• 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.

Lursa said:
Men are treated ethically here...they have complete control over their becoming a parent. Can you explain why they take the well-known risks anyway? And then demand that it's unfair when the odds go against them?
Click to expand...
GhostlyJoe said:
Sex is a completely natural human behavior. Men and women are biologically engineered to have sex. That's why men -- and women -- have sex. Your just insisting that only men face forced consequences for it.
Click to expand...

You know you are really just stating that you think men are entitled to sex without consequences, right? Women never could, so that's never been equal.

Now medical science and technology have changed things for men...and the resentment over the loss of that thousands-year-old entitlement is pretty strong.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
But it is society's fault that the rules are different for women. Again, why does this "responsible party" thing not apply to adoption? Since legally it's entirely the woman's choice whether to abort or adopt, your label of "responsible party" applies only to men.

And if taxpayer services for children are underfunded, then maybe we should fund that instead of cutting taxes for billionaires.
Click to expand...

Feel free to produce some rules that are equal for men and women and dont penalize the kids or the taxpayers.

Again, there is zero ethical in taking from people wholly not responsible for something when the responsible parties are available. But maybe you have a plan? (and more taxes is still ethically wrong...that $ could be going to something with NO additional support, whereas if the parent is available...they should be held accountable. Ethics 101)
 
GhostlyJoe said:
Again, why does this "responsible party" thing not apply to adoption? Since legally it's entirely the woman's choice whether to abort or adopt, your label of "responsible party" applies only to men.
Click to expand...

I dont understand this. Please explain it further.

Adoptive parents voluntarily choose to be the responsible parties and arent given custody if they cant meet that responsibility. If they fall on hard times later, then why wouldnt they be entitled to assistance like any other family?
 
Northern Light said:
It's not shaming, it's the truth. You obviously don't care about children if you think it's preferable to put children up for adoption or on people's doorsteps if a mother can't handle parenthood herself, rather than make the father pay support.

The situation will never be equal, by virtue of how children are conceived. It's not a woman's fault that her body is the receptacle and that she has the greater power/burden to choose the pregnancy outcome. It's not the child's fault for existing.

So what you're saying is you'd rather see government orphangages and adoption agencies filled to the brim rather than just make fathers pay for something they choose to do. That's immoral.
Click to expand...

That's a false dichotomy. Eliminating forced child support would not lead to filling up orphanages and adoption agencies. Most back child support is owed to the state -- kids aren't getting that money. And child support is not based on the needs of the child but on the means' of the parents. It's a forced payment from one parent to another, independent of actual need. Once it's owed, it cannot be discharged -- even by a judge.

Your argument isn't about caring for children, it's about shaming men for having sex.

And, again with the biology argument. Biologically, men can drop their seed and move on without consequence. Do your really want biology to be the baseline for acceptable behavior?
 
Last edited:
GhostlyJoe said:
If sex is consent to parenthood, then you've just thrown women's right to choose out the window. Do you oppose child support when contraception fails?
Click to expand...

No I havent. Women know they have choices when they have sex. And they know the consequences of those options. If they get pregnant, they face the consequences.

And since I have continually supported the best interests of the child, why would I object to that child support or public assistance?

Would I prefer *any* people that cant afford to have a kid not have a kid? Sure. Can I stop it? No. So I dont bother wasting my time on it.
 
Lursa said:
You know you are really just stating that you think men are entitled to sex without consequences, right? Women never could, so that's never been equal.

Now medical science and technology have changed things for men...and the resentment over the loss of that thousands-year-old entitlement is pretty strong.
Click to expand...

Not sex without consequence. Sex without forced servitude.

Both men and women face potential consequences for sex. That won't stop them.
 
Lursa said:
I dont understand this. Please explain it further.

Adoptive parents voluntarily choose to be the responsible parties and arent given custody if they cant meet that responsibility. If they fall on hard times later, then why wouldnt they be entitled to assistance like any other family?
Click to expand...

My point is that is still placing the burden on the taxpayers instead of the biological parents. The law allows fathers to be tracked down, their DNA extracted, and, if there's a match, forced payments of more than half their earnings for decades. And you say that's just fine because it protects taxpayers. But you're also fine with taxpayers footing the bill for abortions, adoptions, or families who fall on hard times. The only people in this entire scenario you're not willing to extend taxpayer support to are non-custodial parents.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
Not sex without consequence. Sex without forced servitude.

Both men and women face potential consequences for sex. That won't stop them.
Click to expand...

No it wont stop them, it never has.

And both must face the consequences. But in the past, men got out of it by just leaving.

If you dont want the consequences, act accordingly. That applies equally to both sexes.
 
Lursa said:
Feel free to produce some rules that are equal for men and women and dont penalize the kids or the taxpayers.

Again, there is zero ethical in taking from people wholly not responsible for something when the responsible parties are available. But maybe you have a plan? (and more taxes is still ethically wrong...that $ could be going to something with NO additional support, whereas if the parent is available...they should be held accountable. Ethics 101)
Click to expand...

No such rules are necessary. Allow men to opt out of parenthood. I'm pro-choice. I'm pro-welfare. I pay taxes, and I'm happy that my taxes go to support people who need it. I'm also willing to pay to prevent indentured servitude of fathers. This whole issue is about extending empathy to fathers.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
My point is that is still placing the burden on the taxpayers instead of the biological parents. The law allows fathers to be tracked down, their DNA extracted, and, if there's a match, forced payments of more than half their earnings for decades. And you say that's just fine because it protects taxpayers. But you're also fine with taxpayers footing the bill for abortions, adoptions, or families who fall on hard times. The only people in this entire scenario you're not willing to extend taxpayer support to are non-custodial parents.
Click to expand...

Adoption, as a rule, is the opposite of placing the burden on the taxpayers.
 
Lursa said:
No it wont stop them, it never has.

And both must face the consequences. But in the past, men got out of it by just leaving.

If you dont want the consequences, act accordingly. That applies equally to both sexes.
Click to expand...

Most men supported their children. The idea of fathers running off without consequence is a mythology based on worst-case scenario, not common practice. And both men and women faced significant social shaming for such behavior.

But as I made clear in an earlier post, I don't really want to see an end to child support. I believe both parents should care for their children. I personally love my children and would do anything for them.

I want to see our child support laws reformed. I want it to actually be based on the needs of children, not on the "standard of living as if no separation had occurred." No more debt for life. No more jailing impoverished men. No more leaving non-custodial parents out on the street.

And I want a society where those in need get help regardless of circumstance.
 
Lursa said:
Adoption, as a rule, is the opposite of placing the burden on the taxpayers.
Click to expand...

Not if the adopted parents fall into need, as you pointed out in a previous post.
 
Bodhisattva said:
And calamity throws in the towel!!!

Bodi WINS!!!

Hand shake?
Click to expand...

When I see men lining up to ban guns, I'll buy the argument that men want to save lives. But, since they line up to actually relax laws against guns--the guns that men use most often when they are committing 90% of the homicides--I'll call their cry to save babies what it is. Bull****.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
No such rules are necessary. Allow men to opt out of parenthood. I'm pro-choice. I'm pro-welfare. I pay taxes, and I'm happy that my taxes go to support people who need it. I'm also willing to pay to prevent indentured servitude of fathers. This whole issue is about extending empathy to fathers.
Click to expand...

No, a society where people are not held accountable for their actions is one headed straight downhill. They never learn to make better choices.

I am not happy to pay to support people that DONT need it and if the parents are available...then they are the 'go-to' sources for their responsibilities first.

I see no need to extend empathy to mothers or fathers...and child support is required equally of non-custodial parents, sex doesnt matter.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
Not if the adopted parents fall into need, as you pointed out in a previous post.
Click to expand...

Why would they be treated differently than any other family? The option is a child left *definitely* on the taxpayer's dime in other care.

And most adoptive parents, to qualify, are not people living in marginal circumstances.

But my question stands: why would adoptive parents (who often have their own bio kids) be treated any differently than any other family that required assistance?
 
Lursa said:
No, a society where people are not held accountable for their actions is one headed straight downhill. They never learn to make better choices.

I am not happy to pay to support people that DONT need it and if the parents are available...then they are the 'go-to' sources for their responsibilities first.

I see no need to extend empathy to mothers or fathers...and child support is required equally of non-custodial parents, sex doesnt matter.
Click to expand...

Look at what it actually does in practice, and you'll see why reform is so necessary. I can't continue this discussion, but I want you to know that I've enjoyed the debate. Thanks.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
Most men supported their children. The idea of fathers running off without consequence is a mythology based on worst-case scenario, not common practice. And both men and women faced significant social shaming for such behavior.

But as I made clear in an earlier post, I don't really want to see an end to child support. I believe both parents should care for their children. I personally love my children and would do anything for them.

I want to see our child support laws reformed. I want it to actually be based on the needs of children, not on the "standard of living as if no separation had occurred." No more debt for life. No more jailing impoverished men. No more leaving non-custodial parents out on the street.

And I want a society where those in need get help regardless of circumstance.
Click to expand...

Not unmarried men. That's who I was mostly referring to. They didnt even have to go anywhere. All they had to do was deny it.

And unless the kid looked just like him, he was spared the shame too.

And I want a society where I dont have to pay more because some people take risks and then try to escape their consequences.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
Look at what it actually does in practice, and you'll see why reform is so necessary. I can't continue this discussion, but I want you to know that I've enjoyed the debate. Thanks.
Click to expand...

I do know what it does in practice...with a friend, up close and personal. He almost committed suicide recently.

That is why I believe it's in men's best interests to actually confront reality here and realize that the days of sex without consequences are over and if you choose to roll the dice then you have no one but yourself to blame for the consequences.

Men CAN protect themselves and yet all most do here is protest that they shouldnt have to decide before they enjoy themselves. Well...sacrifice a little now or alot later...but it's still 100% in their control.

It's the same for women but we've never had the option to escape so we never built the outrage or resentment either.
 
calamity said:
Especially "their" pregnant women.
Click to expand...

This also tends to get completely dismissed in these discussions, like "oh well, sucks to be a woman, that's just the way it is." Yeah, it sure does sometimes. like our actual lives dont matter, just $$ and the fantasy that we're out to control men. Cuz that list below, it makes it ALL WORTH IT! :roll:

No women that gets pregnant can avoid paying the consequences, there is no escape. There are only 4 scenarios:

--she has a kid
--miscarriage
--abortion
--dying during pregnancy/childbirth

And she can die or suffer permanent health damage from the first 3 too. Men OTOH, escape consequences completely most of the time.
Click to expand...
 
Lursa said:
Certainly not solved for the child nor the taxpayer.

Not ethical at all for either of those to end up 'paying,' altho only the taxpayer ends up paying with $.
Click to expand...

I have been consistent with this.

As a taxpayer....why the hell would I support your child when you are not required to attempt to contribute?

The fight should be for an improved child support structure and custody arrangements.

I would also like to see parents who use their kids in some insane retribution scam have court mandated play nice sessions until they cut out that crap. This would include the lawyers that encourage the behavior,:shock:
 
Skeptic Bob said:
That is correct. I believe a woman should be legally bound to notify the potential father she is pregnant ASAP. Upon notification the potential father should sign a legal document either accepting or abdicating parental rights and responsibility. The potential mother can then weigh that information in deciding to bring the pregnancy to term. If she decides to have the baby despite the man abdicating his parental rights and responsibilities then she accepts full responsibility and cannot sue. From the biological father’s perspective it would be akin to giving up his child for adoption only it is the biological mother doing the “adopting”.

I realize that is not how current law works, but it is how I think it should work.
Click to expand...

I argee but I think the language should be changed, instead of signing that you abdicate your parental right and resposibilities you are signing that you are agreeing to the child be aborted. Then If one parent doesnt sign they keep the baby and all the finacial responsibilites.
 
calamity said:
When I see men lining up to ban guns, I'll buy the argument that men want to save lives. But, since they line up to actually relax laws against guns--the guns that men use most often when they are committing 90% of the homicides--I'll call their cry to save babies what it is. Bull****.
Click to expand...

This is not the gun forum and my point stands... WIN!
 
maquiscat said:
Inspired by ...
Given those parameters, what are the father's actual rights now?
Click to expand...
TECHNOLOGIES SELDOM YIELD JUST ONE CONSEQUENCE. We already have ovum-donation technology. Given the existence of fully functional artificial wombs, any man who wants to be a father can go to an egg bank, just as a woman who wants to be a mother can go to a sperm bank. Zygotes are very easy to make, and therefore, just because one happened to come into existence as a result of sex, that doesn't mean it must survive, just because the man wants it to survive. He can go to an egg bank and make a new zygote. There is absolutely no reason to interfere with what a woman does to unwanted occupants of her body, regardless of whether they be disease organisms or mites or unborn humans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom