Celebrity
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 13, 2016
- Messages
- 5,257
- Reaction score
- 761
- Location
- VT, USA
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Re: Friends with Benefits: Texas Man Who Donated Sperm to a Friend Has Parental Right
I'm calling BS. This is not something which needs to be handled on a case by case basis depending on how 'threatened' any single man is, and you have singled me out. All men should have the right to choose whether or not they are parents, as all women do. In the context of the case in Texas, parental rights are well defined and awarded equitably by law. Parental responsibilities are not awarded equitably, however they are assigned to men according to a woman's decision.
What is on me should not be assigned by you because you are a woman, as what is on you is not assigned by me because I am a man. That is where the law fails men. I have explained my absolutely normal reference, and it is not due to paranoia, but serves as a legitimate example of how the law reinforces poor decision making on the part of women who wish to control men.
You are old enough by now to know the difference between projecting your own insecurities on me, and grasping for straws. If you feel insecure, it is not because I have expressed that I feel threatened. However, it may be true that men are very vulnerable when it comes to reproduction, because the law does not always protect men, though it does always protect women. This sexist legal code grants women a choice. I have no problem with that, just as other women have expressed they have no problem with a man being awarded custody of his biological child, even though a woman in Texas wished she could have isolated her child from his father with or without legal recourse. What I do dispute is the fact that men do not have a choice. Sometimes, men are used for their money in a way which is similar to the way this woman was used for her reproductive function. But there is one key difference which you don't seem to understand.
I will explain this difference as simply as I can for your convenience. The Texas woman wished she could control the father's liberty to see or not see his child. She wanted to choose one option for him, to not see the child. That is wrong, because it violates his parental autonomy in a way that is recognized as illegal. When a man is forced to be a father, someone is choosing an option for him, just like if the woman in Texas had broken the law which prevents this. This is in no way meant to be an existential reflection on the nature of life, but simply deals with how we behave toward one another in society. To that end, when fathers are forced to pay the state for the upbringing of their biological children, a choice is being made for them in a way which controls their liberty and violates their autonomy.
I'm sure that very few non custodial fathers take the nihilistic path in thinking, 'gee, I guess you're right, that child is alive, and someone needs to bring it up. I know how to solve this, let's just get rid of the child. Then no one will need to exchange anything with anyone.' They just want to same liberties and legal protections that women have in society. If that means that a woman doesn't get to choose for them, or the state doesn't get to choose for them, then so be it. And anyone who says that men shouldn't get to choose, and opposes the state making choices for women is a hypocrite.
I'm calling BS. This is not something which needs to be handled on a case by case basis depending on how 'threatened' any single man is, and you have singled me out. All men should have the right to choose whether or not they are parents, as all women do. In the context of the case in Texas, parental rights are well defined and awarded equitably by law. Parental responsibilities are not awarded equitably, however they are assigned to men according to a woman's decision.
What is on me should not be assigned by you because you are a woman, as what is on you is not assigned by me because I am a man. That is where the law fails men. I have explained my absolutely normal reference, and it is not due to paranoia, but serves as a legitimate example of how the law reinforces poor decision making on the part of women who wish to control men.
You are old enough by now to know the difference between projecting your own insecurities on me, and grasping for straws. If you feel insecure, it is not because I have expressed that I feel threatened. However, it may be true that men are very vulnerable when it comes to reproduction, because the law does not always protect men, though it does always protect women. This sexist legal code grants women a choice. I have no problem with that, just as other women have expressed they have no problem with a man being awarded custody of his biological child, even though a woman in Texas wished she could have isolated her child from his father with or without legal recourse. What I do dispute is the fact that men do not have a choice. Sometimes, men are used for their money in a way which is similar to the way this woman was used for her reproductive function. But there is one key difference which you don't seem to understand.
I will explain this difference as simply as I can for your convenience. The Texas woman wished she could control the father's liberty to see or not see his child. She wanted to choose one option for him, to not see the child. That is wrong, because it violates his parental autonomy in a way that is recognized as illegal. When a man is forced to be a father, someone is choosing an option for him, just like if the woman in Texas had broken the law which prevents this. This is in no way meant to be an existential reflection on the nature of life, but simply deals with how we behave toward one another in society. To that end, when fathers are forced to pay the state for the upbringing of their biological children, a choice is being made for them in a way which controls their liberty and violates their autonomy.
I'm sure that very few non custodial fathers take the nihilistic path in thinking, 'gee, I guess you're right, that child is alive, and someone needs to bring it up. I know how to solve this, let's just get rid of the child. Then no one will need to exchange anything with anyone.' They just want to same liberties and legal protections that women have in society. If that means that a woman doesn't get to choose for them, or the state doesn't get to choose for them, then so be it. And anyone who says that men shouldn't get to choose, and opposes the state making choices for women is a hypocrite.
Last edited: