Gothic.net News Horror Gothic Lifestyle Fiction Movies Books and Literature Dark TV VIP Horror Professionals Professional Writing Tips Links Gothic Forum




Go Back   Gothic.net Community > Boards > Politics

Politics "Under democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule -and both commonly succeed, and are right." -H.L. Menken

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-21-2012, 03:30 PM   #1
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
The abortion thread pt. 2.

Quote:
Dubay v. Wells 506 F.3d 422 (6th Cir., 2007), was a legal case between Matt Dubay and his ex-girlfriend, Lauren Wells, both of Saginaw Township, Michigan. The case, which had been dubbed "Roe v. Wade for Men" by the National Center for Men, concerned whether the Michigan Paternity Act violates the United States Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, in that the Act allegedly applies to men but not to women.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubay_v._Wells

I was talking about my divorce with a dude at work, and it kind of devolved into him ranting about having to pay child support for a kid that he can't even see but a couple days a year. He doesn't know his son and doesn't have an emotional attachment to him. He remarked that he wished his ex had an abortion because the only difference it would make to him is a couple hundred dollars a month.

That got me thinking that it's bullshit that a man has to be responsible for an unwanted pregnancy, which, I think we established, is not a crime.

I haven't had the chance to look into it or think on it much, but that's my immediate gut reaction. Thoughts?
__________________
Woke up with fifty enemies plottin' my death
All fifty seein' visions of me shot in the chest
Couldn't rest, nah nigga I was stressed
Had me creepin' 'round corners, homie sleepin' in my vest.


-Breathin, Tupac.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2012, 03:50 PM   #2
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
The right to abortion and the right to not pay child support is a false equivalence. A woman can decide what happens to her body, whether to be pregnant or not. But once there's a child, its up to both parents to provide under the law. They can decide to give the child up for adoption, raise the kid together or have one raise the kid and one pay child support.

Child support is actually not paid up that often. The US Census Bureau says that $35 billion dollars are owed in child support (http://www.census.gov/newsroom/relea.../cb11-206.html). The average payment a month is only 300 dollars. If you're poor, how are you going to afford to take legal action against the other parent? Dad stopped paying child support and there wasn't really anything we could do about it.

Child support is considered the right of the born child, not the custodial parent. Without it, the custodial parent often needs to rely on the state. If this weren't a capitalist society, that probably wouldn't be an issue, but if the government can get away with not providing services, they will do their best to put the cost on someone else.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2012, 03:59 PM   #3
MissCheyenne
 
MissCheyenne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: A ship called Dignity
Posts: 1,919
Shouldn't a father have the right to see the child he's expected to provide for though? I understand if there's a reason for them not to be able to see them such as if they're abusive or violent or if they have to have supervised access but surely, if there's no reason that should keep them apart, a father should be able to see their child not just be forced to support them when financial support is only part of what a child needs.
__________________


I am your slice of pie
MissCheyenne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2012, 05:26 PM   #4
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
The right to abortion and the right to not pay child support is a false equivalence. A woman can decide what happens to her body, whether to be pregnant or not. But once there's a child, its up to both parents to provide under the law. They can decide to give the child up for adoption, raise the kid together or have one raise the kid and one pay child support.
You're right. They aren't the same thing. I didn't mean to compare the two. Child support is representative of a parent's responsibility to their children in their absence. What I'm saying is that, regardless of how a woman feels about giving birth or being pregnant, she has (or should have) the right have an abortion and could have one because she simply doesn't want to be a parent, while men do not have an option to free themselves of that obligation.

Quote:
Child support is actually not paid up that often. The US Census Bureau says that $35 billion dollars are owed in child support (http://www.census.gov/newsroom/relea.../cb11-206.html). The average payment a month is only 300 dollars. If you're poor, how are you going to afford to take legal action against the other parent? Dad stopped paying child support and there wasn't really anything we could do about it.
More often not.

Quote:
All in all, $35.1 billion in child support was owed in 2009 and 61 percent of that total was received
Besides that, it doesn't really mean anything when people don't pay their bills.

Quote:
The average amount of child support received by custodial parents who were owed support payments in 2009 was $3,630, or about $300 per month.
Key word being received. That amount could be different then what they were owed. Which doesn't include things like health insurance or noncash support (which 60% of non-custodial parents provide).

The data also doesn't determine the average income of parents who owe child support. I think it's just as safe to assume that 30% of non-custodial parents also fall beneath the poverty line because I could easily owe my wife 20% of my pay check in most states, and I'm not exactly wealthy.

Also, it doesn't say anywhere that the 70% of custodial parents who did not make claims for "child support issues" didn't because they couldn't afford it. I think you're drawing conclusions, but to be fair, I can only speak from personal experience that a court order is a binding contract from the state. I don't think it costs anything to enforce that.
Quote:
Child support is considered the right of the born child, not the custodial parent. Without it, the custodial parent often needs to rely on the state. If this weren't a capitalist society, that probably wouldn't be an issue, but if the government can get away with not providing services, they will do their best to put the cost on someone else.
Then why does child support vary the more money you have? I think it's reasonable to establish how much raising a kid costs, not base it off what the parents' income is. But all that isn't my point. To me, it doesn't matter how many parents don't pay their bills when I consider that it's not cool to be forced to be responsible for a child that people don't want.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissCheyenne View Post
Shouldn't a father have the right to see the child he's expected to provide for though? I understand if there's a reason for them not to be able to see them such as if they're abusive or violent or if they have to have supervised access but surely, if there's no reason that should keep them apart, a father should be able to see their child not just be forced to support them when financial support is only part of what a child needs.
It's not that he isn't allowed to see his child, it's that his ex lives somewhere else, and he's in the army and isn't allowed to leave 250 miles of where he works unless given the commander's authorization to take a pass or go on leave, so potentially about 3 weeks a year if he spent every opportunity visiting. The problem is that he doesn't have the money to visit very often, and because he doesn't, he doesn't have strong feelings for the child.
__________________
Woke up with fifty enemies plottin' my death
All fifty seein' visions of me shot in the chest
Couldn't rest, nah nigga I was stressed
Had me creepin' 'round corners, homie sleepin' in my vest.


-Breathin, Tupac.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2012, 05:34 PM   #5
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Oh, look! My post count is over two thousand.
__________________
Woke up with fifty enemies plottin' my death
All fifty seein' visions of me shot in the chest
Couldn't rest, nah nigga I was stressed
Had me creepin' 'round corners, homie sleepin' in my vest.


-Breathin, Tupac.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2012, 05:53 PM   #6
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
You're right. They aren't the same thing. I didn't mean to compare the two. Child support is representative of a parent's responsibility to their children in their absence. What I'm saying is that, regardless of how a woman feels about giving birth or being pregnant, she has (or should have) the right have an abortion and could have one because she simply doesn't want to be a parent, while men do not have an option to free themselves of that obligation.
The right to an abortion isn't really that she simply doesn't want to be a parent, its moreso about not wanting to be pregnant. If she chose to be pregnant, with the father's consent she could put the child up for adoption and decline to be a parent. Two parents have to decide that though, I remember a case where the mother wanted to put the kid up for adoption, the father was against it but also refused to raise the child on his own. So the kid ended up in foster care because there was not parental consensus.


Quote:
Key word being received. That amount could be different then what they were owed. Which doesn't include things like health insurance or noncash support (which 60% of non-custodial parents provide).
Thats true, but apparently single fathers benefit more from noncash support, which the men's rights activists might not tell you.

Quote:
The data also doesn't determine the average income of parents who owe child support. I think it's just as safe to assume that 30% of non-custodial parents also fall beneath the poverty line because I could easily owe my wife 20% of my pay check in most states, and I'm not exactly wealthy.

Also, it doesn't say anywhere that the 70% of custodial parents who did not make claims for "child support issues" didn't because they couldn't afford it. I think you're drawing conclusions, but to be fair, I can only speak from personal experience that a court order is a binding contract from the state. I don't think it costs anything to enforce that.
But child support doesn't have to be negotiated through the court, and its often costly to hire a lawyer and go through the court system to get a court order in the first place. I assume its worse if there was no divorce since there's really no legal link between the two parents.

Quote:
Then why does child support vary the more money you have? I think it's reasonable to establish how much raising a kid costs, not base it off what the parents' income is. But all that isn't my point. To me, it doesn't matter how many parents don't pay their bills when I consider that it's not cool to be forced to be responsible for a child that people don't want.
I wouldn't set a solid amount of money, because that would hurt poor noncustodial parents. A sliding scale is more fair, and I think maintenance of lifestyle is entered into account. Like if a kid was spoiled rotten its a huge shock to suddenly be eating beans on toast every meal.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2012, 06:22 PM   #7
in.the.moon
 
in.the.moon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: charlotte n.c.
Posts: 101
While reading this I commented this thread to my boyfriend and we were thinking about how awesome could it be if there was something like this: What if the government could put some type of 'birth control' type thing, or something that would stop the girls, woman etc from getting pregnant, and then when they want to get pregnant they go to get approved.

Do you make enough money? yes
Are you mentally stable? yes
so and soo, and if they do then they can deactivate the birth control and the can have a baby

This would solve foster care, alot of people wouldn't be in jail & I can keep going..

What do you guys think? I know we would have to live in a society where people are not prejudiced, and they are fair

but yeahhhh
That would be pretty cool

(I thought about this when Saya mentioned the case of the parents disagreeing and the baby going on foster care :/
in.the.moon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2012, 06:49 PM   #8
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
The right to an abortion isn't really that she simply doesn't want to be a parent, its moreso about not wanting to be pregnant.
That's why it's a right, yes, but my shitty research says that's not why most abortions take place. The more common reasons had nothing to do with the pregnancy itself, but the baby that would result.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/poli...abreasons.html

Quote:
Two parents have to decide that though, I remember a case where the mother wanted to put the kid up for adoption, the father was against it but also refused to raise the child on his own. So the kid ended up in foster care because there was not parental consensus.
That's really shitty. You're bringing me down.

Quote:
But child support doesn't have to be negotiated through the court, and its often costly to hire a lawyer and go through the court system to get a court order in the first place. I assume its worse if there was no divorce since there's really no legal link between the two parents.
Quote:
Roughly half (50.6 percent or 6.9 million) of custodial parents had a court order or some type of agreement to receive financial support from the noncustodial parent. The majority (90.9 percent) of these parents with agreements were reported as formal legal agreements, while 9.1 percent were informal agreements or understandings.
Still says that most agreements were recognized as legal documents. The difference between a court order and a contract is that a court order isn't decided by the parents, but they're both just as valid.

Quote:
I wouldn't set a solid amount of money, because that would hurt poor noncustodial parents. A sliding scale is more fair, and I think maintenance of lifestyle is entered into account. Like if a kid was spoiled rotten its a huge shock to suddenly be eating beans on toast every meal.
I don't disagree that a blanket set amount would be unfair, and you're right: I read earlier that "quality of life" has to be the same, though I don't really agree with it. If a parent simply doesn't want anything to do with their kid, why should they grow up to be spoiled rotten?

And beans on toast is delicious. <3
__________________
Woke up with fifty enemies plottin' my death
All fifty seein' visions of me shot in the chest
Couldn't rest, nah nigga I was stressed
Had me creepin' 'round corners, homie sleepin' in my vest.


-Breathin, Tupac.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2012, 06:49 PM   #9
Fruitbat
 
Fruitbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: In your trash can
Posts: 2,594
Blog Entries: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubay_v._Wells

I was talking about my divorce with a dude at work, and it kind of devolved into him ranting about having to pay child support for a kid that he can't even see but a couple days a year. He doesn't know his son and doesn't have an emotional attachment to him. He remarked that he wished his ex had an abortion because the only difference it would make to him is a couple hundred dollars a month.

That got me thinking that it's bullshit that a man has to be responsible for an unwanted pregnancy, which, I think we established, is not a crime.
I haven't had the chance to look into it or think on it much, but that's my immediate gut reaction. Thoughts?

... so maybe he should have been more responsible with the birth control in the first place, so there wasn't an unwanted pregnancy?

Meanwhile the poor kid is stuck in the middle - not really wanted by either parent - what a great life that kid is going to have... NOT!

Should just put the kid up for adoption - chances are that they will at least be put with a family where they will be wanted.
__________________

"Always be kind, for everyone is fighting a hard battle." - Plato


Help me, I'm holding on for dear life

Fruitbat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2012, 06:50 PM   #10
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by in.the.moon View Post
While reading this I commented this thread to my boyfriend and we were thinking about how awesome could it be if there was something like this: What if the government could put some type of 'birth control' type thing, or something that would stop the girls, woman etc from getting pregnant, and then when they want to get pregnant they go to get approved.

Do you make enough money? yes
Are you mentally stable? yes
so and soo, and if they do then they can deactivate the birth control and the can have a baby

This would solve foster care, alot of people wouldn't be in jail & I can keep going..

What do you guys think? I know we would have to live in a society where people are not prejudiced, and they are fair

but yeahhhh
That would be pretty cool

(I thought about this when Saya mentioned the case of the parents disagreeing and the baby going on foster care :/
That's called eugenics, and it's not cool. Think about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fruitbat View Post
... so maybe he should have been more responsible with the birth control in the first place, so there wasn't an unwanted pregnancy?

Meanwhile the poor kid is stuck in the middle - not really wanted by either parent - what a great life that kid is going to have... NOT!

Should just put the kid up for adoption - chances are that they will at least be put with a family where they will be wanted.
To the first, I refer you to the other abortion thread.

And the kid's mother does want him. It's the guy at work who never can see his kid that doesn't.
__________________
Woke up with fifty enemies plottin' my death
All fifty seein' visions of me shot in the chest
Couldn't rest, nah nigga I was stressed
Had me creepin' 'round corners, homie sleepin' in my vest.


-Breathin, Tupac.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2012, 06:57 PM   #11
Fruitbat
 
Fruitbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: In your trash can
Posts: 2,594
Blog Entries: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
That's called eugenics, and it's not cool. Think about it.



To the first, I refer you to the other abortion thread.

And the kid's mother does want him. It's the guy at work who never can see his kid that doesn't.
And that makes it all the more sadder that the kid's dad doesn't want him. Well I hope for the kid's sake that she's an upstanding citizen and can do both parenting roles.

Really makes me sad for everyone involved.
__________________

"Always be kind, for everyone is fighting a hard battle." - Plato


Help me, I'm holding on for dear life

Fruitbat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2012, 07:24 PM   #12
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
That's why it's a right, yes, but my shitty research says that's not why most abortions take place. The more common reasons had nothing to do with the pregnancy itself, but the baby that would result.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/poli...abreasons.html
I'm saying that's why abortion is a right, not the reason women get them. You can't get out of being a parent unless you put the kid up for adoption or foster care, you can get out of being pregnant.

Plus, most women who get an abortion are already mothers, so they're already parents. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Quote:
Still says that most agreements were recognized as legal documents. The difference between a court order and a contract is that a court order isn't decided by the parents, but they're both just as valid.
Yeah but if its a contract and they break the terms of the contract, you still have to hire a lawyer and go through the courts, which is costly.

Quote:

I don't disagree that a blanket set amount would be unfair, and you're right: I read earlier that "quality of life" has to be the same, though I don't really agree with it. If a parent simply doesn't want anything to do with their kid, why should they grow up to be spoiled rotten?

And beans on toast is delicious.
Not saying I totally agree with that, you're talking to a dirty commie sir XD
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2012, 08:19 PM   #13
in.the.moon
 
in.the.moon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: charlotte n.c.
Posts: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
That's called eugenics, and it's not cool. Think about it.



To the first, I refer you to the other abortion thread.

And the kid's mother does want him. It's the guy at work who never can see his kid that doesn't.


eugenics has a bad connotation :/.

it's obvious it can be abused every system can because humans are involved.

u say this is not "cool"

Are abortions cool?

Are children born to mentaly unstable parents cool? (A Child Called It)

Are children born to a financially distraught family cool? (child starvation)


just saying... :/ this i think can fix more things than it can break.
in.the.moon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2012, 08:28 PM   #14
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
I saw something awesome on Murdoch Mysteries, which is a Canadian crime drama if you're not in the know. They were talking about eugenics, and the inspector was like, "We've been exercising eugenics for centuries, and if that" he says, while pointing to a portrait of Queen Victoria "is the best we can amount to through it, then I want no part in it."
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2012, 08:37 PM   #15
Alan
 
Alan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by in.the.moon View Post
eugenics has a bad connotation :/.

it's obvious it can be abused every system can because humans are involved.

u say this is not "cool"

Are abortions cool?

Are children born to mentaly unstable parents cool? (A Child Called It)

Are children born to a financially distraught family cool? (child starvation)


just saying... :/ this i think can fix more things than it can break.
First of all, it's not that hard to correct your spelling and grammar. You already had most of it right, it almost looks like you made an effort to NOT write properly.

Second of all, eugenics or governmental regulation over reproduction wouldn't be that easy.
Yes, it's sad that some children are born to unstable or struggling families, but who are we to decide who gets to have a family and who doesn't?
What if a family were to be extremely loving but they are below the poverty level?
Who sets the standards?
Every time there is a form of state control over society, this control tends to be a form of biopower that shapes society to normativize it in a very specific manner.
Hell, if you did this shit before institutional racism was done away with, you'd immediately see that minorities would get rejected for raising families at a much higher rate than most other people.

So yes, it is eugenics in one of the worst possible manners.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KissMeDeadly
You fucking people [war veterans] are only a step below entitled rich kids, the only difference being you had to do and witness horrible things, instead of being given everything.
real classy
Alan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2012, 09:04 PM   #16
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan View Post
Hell, if you did this shit before institutional racism was done away with, you'd immediately see that minorities would get rejected for raising families at a much higher rate than most other people.
Already happened!

Quote:
For example, in 1972, United States Senate committee testimony brought to light that at least 2,000 involuntary sterilizations had been performed on poor black women without their consent or knowledge. An investigation revealed that the surgeries were all performed in the South, and were all performed on black welfare mothers with multiple children. Testimony revealed that many of these women were threatened with an end to their welfare benefits until they consented to sterilization.[55] These surgeries were instances of sterilization abuse, a term applied to any sterilization performed without the consent or knowledge of the recipient, or in which the recipient is pressured into accepting the surgery. Because the funds used to carry out the surgeries came from the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity, the sterilization abuse raised older suspicions, especially amongst the black community, that “federal programs were underwriting eugenicists who wanted to impose their views about population quality on minorities and poor women.”[25]
Native American women were also victims of sterilization abuse up into the 1970s.[56] The organization WARN (Women of All Red Nations) publicized that Native American women were threatened that, if they had more children, they would be denied welfare benefits. The Indian Health Service also repeatedly refused to deliver Native American babies until their mothers, in labor, consented to sterilization. Many Native American women unknowingly gave consent, since directions were not given in their native language. According to the General Accounting Office, an estimate of 3,406 Indian women were sterilized.[56] The General Accounting Office stated that the Indian Health Service had not followed the necessary regulations, and that the “informed consent forms did not adhere to the standards set by the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW).”[57]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenic...n_Nazi_Germany

I don't like quoting wikipedia, but we did study this in first year women's studies and I sold that text book.

Not to mention the castration of prisoners disproportionally affected men of colour and gay men.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2012, 09:14 PM   #17
Alan
 
Alan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,932
No question that the United States has delved into eugenics.
But they were mentioning a very specific form of eugenics that hasn't been tried and they argue would be somehow good.

I'm mentioning this merely because of the argument that "that is different." I am fully aware the hypothetical is different than the historical eugenic project in the United States, but the historical examples show just what would happen.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KissMeDeadly
You fucking people [war veterans] are only a step below entitled rich kids, the only difference being you had to do and witness horrible things, instead of being given everything.
real classy
Alan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2012, 09:32 PM   #18
Xombie
 
Xombie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: North Cackalacky
Posts: 2,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubay_v._Wells

I was talking about my divorce with a dude at work, and it kind of devolved into him ranting about having to pay child support for a kid that he can't even see but a couple days a year. He doesn't know his son and doesn't have an emotional attachment to him. He remarked that he wished his ex had an abortion because the only difference it would make to him is a couple hundred dollars a month.

That got me thinking that it's bullshit that a man has to be responsible for an unwanted pregnancy, which, I think we established, is not a crime.

I haven't had the chance to look into it or think on it much, but that's my immediate gut reaction. Thoughts?
I'm not sure if this can usually only be done around the time of birth of the child, but in some states the father can give up parental rights given that he has a "good reason." I would like to think that his situation, especially with his lack of emotional attachment, would count as a good reason, but I don't know how the law would look at that. Then, there is the possibility that he may still be ruled financially responsible if the mother seeks governmental aid, but in giving up his parental rights he will never be able to see the kid. I'm sure it's all decided on a case by case basis, but it's an option to look into.
Xombie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2012, 10:18 PM   #19
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xombie View Post
I'm not sure if this can usually only be done around the time of birth of the child, but in some states the father can give up parental rights given that he has a "good reason." I would like to think that his situation, especially with his lack of emotional attachment, would count as a good reason, but I don't know how the law would look at that. Then, there is the possibility that he may still be ruled financially responsible if the mother seeks governmental aid, but in giving up his parental rights he will never be able to see the kid. I'm sure it's all decided on a case by case basis, but it's an option to look into.
I'm pretty sure the other parent has to agree to it.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 06:51 AM   #20
in.the.moon
 
in.the.moon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: charlotte n.c.
Posts: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan View Post
First of all, it's not that hard to correct your spelling and grammar. You already had most of it right, it almost looks like you made an effort to NOT write properly.

Second of all, eugenics or governmental regulation over reproduction wouldn't be that easy.
Yes, it's sad that some children are born to unstable or struggling families, but who are we to decide who gets to have a family and who doesn't?
What if a family were to be extremely loving but they are below the poverty level?
Who sets the standards?
Every time there is a form of state control over society, this control tends to be a form of biopower that shapes society to normativize it in a very specific manner.
Hell, if you did this shit before institutional racism was done away with, you'd immediately see that minorities would get rejected for raising families at a much higher rate than most other people.

So yes, it is eugenics in one of the worst possible manners.
The problems with this are obvious.

Everything that a man has to do with, will be corrupted.

That being said, you guys don't think that there would be ANYTHING positive that would come from this?

Just from the financial point of view, do you not think this would would save the government TONS of money?

& regarding your comment towards my spelling: you are tripping BALLS
in.the.moon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 07:23 AM   #21
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by in.the.moon View Post
& regarding your comment towards my spelling: you are tripping BALLS
I just assume English isn't your first language.
__________________
Woke up with fifty enemies plottin' my death
All fifty seein' visions of me shot in the chest
Couldn't rest, nah nigga I was stressed
Had me creepin' 'round corners, homie sleepin' in my vest.


-Breathin, Tupac.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 09:56 AM   #22
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
I'm pretty sure the other parent has to agree to it.
And that's the issue that seems out of place.

Quote:
I'm saying that's why abortion is a right, not the reason women get them. You can't get out of being a parent unless you put the kid up for adoption or foster care, you can get out of being pregnant.
Well, yeah. Like you said, once the child is born, their rights supersede those of the both parents. But...

Quote:
Plus, most women who get an abortion are already mothers, so they're already parents. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
Should I reword myself, then? "The reasons given for most abortions are because the mother simply doesn't want that particular child." it doesn't change my argument.

Before birth, women have the option to escape being responsible for that child, while men do not. Why is it that, if contraception fails, men do not have a choice to opt out during the pregnancy? The weight of these decisions is still sheltered by gender. It's not a choice of it's only a woman's choice.

Quote:
Yeah but if its a contract and they break the terms of the contract, you still have to hire a lawyer and go through the courts, which is costly
.

You're right, and since most custodial parents are women, it is mostly a problem for women. I think that is a separate issue, though. You're arguing that because a good deal of child support isn't paid, and men are more likely to differ from the responsibility of being a father, that they should not have the option? I'm not sure because you haven't out right said it. XD But still, I think those aren't related to the issue. Honestly, it looks detrimental for children to be raised without a father.

STATISTICS FOR CHILDREN WITHOUT FATHERS



*63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) -- 5 times the average.

*90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes -- 32 times the average.

*85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes -- 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)

*80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes -- 14 times the average. (Justice and Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)

*71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes -- 9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)

*75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes – 10 times the average. (Rainbows for All God’s Children)

*70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1988)

*85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes -- 20 times the average. (Fulton Co. Dept. of Correction)

Clearly, fathers represent a lot more than just a paycheck to a child; they represent safety, protection, guidance, friendship,and someone to look up to.



http://www.children-ourinvestment.or...utFathers.html

But I don't think that means that men shouldn't have the choice. It's not fair, yo.

Quote:
Not saying I totally agree with that, you're talking to a dirty commie sir XD
I don't totally agree with it, either, but I bring it up for the sake of argument.
__________________
Woke up with fifty enemies plottin' my death
All fifty seein' visions of me shot in the chest
Couldn't rest, nah nigga I was stressed
Had me creepin' 'round corners, homie sleepin' in my vest.


-Breathin, Tupac.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 02:31 PM   #23
Alan
 
Alan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by in.the.moon View Post
Just from the financial point of view, do you not think this would would save the government TONS of money?
You mean creating a new regulatory governmental institution that has to keep tabs on 300 million people in inoculating them, receiving them when they want to form a family, and then researching their clinical history and assessing whether they are optimal candidates for passing the bar on the planned future numeric limitations on the abled labor force of an increasingly aging nation?

No, I do not think it would save ANY money, and I do not think you have a degree in economics or political science or even some experience in it.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KissMeDeadly
You fucking people [war veterans] are only a step below entitled rich kids, the only difference being you had to do and witness horrible things, instead of being given everything.
real classy
Alan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 02:47 PM   #24
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Hey, dude. She's entitled to her opinion, too.
__________________
Woke up with fifty enemies plottin' my death
All fifty seein' visions of me shot in the chest
Couldn't rest, nah nigga I was stressed
Had me creepin' 'round corners, homie sleepin' in my vest.


-Breathin, Tupac.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 03:15 PM   #25
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post

Should I reword myself, then? "The reasons given for most abortions are because the mother simply doesn't want that particular child." it doesn't change my argument.

Before birth, women have the option to escape being responsible for that child, while men do not. Why is it that, if contraception fails, men do not have a choice to opt out during the pregnancy? The weight of these decisions is still sheltered by gender. It's not a choice of it's only a woman's choice.
I bring up they are already mothers, because they might already have the issue of support to deal with. I think a good chunk get it done as well because they are unsure of the relationship with the father.

And no, before birth women do not have the option of being responsible for that child, they have the option not to be pregnant anymore, in most places before 12 weeks of pregnancy. Its not like they can be nine months pregnant and then be like "Lol no you guys, I don't want to be a parent, kill the fetus." and get an abortion then. They do not want to be responsible for a potential child, but there is no child at that point to be responsible for. After birth happens, then there is a child that needs rearing and the parents have to come to some sort of consensus on what happened to that child that now exists in the world and is a person and has rights.

Unless you're advocating that men should force women to have abortions, its still a false equivalency. Abortion is a bodily autonomy issue. I think the only equivalence a man would in theory have to worry about is the state forcing him to donate a kidney if his offspring should need one. Or forced sterilization according to the other conversation going on.


Quote:
You're right, and since most custodial parents are women, it is mostly a problem for women. I think that is a separate issue, though. You're arguing that because a good deal of child support isn't paid, and men are more likely to differ from the responsibility of being a father, that they should not have the option?
In a capitalist society, particularly in America where the government only wants to spend money on the salaries of politicians and war, its not going to happen, and it would be cruel to the child and parent left without to do it. Of course those without access to the legal system would have no course of action against a parent who doesn't pay up or just abandons them. Its not like all men are trapped in this situation when the choice is made not to have an abortion.

Quote:
I'm not sure because you haven't out right said it. XD But still, I think those aren't related to the issue. Honestly, it looks detrimental for children to be raised without a father.

STATISTICS FOR CHILDREN WITHOUT FATHERS



*63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) -- 5 times the average.

*90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes -- 32 times the average.

*85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes -- 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)

*80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes -- 14 times the average. (Justice and Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)

*71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes -- 9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)

*75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes – 10 times the average. (Rainbows for All God’s Children)

*70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1988)

*85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes -- 20 times the average. (Fulton Co. Dept. of Correction)

Clearly, fathers represent a lot more than just a paycheck to a child; they represent safety, protection, guidance, friendship,and someone to look up to.



http://www.children-ourinvestment.or...utFathers.html
And how many of those they are talking about living above the poverty line? Notice they don't use statistic about how many people with fatherless homes end up, they just start with the troubled population and work their way backwards.

Let's just look at the prison one. Most people in prison are also poor, and in America, black. I'm not sure if they were the one's who's mothers were able to embezzle a lot of money from their poor hapless fathers who didn't get to see them often. There's far more factors at play there than just being fatherless, there's also poverty and racial discrimination.

Quote:
But I don't think that means that men shouldn't have the choice. It's not fair, yo.
Clearly the answer is to grow a vagina so you have access to this wonderful freedom and privileges that women have.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:12 PM.