• 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!

Fine Women Who Do Not Inform

ludin said:
:roll: which would be addressed in court.
Click to expand...

The court doesn't care that a man's human rights have been violated, as many case decisions have declared.

So :roll: yourself...
 
I think the OP raises interesting issues. I don't know exactly what the best solution is, though I can't help but think some of the more strident opposition seems to be ideologically motivated. There does seem something to be said for the idea that if it is your responsibility to look after a child financially, you also should have a right to know that that child exists. This doesn't seem absurd. To give all rights to women and all responsibilities to men seems to smack more of ideology than common sense or reason. Of course, this matter is complicated by the fact that there is a third person involved - the child - and they don't deserve to have the faults of either parent visited on them. I do think it is important in principle that all financial support should go to the child, not the mother, as far as possible, though I don't know how to enforce this.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Women that do not inform the man that she is having a baby and/or did have a baby should be fined if that decision results in the man not seeing his child. Additionally, the woman should not be allowed to receive child support from a man that can not see his own child and absolutely no back child support from a man that was never even informed that he had a child. The notion that she can is a violation of the man's human rights.

There are also pragmatic reasons why she should not get back pay. The man, knowing he had a kid, might very well have tried to make more money to support that kid had he known. Many men that do not know do no save and then are severely hit financially.

women that deny men their basic human rights should be fined or even lose custody of their children...
Click to expand...

Well, if she is having an abortion she has no reason to inform him and he has no right to know so your OP is terminally flawed from the outset. Or do the words privacy and medical secrecy do not mean anything to you?

The rest should be done within reason, but if a man pays child support he ought to have (if there is no serious reason to deny him) the right to see his child.

And back child support is for the child and he/she should have the right to get that money if the man is the actual father (again within reason and with a payment plan, not to be claimed in once).
 
Peter King said:
Well, if she is having an abortion she has no reason to inform him and he has no right to know so your OP is terminally flawed from the outset.
Click to expand...

This is a serious question.

ARE YOU ABLE TO READ? And by that I mean understand what you read... I clearly said:

"Women that do not inform the man that she is having a baby and/or did have a baby

So... sincerely, if you are unable to understand how ignorant you sound you might want to sign up for a course.
 
Bodhisattva said:
This is a serious question.

ARE YOU ABLE TO READ? And by that I mean understand what you read... I clearly said:

"Women that do not inform the man that she is having a baby and/or did have a baby

So... sincerely, if you are unable to understand how ignorant you sound you might want to sign up for a course.
Click to expand...

Yes, I did read your OP and I could give a flying fig about men's rights when it comes to a woman's uterus and her right to medical privacy and her right to not tell someone he maybe becoming a father (if she keeps the baby). Not telling someone he is a father is morally very dubious, but there should be no legal rule that should force a woman to violate her privacy rights and her medical privacy rights.

Also, it is her body and if she wants to have an abortion and not tell the likely father, that's fine. It may be morally very dubious in some situations but legally she should fully have that right to decide if she wants to or not wants to inform the possible dad.
 
Peter King said:
Well, if she is having an abortion she has no reason to inform him and he has no right to know so your OP is terminally flawed from the outset. Or do the words privacy and medical secrecy do not mean anything to you?

The rest should be done within reason, but if a man pays child support he ought to have (if there is no serious reason to deny him) the right to see his child.

And back child support is for the child and he/she should have the right to get that money if the man is the actual father (again within reason and with a payment plan, not to be claimed in once).
Click to expand...

If a woman intending to abort and has the right to do so - and the man has a legal right to know - how would that change the outcome?

"As far as I know", men who discover that he impregnated a woman who intends to abort, there's been no success to get an injunction to prevent the abortion.

Take the given scenario below:

If a woman intends to have a child - and men have a mandated right to know - the man intervenes to be in the child's life - the woman accuses the man as of being detrimental to the general welfare to the child - a petition could be filed for the court to order a background check and a court appointed professional to do a social study on the man and the woman - and the background and social study came back clean - then the court would have n choice but to apply the state laws regarding visitation and support.

I could be dead wrong, but I suspect the above wouldn't set well with a lot of men who get a call or a letter informing him he has impregnated a woman. One of two things will happen:

Remember in this world men have a mandated right to know if he has impregnated a woman!

1). If the the woman wants the man in the child's life - and he doesn't. What laws will be in place to respond to that situation?

