I’d think this would be a pretty publicised change in policy - any moderately informed woman would know not to assume you had committed to fatherhood by having sex, if this was enacted. So she’d be pre-informed, and have the opportunity to require you to sign the “Actually I will be assume fatherhood of any accidental births” form before sex, if she so chose.
When you say “she has no ability to opt out of it”, I wonder what’s going through your mind. She most definitely has a way to opt out of parental responsibility: abortion.
Try to keep in mind that this entire discussion is framed in the universe where, despite your personal preferences whatever they may be, abortion is an option.
And you don’t have to drive your car - if you do, you might end up killing somebody. Thus, any traffic fatality is murder!
No. Intent matters. And while there are certainly cases where intent and precautions do not entirely absolve you of responsibilities, there’s nothing about this issue that automatically renders intent and precautions irrelevent - despite your vehement argument by bald assertion to the contrary.
And logically, if the man absolves himself of responsibility while an abortion is still feasable, then it’s not him who would be dumping the resulting baby on the taxpayer anyway - it’s clearly the woman, as she was the last one holding the hot potato before deciding a) not to abort and b) not to keep it and raise it on her own dime. This goes doubly so if the law is such that the man can walk away - she should reasonably assume it will happen in that case for an random quickie. So don’t blame the man - it’s the woman whose uncrossed legs are dumping babies on society, not him.
Finn, I think Dio has made it clear he is not going to acknowledge his errors. After all, when asked to cite support for his assertions, including his assertion about what SCOTUS said, he replied that “the text” had been quoted (which it was, by me, as we all can see and read for ourselves) as though it supported the assertion he was being asked to back up, when what it did was completely obliterate it.
He’s also gone on to state that there aren’t cites showing him to be totally wrong, when there are many (not least being Roe itself, as I’ve repeatedly noted.)
It’s clear that Dio has an opinion, which he certain has a right to, and he is passionately attached to that opinon, to such a degree that it has evidently completely overshadowed any claim he might make to debating any of these matters from factual position. So I suggest we simply acknowledge that Dio has his “feelings” about it and let it go.
Unless you enjoy bashing your head against a wall, in which case, by all means, carry on.
Spoken like somebody who doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
I’m getting really sick of the “anybody who doesn’t agree with me is terminally unable to read or comprehend things” ad-hominem. I liked it better when people called each other morons directly - much more honest.
Well, horrifying compared to other birth control methods, I suppose. Horrifying if 17% of the time you end up with an unwanted pregnancy you can’t control the outcome of.
Oh, so NOW it’s a child during pregnancy? What happened to:
So, it’s a “child” when it temporarily serves your hysterical argument to call it such, and it’s “not a child” when you want to defend abortion. Must be nice to have it both ways.
I know, I know…it’s the same in every debate, I think. And yet, I can’t stop myself, because he’s a really smart guy. It’s like dating that loser with “potential”. I keep feeling that if I just do or say the right thing, the veils will fall and he might, just might, be able to take responsibility for himself. And all I end up with is no beer, dirty underwear in the hallway and a faint yet unmistakable odor of failure embedded in my couch.
Right, I agree, but I do sort of feel that the standard for notification is ill defined and or inequitable. Obviously, it’s sticky because the mother doesn’t need to be notified if she is pregnant so that side is a non issue.
What’s difficult is that the father needs to know he has a child in order to register his paternity (this should be obvious), and generally he needs to know by 30 days after the birth of the child. From this point on his rights become more and more difficult to protect. If he doesn’t find out until after the adoption has occurred then only 23 states in the union have means to reverse the adoption according to my missouri.edu cite.
(Dio, seriously… you’re entitled to your opinion, and being mistaken is not the end of the world. Since you and I more often than not are on the same side of issues, this kind of behavior is bummin’ me out, man.)
Based on your feelings about equity of reproductive rights, do you think the man should be able to compel the mother to NOT have an abortion if he decides he would like to take care of the child?
And the answer I give is no. Possibly No, NO, or NO, as circumstances require.
Asserting that the man and woman should have comparable options regarding ‘opting out’ is entirely separate from the notion that either side should be able to compel the other side to ‘opt in’ - particularly forcing them to ‘opt in’ to a pregnancy!
Yes, paternity registries are more or less a last resort for protecting unknown fathers from having their rights terminated by attempting to give them some means of receving actual notice, rather than just the constructive notice of intercourse. Tell you what, I’ll meet you halfway and acquiesce that you can terminate the rights of a father without his knowledge or permission in those circumstances where he’s failed to timely assert them, whether intentionally or unintentionally. When the father does assert his rights, he’s entitled to actual notification and a hearing.
(the word “risible” comes to mind in a very specific context… )
And yeah, as for head versus wall, sure looks like it. After all this time posting here I’m used to Dio just cutting lose and then trying to rationalize some sort of support for bombastic absurdities that shouldn’t have been posted in the first place.
It’s a shame, though, that his goal in this thread has become something other than debate. As he’s refused to even explain his own analysis of cites other “ZOMG UR dum if you dun agree” I’m at a loss to explain what his purpose is in this thread. The forum, after all, is Great Debates, not Stridently Voiced Assertions That Won’t Ever Be Supported Except Via Empty Snark.
I’d still like to know, for instance, what he thinks a SCOTUS ruling on a NY Supreme Court decision that had nothing to do with parental notification at all but what standard of evidence should be used to justify taking a child from parents who do not consent… has to do with standards of parental notification.
I’m curious why he believes his reading of Roe is correct when it seems fairly clear that the SCOTUS went to great pains to outline their reasoning and why mental/emotional/financial hardship and an unwillingness/inability to be a parent played a role in their deicion making process. I’d like to hear an actual argument against what seems to be the glaringly clear message of the text rather than “Nuh uh!! P.S. You dumb!”
I’d like to see him cite anything to back up his claim that in the US fathers have to be notified if the mother of their child chooses to give it up for adoption and does not see fit to notify him that he’s a father. Rather than that they sometimes do in certain situations and a brief bit of text in a local bulletin board or on a city hall’s cork bulletin board will suffice as well.
I’d like to see a cite for his claim that only men notified of fatherhood legally qualify as “fathers”.
Heck, there are probably a good half dozen other assertions for which I haven’t seen him offer up even a hint of effort at substation.
No, and that is where feminine biology comes very much into play, as well as reproductive rights.
Modern science is all well and good, but babymakin’ is still not a walk in the park, and in my own case, it’s a walk I never intended and never did take. I would have been hysterical if a man tried to force me to bear a child I didn’t want to bear, both because of the physical process and because bringing a child into the world is very different for women than men. It’s very real, the biology of it can and does drive the emotion of it. It’s the same reason I would never have gone the adoption route: once I’d actually carried it and delivered it, I would, being who I am, be attached to it. And I never wanted such an attachment to exist. I didn’t want to be separated from any child I might have, and I didn’t want to raise one either. I also knew I’d be a shit parent. So the whole idea of actually going through with a pregnancy was unacceptable to me, the disruption of my life would be enormous no matter what path I took.
Guys can have kids and never even know. WAY different.
I didn’t say to stick a hot poker up his dick, did I?
From what I understand the procedure is reversible. And why should the woman get herself sterilized? The man would already be…besides it would be by CHOICE. NOT forced. If a guy doesn’t want to be a father than why the fuck is he running around with such a risk hanging over his head? All risk involved could be negated by a relatively simple office procedure. If the man decides to have kids one day then he can get it reversed. If he can’t afford to do that than I guess he can’t afford to have kid(s) anyways.
I’ve never heard that sterilization is reversible. Or that there couldn’t ever be medical complications that prevented it from being reversible…
But DUDE. “Why should the woman get herself sterilized? The man would already be…besides it would be by CHOICE. If a guy doesn’t want to be a father than why the fuck is he running around with such a risk hanging over his head?” How can you not see the massive double standard here? You are requiring the man to get sterilized, or it’s all his fault - but the woman? Naah. She doesn’t have to do anything! It’s not her fault regardless - it’s the man’s!
You are practically defining double standard. A single standard would be to say “If you don’t get sterilized, man or woman, you have to let the child be born and then pay to raise it if that happens.” But saying that only men should be expected to get sterilized, and claiming that’s not a double standard? Good lord!
I didn’t say anything about pregnancy. Where the hell are you getting that? I’m only talking about children after they’re born. I didn’t say jackshit about any paternal responsibilities during pregnancy.
This is not only utter false, but is also hypocritical coming from you. You haven’t even expresed an opinion on the actual thread topic. You came into this thread for no other reason than to attack me. I suspect you don’t even disagree with me on the basic topic. You just don’t like me. You actually think you’re scoring a meaningful point if you can argue that my inartful phrasing that “a woman can’t give up a baby with the father’s permission,” is not technically true if the father is unknown or makes no attempt to assert any rights. In the context of the actual debate, that’s an irrelevant distinction since the assertion I was rebutting was that mothers and fathers do not have equal parental rights after birth. While it may be a successful, pedantic attack on my phrasing, it actually changes nothing about the actual debate, is a digression from the debate, and has no motivation but to try to get Dio to say he was wrong about something. I wasn’t wrong, just sloppy in my phrasing.
Now, do you actually have an opinion on the OP or do you just want to make snotty remarks about a particular poster?
I looked this up the last time this was discussed. It is reversible in a certain percentage, significantly below 50% unless things have changed. Even if it isn’t a responsible man that knows he might want kids some day can have sperm frozen as I already suggested.
Of course both vasectomies and freezing sperm cost money that the average horny guy won’t spend. They’d rather take the risk and then complain about an unwanted pregnancy.
