parental rights, undivided and equal representation. The woman in effect, is not giving up any of her rights, but is agreeing to share them.

...which means she is no longer the absolute say and thus has less power in the child's life - thus giving up some of her parental rights.

Well then a father who wants joint custody of a child needs to get documentation prior to conception.

Such documentation would be legally non-binding, just as adoption agreements are legall non-binding, until after the child is born. Thus, at birth, the mother could say, "Sorry dude, don't want you around."


Every time we argue that you start up defenses and accusations and irrelevant parallels in argument.

Hardly. We simply point out that the problem is more than just "court bias". The fact that the vast majority of divorces that never go to court end up with the mother with full custody demonstrates that it is often the parents themselves that are the problem - not the system. Much of society still tries to tell us that women are the nurturers and men are not, and that a child thus needs to be with his mother. Courts could be partially moved by this bias - but there is also the problem that the attitude causes the situation. People think women should be the nurturers and men should be out working. Thus, even when a woman is working, she often takes the role of nurturer, while the man does not think he needs to. Thus, when a divorce occurs, she is closer to her children and the parents determine that the children should go with her. Or, if it goes to court, the court determines that they would be best off in joint custody/visitation with the mother as the primary guardian.

You ignore society and assume that the court system is the bulk of it, without at all accounting for the other problems that can occur.

So, you then contend that there are no points in time when the man is the victim of the woman's manipulation or circumstance?

Nice ending, too bad it isn't in any way related to our arguments.

These two statements are contradictory.