2). If the man wants to be in the child's life, but the woman doesn't. What laws will be in place to respond to that situation?
 
Peter King said:
Yes, I did read your OP and I could give a flying fig about men's rights when it comes to a woman's uterus and her right to medical privacy and her right to not tell someone he maybe becoming a father (if she keeps the baby). Not telling someone he is a father is morally very dubious, but there should be no legal rule that should force a woman to violate her privacy rights and her medical privacy rights.

Also, it is her body and if she wants to have an abortion and not tell the likely father, that's fine. It may be morally very dubious in some situations but legally she should fully have that right to decide if she wants to or not wants to inform the possible dad.
Click to expand...

You are on an emotional drama train... nowhere in my argument did I say it is not her body or her choice.

You don't care about men's rights. That is all that needs to be taken away from your post.
 
Removable Mind said:
If a woman intending to abort and has the right to do so - and the man has a legal right to know - how would that change the outcome?

"As far as I know", men who discover that he impregnated a woman who intends to abort, there's been no success to get an injunction to prevent the abortion.

Take the given scenario below:

If a woman intends to have a child - and men have a mandated right to know - the man intervenes to be in the child's life - the woman accuses the man as of being detrimental to the general welfare to the child - a petition could be filed for the court to order a background check and a court appointed professional to do a social study on the man and the woman - and the background and social study came back clean - then the court would have n choice but to apply the state laws regarding visitation and support.

I could be dead wrong, but I suspect the above wouldn't set well with a lot of men who get a call or a letter informing him he has impregnated a woman. One of two things will happen:

Remember in this world men have a mandated right to know if he has impregnated a woman!

1). If the the woman wants the man in the child's life - and he doesn't. What laws will be in place to respond to that situation?

2). If the man wants to be in the child's life, but the woman doesn't. What laws will be in place to respond to that situation?
Click to expand...

If a woman wants to have an abortion that is her right, her body, her uterus and her choice. There is no logical reason to force her to give up her privacy rights in cases like this whatsoever.

But there is no mandated law that gives men a right to be told. And that is in most cases legally the best way, you would enter into a quagmire of epic proportions if you want to change a persons right to privacy. Now even men do not have the right to their wives private medical files, so why should a stranger have the right to demand that?

Because we get into the world of morally right choices and legal rights. I admit in most cases women ought to tell men, whose baby they carry to full term and to birth, that they have gotten a baby. But to legally mandate this goes way too far.

And in abortions I see no reason whatsoever to violate a woman's right to privacy.
 
Bodhisattva said:
You are on an emotional drama train... nowhere in my argument did I say it is not her body or her choice.

You don't care about men's rights. That is all that needs to be taken away from your post.
Click to expand...

I am not at all on an emotional drama train, I just don't give a **** about men's rights when it comes to pregnancies if that means violating a woman's right to privacy.

I do care about child's rights and if at all possible a child should be made aware who his real dad is when the man that child's mother lives with his not his biological parent. But that would again be the woman's choice, if she thinks the child would deal with it very badly or she does not know who the dad is, than so be it. Making this a thing women are forced to tell is just all kinds of wrong. Because a man not knowing he has fathered a child is wrong, but forcing a woman to inform the potential father, and violating all her rights, medical and legal, goes way way way too far.

The right thing, morally for a woman to do, is tell the dad he has become a father, but it is morally wrong do demand this in a law.
 
Peter King said:
I am not at all on an emotional drama train, I just don't give a **** about men's rights when it comes to pregnancies if that means violating a woman's right to privacy.

I do care about child's rights and if at all possible a child should be made aware who his real dad is when the man that child's mother lives with his not his biological parent. But that would again be the woman's choice, if she thinks the child would deal with it very badly or she does not know who the dad is, than so be it. Making this a thing women are forced to tell is just all kinds of wrong. Because a man not knowing he has fathered a child is wrong, but forcing a woman to inform the potential father, and violating all her rights, medical and legal, goes way way way too far.

The right thing, morally for a woman to do, is tell the dad he has become a father, but it is morally wrong do demand this in a law.
Click to expand...

Then explain how my suggestion violates women's rights to abortion or medical privacy to have an abortion instead of your Straw Man's... thanks.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Then explain how my suggestion violates women's rights to abortion or medical privacy to have an abortion instead of your Straw Man's... thanks.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I see you are reading into my post what you want to read. My post said:

I could give a flying fig about men's rights when it comes to a woman's uterus and her right to medical privacy
Click to expand...

I do not claim that telling the potential father breaks her right to choose, I said that I do not care about men's rights when it comes to either right to choose or the right to medical privacy.

And in the next post I wrote (albeit to someone else):

And in abortions I see no reason whatsoever to violate a woman's right to privacy.
Click to expand...

Which states, if she is going to have an abortion anyway, why violate her rights to medical privacy at all.

I do not have a straw man but nice try. I have one position about mandating women to tell her private medical details and it is hell no. And it has nothing to do with the non-existing right for men to interfere in her abortion but it has everything to do with a woman's right to privacy, both medical and legal.
 
Peter King said:
If a woman wants to have an abortion that is her right, her body, her uterus and her choice. There is no logical reason to force her to give up her privacy rights in cases like this whatsoever.

But there is no mandated law that gives men a right to be told. And that is in most cases legally the best way, you would enter into a quagmire of epic proportions if you want to change a persons right to privacy. Now even men do not have the right to their wives private medical files, so why should a stranger have the right to demand that?

Because we get into the world of morally right choices and legal rights. I admit in most cases women ought to tell men, whose baby they carry to full term and to birth, that they have gotten a baby. But to legally mandate this goes way too far.

And in abortions I see no reason whatsoever to violate a woman's right to privacy.
Click to expand...

Your missing my points. I'm not looking for a fight or to unhinge your emotional sensitive around your allegiance to women's abortion rights. I simply created a scenario outside of the conventional box.

I've been one of the most outspoken male members of DP, for years, who strongly supports women's legal right to have an abortion "within the boundaries of the law".

I've laid out some hypotheticals that are arguments made by men's rights groups that are frequently used to challenge different judicial and legislative bodies who have the power to alter laws and even the Constitution.

You have basically declared your opinion is that women should have 100% control "regarding all issues, in every respect, related to their reproductive roles".

So I ask:

Do you also opine that "there are zero inequalities" that impacts men in state reproductive, custody, and support laws and Constitutional provisions, which are related to reproductive issues that are linked to equal protection under the law and/or the Due Process Clause within the 14th Amendment - that women have secured?

There is a small window of time when moral choices and legal options intersect. And at the moment that intersection occurs, dealing with the consequences of a mutual experience between women and men are at their least destructive stage. Within the confines of this small window of time - do you see any possible solutions that might enhance men's rights above their current number of rights, which are zero, at this time?
 
Removable Mind said:
Your missing my points. I'm not looking for a fight or to unhinge your emotional sensitive around your allegiance to women's abortion rights. I simply created a scenario outside of the conventional box.

I've been one of the most outspoken male members of DP, for years, who strongly supports women's legal right to have an abortion "within the boundaries of the law".

I've laid out some hypotheticals that are arguments made by men's rights groups that are frequently used to challenge different judicial and legislative bodies who have the power to alter laws and even the Constitution.

You have basically declared your opinion is that women should have 100% control "regarding all issues, in every respect, related to their reproductive roles".

So I ask:

Do you also opine that "there are zero inequalities" that impacts men in state reproductive, custody, and support laws and Constitutional provisions, which are related to reproductive issues that are linked to equal protection under the law and/or the Due Process Clause within the 14th Amendment - that women have secured?

There is a small window of time when moral choices and legal options intersect. And at the moment that intersection occurs, dealing with the consequences of a mutual experience between women and men are at their least destructive stage. Within the confines of this small window of time - do you see any possible solutions that might enhance men's rights above their current number of rights, which are zero, at this time?
Click to expand...

Great, another person who, without any justification, bases an entire emotional diatribe at my person just because I said I don't give a flying fig about men's rights in this issue.

Again, I support their right to choose, within reasonable limitations. But if I have to choose between a woman's right to privacy and non existent male rights to private medical information of women, then yes, I am solidly on the side of the woman. But to claim I am unhinged is stupid, you cannot scope my emotions from a post like that. Sure, I am firm and very clear with my opinion but to claim to be able to read my emotions is just silly and baseless.

And I do not play the "what if game" that you were trying play. Do I think sometimes men are better parents than women, hell yes. Do I think a woman, who is single and does not risk a divorce is morally obliged to tell someone that she has given birth to his child (if it is not a one night stand and she has no information whatsoever about what kind of person he is, then she has to weigh the pro and cons from informing someone of such a life changing message).

But those are moral obligations, I do not think this should be based on legal mandates forcing a woman to give up her privacy. So yes, I think men should have zero legal rights to force a woman to give up her right to privacy.
 
Peter King said:
Great, another person who, without any justification, bases an entire emotional diatribe at my person just because I said I don't give a flying fig about men's rights in this issue.

Again, I support their right to choose, within reasonable limitations. But if I have to choose between a woman's right to privacy and non existent male rights to private medical information of women, then yes, I am solidly on the side of the woman. But to claim I am unhinged is stupid, you cannot scope my emotions from a post like that. Sure, I am firm and very clear with my opinion but to claim to be able to read my emotions is just silly and baseless.

And I do not play the "what if game" that you were trying play. Do I think sometimes men are better parents than women, hell yes. Do I think a woman, who is single and does not risk a divorce is morally obliged to tell someone that she has given birth to his child (if it is not a one night stand and she has no information whatsoever about what kind of person he is, then she has to weigh the pro and cons from informing someone of such a life changing message).

But those are moral obligations, I do not think this should be based on legal mandates forcing a woman to give up her privacy. So yes, I think men should have zero legal rights to force a woman to give up her right to privacy.
Click to expand...

Alrighty then thanks for a repeat of you previous post.

I don't give a flying **** about people who can't engage in civil discussion.

And it's obvious that you choose to disregard any points that I've made...as though they have no relevance to "your" beliefs regarding men's rights.

I've only ask you to explore a different perspective and opine about issues within that perspective.

So your butt hurt response wins out. Hip Hip Horray!
 
Removable Mind said:
Alrighty then thanks for a repeat of you previous post.

I don't give a flying **** about people who can't engage in civil discussion.

And it's obvious that you choose to disregard any points that I've made...as though they have no relevance to "your" beliefs regarding men's rights.

I've only ask you to explore a different perspective and opine about issues within that perspective.

So your butt hurt response wins out. Hip Hip Horray!
Click to expand...

If your desire is to have a civil discussion, maybe not get offended by a "flying fig" which is much more civil than your comment and try to not use words like "unhinged" and other psycho babble nonsense.

And you can add perspective until the cows come home but it does not change the legal issue of medical privacy and that cannot be "opined away" IMHO and if you want to get all huffy and puffy because at 6am (or so) I have no interest in playing what if hypothetical games aimed at giving men rights to a woman's private medical data/force women to inform a man about a likely pregnancy, than so be it.

Also, I do not view my response as something I am writing to "win"", I wrote it to state that I cannot see a reasonable scenario in which women may be forced to give up their civil rights and liberties to give men greater rights than women have just because she may be carrying that man's child.
 
Peter King said:
Yeah, I see you are reading into my post what you want to read. My post said:



I do not claim that telling the potential father breaks her right to choose, I said that I do not care about men's rights when it comes to either right to choose or the right to medical privacy.

And in the next post I wrote (albeit to someone else):



Which states, if she is going to have an abortion anyway, why violate her rights to medical privacy at all.

I do not have a straw man but nice try. I have one position about mandating women to tell her private medical details and it is hell no. And it has nothing to do with the non-existing right for men to interfere in her abortion but it has everything to do with a woman's right to privacy, both medical and legal.
Click to expand...

You cant address tbe argument. If she wants child support she needs to inform the man so he can have a choice regarding her choice. You dont care about mens rights. As a man you should be ashamed.
 
Bodhisattva said:
You cant address tbe argument. If she wants child support she needs to inform the man so he can have a choice regarding her choice. You dont care about mens rights. As a man you should be ashamed.
Click to expand...

Well, now you get to read me semi-emotional because of the nonsense you posted, especially your :bs that I should be ashamed.

:lamo don't make me laugh!

Why on earth should I be ashamed because other men cannot keep their reproductive parts in their pants without the use of a condom/who sleep around like mindless idiots/making women, they hardly/often don't even know at all, pregnant .

Why should women be forced to relinquish their medical privacy rights to inform a man that slept with that woman and did not intend to do that for more than a one night stand/a few dates until he gets her in the sack? AKA using her for sex and nothing more.

As am man I am ashamed of men with the love them (read sleep with them) and leave them fast (never contact them again). Often this is done when they are drunk as a skunk, or on some kind of drugs. That is who I am ashamed of.

And I should care about men's rights of men who have unprotected/not protected enough sex with a virtual stranger, :roll:

If a woman then gets pregnant and she wants him to also pay his part for the future of this child than the mother has the decision to go to the courts and petition the court/give up certain details from her medical records because you cannot expect someone to pay if there is no evidence it is his child.

But for all other cases I say tough luck men, women should not be forced to make their private medical data public just to inform some guy who slept with her and then hightailed it out of there.

And the nonsense "she needs to inform the man so he can have a choice regarding her choice"? Hell no, if a man sleeps with a woman and makes her pregnant, he is going to have to pay for his bad decisions. But he does not get "a choice regarding her choice" prior to birth. She gets to make the choices until the child is born, afterwards things have to be discussed out between the 2 parents but he has no right before birth to decide anything, not legally and certainly not morally.
 
LadyMoonlight said:
Women need to keep their legs crossed if they don't want to be a mother. See, cuts both ways.
Click to expand...

Topic is not pro choice rights ,yes men should not complain if they can not resist uncrossed legs!
 
Bodhisattva said:
You cant address tbe argument. If she wants child support she needs to inform the man so he can have a choice regarding her choice. You dont care about mens rights. As a man you should be ashamed.
Click to expand...

You want a woman to have a child for money. As a human you should be ashamed.
 
Peter King said:
Well, now you get to read me semi-emotional because of the nonsense you posted, especially your :bs that I should be ashamed.

:lamo don't make me laugh!

Why on earth should I be ashamed because other men cannot keep their reproductive parts in their pants without the use of a condom/who sleep around like mindless idiots/making women, they hardly/often don't even know at all, pregnant .

Why should women be forced to relinquish their medical privacy rights to inform a man that slept with that woman and did not intend to do that for more than a one night stand/a few dates until he gets her in the sack? AKA using her for sex and nothing more.

As am man I am ashamed of men with the love them (read sleep with them) and leave them fast (never contact them again). Often this is done when they are drunk as a skunk, or on some kind of drugs. That is who I am ashamed of.

And I should care about men's rights of men who have unprotected/not protected enough sex with a virtual stranger, :roll:

If a woman then gets pregnant and she wants him to also pay his part for the future of this child than the mother has the decision to go to the courts and petition the court/give up certain details from her medical records because you cannot expect someone to pay if there is no evidence it is his child.

But for all other cases I say tough luck men, women should not be forced to make their private medical data public just to inform some guy who slept with her and then hightailed it out of there.

And the nonsense "she needs to inform the man so he can have a choice regarding her choice"? Hell no, if a man sleeps with a woman and makes her pregnant, he is going to have to pay for his bad decisions. But he does not get "a choice regarding her choice" prior to birth. She gets to make the choices until the child is born, afterwards things have to be discussed out between the 2 parents but he has no right before birth to decide anything, not legally and certainly not morally.
Click to expand...

It is like you purposely go out of your way to stay off point....

...my argument has notbing to do with her choice to abort or not.
 
Bodhisattva said:
It is like you purposely go out of your way to stay off point....

...my argument has notbing to do with her choice to abort or not.
Click to expand...

That is why my argument is that there is no legal or moral obligation for a woman to share/give out her private medical data as is written here in the OP.
 
Peter King said:
That is why my argument is that there is no legal or moral obligation for a woman to share/give out her private medical data as is written here in the OP.
Click to expand...

There is obviously a moral obligation for a woman to inform the man that he will be a father... if she does not do that she should not get child support ever. If she does he should be able to opt out and then she can decide what is best for her... selfishly having a child that she can not support or aborting the baby.
 
Bodhisattva said:
There is obviously a moral obligation for a woman to inform the man that he will be a father... if she does not do that she should not get child support ever. If she does he should be able to opt out and then she can decide what is best for her... selfishly having a child that she can not support or aborting the baby.
Click to expand...

There is a moral obligation for sure, but women can have good reasons to not give into that moral obligation. But it should not mean the child should get punished for his mother's choices when she petitions for child support.

And men should never be allowed to opt out of paying child support even if they had not been told at the time of birth. If a woman is pregnant the lawgiver should assume that one or both of the 2 partners in that pregnancy did not take enough precautions to prevent a pregnancy. But if he makes a woman pregnant there is no way on hell a man should just be able to opt out. You cannot opt out after the fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom