• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sperm Ownership After Deposit, Male Parental Rights, and Child Support:

Aunt Spiker said:
Why is it different?

Adoption is regulated and you must meet the requirements. And in doing so you may or may not end up annulling all rights, depending on where you live.

Woman: I don't want to raise or be a part of this child's life.
Man: I don't want to raise or be a part of this child's life.

Same reasons. Same end result.
Click to expand...

When a woman exercises her right to abortion, the pregnancy does not result in a live birth and there remains no child for the state to have an interest in supporting. If the state allowed a mother to unilaterally disclaim the legal rights and obligations incident to motherhood after the child was born, then the law would be extending a right to mothers which it does not afford to fathers
Click to expand...

Here ya go...
 
Removable Mind said:
I'm not appealing to anything. I read court documents that stated the reason.
Click to expand...

You cited documentation out of context. Here is the rest of the opinion on that matter, in bold so you can all read it:

Moreover, Dubay’s claim that a man’s right to disclaim fatherhood would be analogous to a woman’s right to
abortion rests upon a false analogy. In the case of a father seeking to opt out of fatherhood and thereby avoid child
support obligations, the child is already in existence and the state therefore has an important interest in providing for his
or her support.
Click to expand...

See: child already in existence. Your citation proves nothing.
 
Celebrity said:
You cited documentation out of context. Here is the rest of the opinion on that matter, in bold so you can all read it:



See: child already in existence. Your citation proves nothing.
Click to expand...

Celeb...if you can't find the reason for the false analogy...sorry, dude. What motive do I have for making it up?
 
Removable Mind said:
Celeb...if you can't find the reason for the false analogy...sorry, dude. What motive do I have for making up?
Click to expand...

You have no motive to make it up as far as I can tell. From what I gather, you have not actually read the case. I don't think you know what you're talking about.
 
Celebrity said:
You cited documentation out of context. Here is the rest of the opinion on that matter, in bold so you can all read it:



See: child already in existence. Your citation proves nothing.
Click to expand...

Those are two different issues that Dubay claimed that can before court...two mutually exclusive issues. He fell on his ass with the ...."She can have an abortion argument". You've copied and pasted what the response is.
 
Celebrity said:
Did he call up to bitch at you because you didn't give a **** about him, and prevented him from visiting your kids because you felt you had to protect them from him? Sometimes not starting a custody battle is the most you can do for the child, let alone the custodial parent.

Thanks for sharing your story. Seems like you didn't do anything for him, either.
Click to expand...

Mind you - he also abused the boys so it's not as if he was a good parent back then (this is a very long time ago I'm referring to).

By the time this matter surfaced I found that he had 7 other children to care for, fathered after I left him. Regardless of where we ended our marriage and why, his wife and children needed him to be able to fully support all of them financially. Annulling his rights ended child support and having them adopted by my husband let him (my ex) support his current family.

Now, I hope he's a good father to his other children.
 
Last edited:
Celebrity said:
You have no motive to make it up as far as I can tell. From what I gather, you have not actually read the case. I don't think you know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Sure I've read the case...
 
Removable Mind said:
Those are two different issues that Dubay claimed that can before court...two mutually exclusive issues. He fell on his ass with the ...."She can have an abortion argument". You've copied and pasted what the response is.
Click to expand...

Do you realize that you are appealing to the response by only citing that response by the court of appeals? If you don't understand what the ruling says, maybe don't cite it.

This is precisely what is meant by appeal to authority. You are not supporting your argument with facts from the ruling, you are supporting it by the following fallacy: "The supreme court said it, so it must be true."
 
Removable Mind said:
Here ya go...
Click to expand...

We were talking about adoption - adoption on the mother's part being the same as the father wanting to annul his parental rights.

Just because the court views things one way does't mean your views and value align in agreement with that.

I see a mother wanting to give her child up for adoption as being the same as a father wanting to annul his rights.
 
Celebrity said:
Do you realize that you are appealing to the response by only citing that response by the court of appeals? If you don't understand what the ruling says, maybe don't cite it.

This is precisely what is meant by appeal to authority. You are not supporting your argument with facts from the ruling, you are supporting it by the following fallacy: "The supreme court said it, so it must be true."
Click to expand...

:lamo I'm not appealing to anything...
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
Mind you - he also abused the boys so it's not as if he was a good parent back then (this is a very long time ago I'm referring to).

By the time this matter surfaced I found that he had 7 other children to care for, fathered after I left him. Regardless of where we ended our marriage and why, his wife and children needed him to be able to fully support all of them financially. Annulling his rights ended child support and having them adopted by my husband let him support his current family.

Now, I hope he's a good father to his other children.
Click to expand...

Auntie, I do not like to read these kinds of things and I am truly happy that you were able to find a more suitable situation. Sorry for the mix up.
 
Celebrity said:
Auntie, I do not like to read these kinds of things and I am truly happy that you were able to find a more suitable situation. Sorry for the mix up.
Click to expand...

It's okay... looking back I wish I had the knowledge or tact I do now. Maybe I could have avoided some of the issues we found ourselves in and he could have had a relationship with them. Not getting married at the age of 17 would have been a better start.

Live and learn.

Now that the boys are older and my ex has matured things are very different - we both look back on things and see it in the same way.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
We were talking about adoption - adoption on the mother's part being the same as the father wanting to annul his parental rights.

Just because the court views things one way does't mean your views and value align in agreement with that.

I see a mother wanting to give her child up for adoption as being the same as a father wanting to annul his rights.
Click to expand...

The point being is that like men who want to get a judge to simply terminate their parent/child relation because he's tired of paying child support...a woman can't simply ask the judge to dismiss her relationship.

My original comments sprung from a comment by Mac and another poster. Mac made the point to the other poster that the dad couldn't simply rescind his rights to avoid support. And that's true.

If the dad or even a relative had custody of the child and she said, hey, I'm not doing this anymore, terminate my rights, I'm out of here...ain't gonna happen.
 
Removable Mind said:
Celebrity said:
Do you realize that you are appealing to the response by only citing that response by the court of appeals? If you don't understand what the ruling says, maybe don't cite it.

This is precisely what is meant by appeal to authority. You are not supporting your argument with facts from the ruling, you are supporting it by the following fallacy: "The supreme court said it, so it must be true."
Click to expand...

:lamo I'm not appealing to anything...
Click to expand...

You are indeed appealing to authority as follows:

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.

Replace "Person A" by Supreme Court, 6th circuit court of appeals
Replace "subject S" by the premise of prior to viability
Replace "claim C" by false analogy! omg!

And you will see how you are making a logical fallacy out of a false analogy. I know, it makes your head spin. Just try to be honest and support your argument with facts instead of saying that something is true, because an authoritative ruling was passed on a related issue.
 
Last edited:
Removable Mind said:
The point being is that like men who want to get a judge to simply terminate their parent/child relation because he's tired of paying child support...a woman can't simply ask the judge to dismiss her relationship.
Click to expand...

I agree. Except for in the case when safe harbor law applies.

Removable Mind said:
My original comments sprung from a comment by Mac and another poster. Mac made the point to the other poster that the dad couldn't simply rescind his rights to avoid support. And that's true.
Click to expand...

I agree. This is the current state of affairs.

Removable Mind said:
If the dad or even a relative had custody of the child and she said, hey, I'm not doing this anymore, terminate my rights, I'm out of here...ain't gonna happen.
Click to expand...

Fine, so far so good. What about the case of terminating the option for rights prior to a viable pregnancy? What is your opinion on this? Don't cite the court, just tell us.
 
Celebrity said:
Removable Mind said:
You are indeed appealing to authority as follows:

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.

Replace "Person A" by Supreme Court, 6th circuit court of appeals
Replace "subject S" by the premise of prior to viability
Replace "claim C" by false analogy! omg!

And you will see how you are making a logical fallacy out of a false analogy. I know, it makes your head spin. Just try to be honest and support your argument with facts instead of saying that something is true, because an authoritative ruling was passed on a related issue.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not appealing to anything. And this is because you don't want to dig deeper into the case to discover that the judge meant by "false analogy"...
Click to expand...
 
Removable Mind said:
The point being is that like men who want to get a judge to simply terminate their parent/child relation because he's tired of paying child support...a woman can't simply ask the judge to dismiss her relationship.

My original comments sprung from a comment by Mac and another poster. Mac made the point to the other poster that the dad couldn't simply rescind his rights to avoid support. And that's true.

If the dad or even a relative had custody of the child and she said, hey, I'm not doing this anymore, terminate my rights, I'm out of here...ain't gonna happen.
Click to expand...

Gotcha.
 
Celebrity said:
I agree. Except for in the case when safe harbor law applies.



I agree. This is the current state of affairs.



Fine, so far so good. What about the case of terminating the option for rights prior to a viable pregnancy? What is your opinion on this? Don't cite the court, just tell us.
Click to expand...

Are you asking me do I believe men should have the right to "Financially Abort" if a pregnancy has not reached the stage of viability?
 
Removable Mind said:
Are you asking me do I believe men should have the right to "Financially Abort" if a pregnancy has not reached the stage of viability?
Click to expand...

I am asking you if you think men should have the liberty to exit a relationship with a pregnant woman, with immunity from social or legal ramifications of birth. So, yes.
 
Removable Mind said:
No, I'm not appealing to anything. And this is because you don't want to dig deeper into the case to discover that the judge meant by "false analogy"...
Click to expand...

Your failure to provide adequate proof is not a result of my failure to dig deeper. Moreover I have dug deeper and refuted your claim about the case. Your logical fallacy is that you claim there is more proof within the case, which is an appeal to an authoritative court. The logical fallacy you commit by failing to be an expert about your claim is real, and it is false. I am not taking it on good faith that there is more proof, and I am not going on a wild goose chase, however this does not diminish your fallacy.

Fallacy: Appeal to Authority
 
Celebrity said:
I am asking you if you think men should have the liberty to exit a relationship with a pregnant woman, with immunity from social or legal ramifications of birth. So, yes.
Click to expand...

I can't answer that because it involves moral issues with women that as a man, I can't opine on because I don't have to deal with those issues.

An example of what I'm talking about is that most pro-choice women won't have an abortion. And a lot say that they won't because of their personal moral stance. But the reason that they is that they don't want their rights diminished or dismantle (14th Amendment related rights) because there are so many variable related to pregnancy that they don't want any options to them legally damaged.

Make sense?
 
Removable Mind said:
I can't answer that because it involves moral issues with women that as a man, I can't opine on because I don't have to deal with those issues.

An example of what I'm talking about is that most pro-choice women won't have an abortion. And a lot say that they won't because of their personal moral stance. But the reason that they is that they don't want their rights diminished or dismantle (14th Amendment related rights) because there are so many variable related to pregnancy that they don't want any options to them legally damaged.

Make sense?
Click to expand...

No, it does not make sense. I believe I phrased my question perfectly well, however you are refusing to comment on men's rights due to women's rights obstructing your judgement. This is tantamount to women's rights taking priority over men's rights as far as you are willing to form an opinion. You say that you can't decide for men what should be a woman's decision, hence a man's choice is consequence of a woman's choice. My question does not disregard the protection of women, yet you as you so eloquently stated women "don't want any options to them legally damaged." Therefore, may I conclude that you are of the opinion that women's rights should be upheld at the expense of men's rights?
 
Celebrity said:
Your failure to provide adequate proof is not a result of my failure to dig deeper. Moreover I have dug deeper and refuted your claim about the case. Your logical fallacy is that you claim there is more proof within the case, which is an appeal to an authoritative court. The logical fallacy you commit by failing to be an expert about your claim is real, and it is false. I am not taking it on good faith that there is more proof, and I am not going on a wild goose chase, however this does not diminish your fallacy.

Fallacy: Appeal to Authority
Click to expand...

Far out...if this is your gig. Your claim, damn if you don't have the right to voice your opinion. I cited a portion...and I like you, I wanted to know that the false analogy meant.

However,

Unlike you...I was willing to invest time I did to get the answer to that question...well.. :shrug:

And even if you're slamming with the logic fallacy doesn't bother me...at all.


I gave stated to you I read what the court said the reason was behind the false analogy...so if you want to call me dishonest in my claim, fire away.
 
Removable Mind said:
Far out...if this is your gig. Your claim, damn if you don't have the right to voice your opinion. I cited a portion...and I like you, I wanted to know that the legal fallacy meant.

However,

Unlike you...I was willing to invest time I did to get the answer to that question...well.. :shrug:

And even if you're slamming with the logic fallacy doesn't bother me...at all.


I gave stated to you I read what the court said the reason was behind the false analogy...so if you want to call me dishonest in my claim, fire away.
Click to expand...

So you're not intentionally withholding evidence, you just don't know where in the case to find the proof. I see.
 
Celebrity said:
No, it does not make sense. I believe I phrased my question perfectly well, however you are refusing to comment on men's rights due to women's rights obstructing your judgement. This is tantamount to women's rights taking priority over men's rights as far as you are willing to form an opinion. You say that you can't decide for men what should be a woman's decision, hence a man's choice is consequence of a woman's choice. My question does not disregard the protection of women, yet you as you so eloquently stated women "don't want any options to them legally damaged." Therefore, may I conclude that you are of the opinion that women's rights should be upheld at the expense of men's rights?
Click to expand...

I can't answer for women who won't have abortions because of moral reason. And it's obvious that you don't care.

So I can assume then that you believe that people must act against their moral beliefs - because some act is legal? Is this your position?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom