Parents rights

[elbacalao]

I can agree with the concept you are relating. Once the man deposits his sperm inside the woman he has given up control over it and anything the woman's body does with it is not up to him. Basically, he has made a "gift" of his sperm to the woman (gift is used as a term to indicate a transfer of ownership free and clear, not as something special and desirable).

However, if the woman becomes pregnant and wants to keep the child which is her sole decision to make, how is it appropriate to hold the man responsible for something he had no control over? The man made the gift and the woman accepted the gift, what she does with that gift is her sole choice and should be her sole responsibility unless she wants to cede a portion of that responsibility and the man wants to accept it.

It's like saying that if you give your friend a car for free and he gets in an accident with it that it is your responsibility.

I'm of the opinion, and the court generally agrees, that with that "gift", comes the responsibility. The two cannot be separated. Nor should they be. Dont want the responsibility? Dont fuck.

 

[two wheel tramp]

I'm not sure the baby batter and car comparison really works.

 

[MysterYvil]

I can agree with the concept you are relating. Once the man deposits his sperm inside the woman he has given up control over it and anything the woman's body does with it is not up to him. Basically, he has made a "gift" of his sperm to the woman (gift is used as a term to indicate a transfer of ownership free and clear, not as something special and desirable).

However, if the woman becomes pregnant and wants to keep the child which is her sole decision to make, how is it appropriate to hold the man responsible for something he had no control over? The man made the gift and the woman accepted the gift, what she does with that gift is her sole choice and should be her sole responsibility unless she wants to cede a portion of that responsibility and the man wants to accept it.

It's like saying that if you give your friend a car for free and he gets in an accident with it that it is your responsibility.

No Release of Liabilty? Then it's all yours, pal!

Do you only come to this thread to strafe with nonsense...

 

[planegray]

I'm not sure the baby batter and car comparison really works.

I think I could find 12 people who would buy it






You don't see ANY merit to his point ?

Let's say a woman decides to go ahead and have the baby, then puts it up for adoption... Have you ever heard of a mother paying child support to an orphanage, or adoptive parents ?

Where's the whole "you had sex, now you have a commitment for the next 18 years" there ?

 

[Daks]

Sooo....men bitching about one power they don't have over someone else's body.

Gotta fly with elbacalao on this one. They worded it a million times better than I could.

 

[two wheel tramp]

I think I could find 12 people who would buy it






You don't see ANY merit to his point ?

Let's say a woman decides to go ahead and have the baby, then puts it up for adoption... Have you ever heard of a mother paying child support to an orphanage, or adoptive parents ?

The release of liability is tricky. I'm not saying he's totally off base. I'm just think, deposit some baby batter and it's reasonably foreseeable that pregnancy results.

I wish this were all simple and that kids weren't used as pawns in adult disputes.

 

[planegray]

...........I wish this were all simple and that kids weren't used as pawns in adult disputes.

+1

this is among the most despicable of human behaviors. I have some family that's human wreckage because of this.

 

[Daks]

That is a great description of what thecurrent law is. The question though is, should current law stand, or do we truly believe in equal rights? It sounds like you support current law, but do you have a reason behind your support other than saying that is the way it is?

I love the passive aggressive way you word this.

Past drawing up legal pre-sex contracts, there is no way of determining whether or not someone wanted a baby before having sex.
Sex is made to make more people. If you don't want a kid, don't have unprotected sex, and don't have any sex with someone you can't trust.

For now, I favor the laws that give women the right to hold people accountable to the things they helped knowingly do to their body.

The reasoning is that this "men's rights" ridiculousness is all about how women have a power that a man does not. And men don't think it's "fair" because they're used to holding all the power, when true equality is not simply one side demanding and taking power, but the other side just as understandingly giving it up.

 

[jh2586]

I love the passive aggressive way you word this.

Past drawing up legal pre-sex contracts, there is no way of determining whether or not someone wanted a baby before having sex.
Sex is made to make more people. If you don't want a kid, don't have unprotected sex, and don't have any sex with someone you can't trust.

For now, I favor the laws that give women the right to hold people accountable to the things they helped knowingly do to their body.

The reasoning is that this "men's rights" ridiculousness is all about how women have a power that a man does not. And men don't think it's "fair" because they're used to holding all the power, when true equality is not simply one side demanding and taking power, but the other side just as understandingly giving it up.

Everyone is entitled to equal rights. Not just women. Your elaboration on how "men are used to holding all the power" is irrelevant to this argument.. that is completey a different topic.

 

[MysterYvil]

Everyone is entitled to equal rights. Not just women. Your elaboration on how "men are used to holding all the power" is irrelevant to this argument.. that is completey a different topic.

Irrelevant?

Tell us all about it, Loretta!

 

[elbacalao]

Everyone is entitled to equal rights. Not just women. Your elaboration on how "men are used to holding all the power" is irrelevant to this argument.. that is completey a different topic.

Actually I think it's completely relevant in that it contributes and shapes most men's opinions on this subject. I think to deny this is to be dishonest, or at least obtuse. All things are not equal, and all things cannot, nor should be made equal by law.

 

[Ghost8475]

A terrible example would be this... Imagine you and your GF get a dog (at the time both parties consented to getting a dog), so going through all of the paper work the dude realizes that he cant afford the dog, or just gets cold feet and wants to back out. Now lets say that the girl is on board, already signed the paperwork, so the dog is coming home no matter what. Should the guy be responsible for the dog when he announced that he didn't want it and tried to back out?

 

[Ghost8475]

And for the lulz...

 

[msincredible]

A terrible example would be this... Imagine you and your GF get a dog (at the time both parties consented to getting a dog), so going through all of the paper work the dude realizes that he cant afford the dog, or just gets cold feet and wants to back out. Now lets say that the girl is on board, already signed the paperwork, so the dog is coming home no matter what. Should the guy be responsible for the dog when he announced that he didn't want it and tried to back out?

To make your terrible example slightly closer, the guy announces that he doesn't want it, can't afford it, and thinks the girl should take it to have it put down.

 

[Ghost8475]

To make your terrible example slightly closer, the guy announces that he doesn't want it, can't afford it, and thinks the girl should take it to have it put down.

Rather have it be put down than live a bad life

 

[msincredible]

Rather have it be put down than live a bad life

So if the guy backs out and the girl has to take care of it by herself that's a bad life?

And that's an easier decision to make sitting and typing on your computer than if you were actually holding and cuddling the dog.

 

[Ghost8475]

So if the guy backs out and the girl has to take care of it by herself that's a bad life?

And that's an easier decision to make sitting and typing on your computer than if you were actually holding and cuddling the dog.

If the option to live in poverty or abort the child is still into to play then I say abort. If the mom choose to keep the child then I would rather wash my hands of the situation then watch a child grow up and suffer because of (I am going to receive some flak for working it like this...) a selfish decision. Cruelty comes in many forms; one of them is believing that by doing something will make the situation better while in fact you are making others suffer...

 

[Ghost8475]

An alternate scenario of your terrible example. The guy wants to keep the puppy but the girl changes her mind and in spite of his wishes goes to have the puppy put down.

Lifes a bitch and apparent so is the girl. Nothing you can do about it, sorry champ

 

[tzrider]

An alternate scenario of your terrible example. The guy wants to keep the puppy but the girl changes her mind and in spite of his wishes goes to have the puppy put down.

Are you guys seriously comparing carrying a baby to term to buying a puppy?

 

[My900ss]

Once again, thank you for stating the obvious. I think we know how the law works by now.

If you read the whole thread, you'll see that we are trying to argue if there is a better solution to the current law. If you agree with the current law, then just say so. You don't need to spell it out for us because we've gone through it a million times on this thread.

Jeff,
I did read the thread and can only see from the posts in this thread, yours specifically included, a two party discussion. I.E. a debate about responsibility and control between men and women. I do not see any point in this thread from you where you address the rights of the child. I.E. post birth what rights towards financial and emotional support and growth should that child be entitled.

I am telling you that the child's rights trump either parents, thus your assertion that a law should be changed based on you or any man "not wanting the child" is a want not worth consideration.

If you want to argue about "abortion rights" and a mans role in that, have at it. Once the child is born however any and all arguments you have relative to your rights to refuse accountability towards that child are not worth the air used to speak them. That child's rights are paramount to any you think you may be entitled to.

Again argue all you want about "abortion rights" and deride the Family Law system in CA all you want . My point to you is any argument about absolving responsibility for a child simply because you didn't want said child is not worth consideration so move past it.