• 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!

The father's rights.

year2late said:
Holy crap....another artificial womb-er.

Good grief.

I ask you this. Assuming an artificial womb for humans comes into existence...who is going to pay for the months of incubation?

Do you see the safe extraction of the embryo or fetus as a procedure as simple as an abortion? Who will pay for the extraction,?That will certainly require ansesthesia and an operating room. If there are complications...who will pay? How will the woman support her family during recovery?
Click to expand...

I guess we just make the woman pay -- or else lock in her prison if she can't or won't. That's what we do with guys.
 
Cable_Extreme said:
Tax payers, I have no problem paying more in taxes to afford this.
Click to expand...

You didnt respond to this previously:
Lursa said:
There are over 100,000 children already available for adoption (not in foster care, but up for adoption)...and they are waiting. What is the justification for creating more unwanted kids and thus taking away further the chances of those children being adopted?

And that's very poor use of my tax dollars, just IMO. There's nothing stopping people from doing that now if they arrange it.
Click to expand...

And she asked you about who would pay for the removal procedure and maintenance of the unborn. You said taxpayers. After what I wrote about adoption, why would you think that is a good use of taxpayer $$? Produce more kids needing homes when there are 100,000 already waiting?

How do you justify this? Denying these other kids potential families and just dumping more out into "holding facilities" also waiting?
 
GhostlyJoe said:
I guess we just make the woman pay -- or else lock in her prison if she can't or won't. That's what we do with guys.
Click to expand...

Great point. That's exactly why no woman would ever agree to submit to the procedure to have the fertilized egg removed.
 
Lursa said:
Great point. That's exactly why no woman would ever agree to submit to the procedure to have the fertilized egg removed.
Click to expand...

Of course, she would be foolish to do so. Under current legal precedent, there is no good argument for why the mother shouldn't pay support for that child until it reaches legal adulthood.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
Of course, she would be foolish to do so. Under current legal precedent, there is no good argument for why the mother shouldn't pay support for that child until it reaches legal adulthood.
Click to expand...

Women are compelled by law now, equally with men, to care for their children. If they are the non-custodial parent, they pay support.
 
Lursa said:
Women are compelled by law now, equally with men, to care for their children. If they are the non-custodial parent, they pay support.
Click to expand...

How many deadbeat mothers are in prison right now?
 
Lursa said:
You didnt respond to this previously:


And she asked you about who would pay for the removal procedure and maintenance of the unborn. You said taxpayers. After what I wrote about adoption, why would you think that is a good use of taxpayer $$? Produce more kids needing homes when there are 100,000 already waiting?

How do you justify this? Denying these other kids potential families and just dumping more out into "holding facilities" also waiting?
Click to expand...

Having parents isn't essential to happiness. There are many studies that state worldly possessions do not correlate with happiness. What would make this system more effective is that to-be parents would probably prefer witnessing the birth of these babies and hold them like they would if they gave birth. It would also allow women who could not give birth due to health reasons to not abort but to allow their babies to grow in an incubation-type device.

your whole argument rest on the idea that without parents, life isn't worth living. That isn't your call to make for anyone. There are plenty of orphans who grew up and are happy father/mothers etc...
 
GhostlyJoe said:
About 10% of cases of jail for non-payment of support are women. Men are ordered to make the payments. Men are the ones jailed for not paying. It's not equal. Not even close.
Click to expand...

You do know that women are the custodial parent in most cases, right?
 
GhostlyJoe said:
About 10% of cases of jail for non-payment of support are women. Men are ordered to make the payments. Men are the ones jailed for not paying. It's not equal. Not even close.
Click to expand...

Ah, interesting article. According to that, it's that only 10% of those paying child support are women. It's not that of non-paying non-custodial parents, only 10% of those going to jail are women. It's right here:

Of the 320,000 child support enforcement cases in Virginia last year, only about 6,000 ended with jail sentences, according to the state’s Division of Child Support Enforcement. Nearly all of what are called noncustodial parents are men, but about 10 percent are women.
Click to expand...

It doesnt really say how many women are in jail.
 
Cable_Extreme said:
Having parents isn't essential to happiness. There are many studies that state worldly possessions do not correlate with happiness. What would make this system more effective is that to-be parents would probably prefer witnessing the birth of these babies and hold them like they would if they gave birth. It would also allow women who could not give birth due to health reasons to not abort but to allow their babies to grow in an incubation-type device.

your whole argument rest on the idea that without parents, life isn't worth living. That isn't your call to make for anyone. There are plenty of orphans who grew up and are happy father/mothers etc...
Click to expand...

So that's how you justify bringing MORE unwanted kids into the world? "Not all kids need families?"

What it means in reality is that...by adding even more, you reduce the chances of the kids already waiting and hoping for parents. To me, that's inexcusable and cruel.

And you are doing society no favors...we end up footing ALL the costs and they arent just $$, altho they certainly are that....upkeep all the way thru foster care.

Kids in those foster care systems have much higher incidences of never bonding emotionally to others, being juvenile delinquents, not finishing high school, getting fewer opportunities in life, ending up in the prison system, etc etc etc.

It's an actual detriment to society, because kids in the foster care system are at higher risk for all these negative things.

So please justify to me how this is "good" in any way?

Once again, you portray a common pro-life characteristic: a belief that quantity is more important than quality of life.
 
Scrabaholic said:
You do know that women are the custodial parent in most cases, right?
Click to expand...

Because of inequality in the system, yes. Lursa indicated that the laws are gender-blind. I pointed out that its mostly men subject to jail for non-payment. Lursa asked how many. I shared the data. The system is sexist in practice, and the data support that assertion quite strongly.
 
Lursa said:
Ah, interesting article. According to that, it's that only 10% of those paying child support are women. It's not that of non-paying non-custodial parents, only 10% of those going to jail are women. It's right here:



It doesnt really say how many women are in jail.
Click to expand...

Fair reading of the data. But you can extrapolate. Either way, it's clear evidence that the system is not, in fact, gender-blind.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
Fair reading of the data. But you can extrapolate. Either way, it's clear evidence that the system is not, in fact, gender-blind.
Click to expand...

What makes you say so? The majority of custodial parents are the mothers.

If fathers want custody or equal custody, they should have an equal chance at that. My sister and her ex- do almost 50-50. The courts are changing more and more to be open to the fathers if they want custody.
 
Lursa said:
What makes you say so? The majority of custodial parents are the mothers.

If fathers want custody or equal custody, they should have an equal chance at that. My sister and her ex- do almost 50-50. The courts are changing more and more to be open to the fathers if they want custody.
Click to expand...

Yes, due to inequality in the courtroom in practice. Things are changing -- slowly -- but its far from equal.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
Yes, due to inequality in the courtroom in practice. Things are changing -- slowly -- but its far from equal.
Click to expand...

But the trend is positive and I'm glad to see that. I think it's only better if fathers also spend time...and not just $...with their kids.
 
Lursa said:
But the trend is positive and I'm glad to see that. I think it's only better if fathers also spend time...and not just $...with their kids.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
The ZEF goes to the woman. It doesn't matter what men want, unfortunately. I did a quick search for frozen, embryo and custody on Google and this came up:

Sofia Vergara and Nick Loeb's Frozen Embryo Legal Battle Ends in Louisiana | E! News

The ZEF are referred to as "her embryos" or her "fertilized ova," because ZEF are the property of women by default, and men do not have reproductive rights.

Women and people who advocate for women's rights commonly ignore every aspect except the medical care received by a pregnant woman because they are uncomfortable discussing abortion in any other context. This is because they have realized that they still have doctor patient confidentiality in common with male patients, whereas reproductive rights are something only women have. But your hiding is not doing you or anyone else any good ladies, because we can see that you don't want to talk about the fact that there is inequality suffered by men.
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
Are we done here then? I still had some unanswered questions (blue bold).

It's been an interesting discussion.
Click to expand...
So do please forgive me for being so long. Chaos did not stop after the holidays.

Lursa said:
--Except that according to any current laws I'm aware of, she'd still have rights to that embryo in incubation. Or wouldnt she?
Click to expand...

She would have as much right to the ZEF as the father. If she gives up her rights, but can later reclaim them, as you noted below, then he also has that same right, or should.

--Can the man terminate that incubation? Can she?
Click to expand...

Under the premises given, in order for the ZEF to be terminated both parents would have to sign off on it. So if for whatever reason the father goes through the trouble of keeping the ZEF, then later decides to terminate it, under the premise that she can reclaim her rights, she would have another chance to decide if she wants it or not.

--Can she decide right before 'birth' that she does indeed want to keep it? Currently women can do that, change their mind after birth to not give it up for adoption *even after the adoptive parents have paid all her expenses during pregnancy.*
Click to expand...

I don't see why not, as long as the man also has the right to exert his rights to the child as well. And that applies to current day as well. This idea that the man gives up all rights and responsibilities after "donating his sperm" is ridiculous. Right now the only thing that overrides his rights is her sovereignty over her body.

Now at this point I do want to note that, as someone noted, the idea that a fertilized zygote that is placed in frozen storage is hers and hers alone is wrong. The woman people made that together, so they hold equal rights to the ZEF. Now there are obvious exceptions. Such as if he or she is paid for their donation of egg or sperm to be used for other couples or individual who are looking for such thinks. I'm not sure if egg banks are as much as a thing as sperm banks, but the principle remains the same for both.

Lursa said:
And if you object to application of current laws, then please present alternatives that would be legally plausible within the Constitution.
Click to expand...



When it comes to medical privacy, it is not an absolute. We currently have laws that require medical personnel of various fields to violate that privacy for those things we feel are proper. Now I will grant that even under the premises given, we run a fine line. That said, if the idea is that the ZEF is property until it comes to term and then becomes a person, then failure to inform the father of the termination should result in similar legal repercussions as if she destroyed any other jointly owned property.

As we have gone through this discussion, and as I have thought about it over the hiatus, there would have to be changes to how we view the rights of the father and the laws that would apply. Right now we have the overriding right of the woman's bodily sovereignty. The right does indeed go to the point of choosing which procedure she undergoes, which is why I set the premise of only one procedure to accomplish both goals. As technology and knowledge advances, we have to adjust how that affect rights and how they interact. At one point conditions such as homosexuality and transgenderism were viewed as mental illnesses, and we felt right in overriding an individual's rights in order to "cure" them. Our knowledge has since expanded, and we now have reconfigured how we see those rights and apply the law to them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom