Paternal Responsibility

[maggenpye]

You know this is a parody of the OP’s position, don’t you?

'Cause this is the second time you’ve quoted and respoded to it as though it’s a serious proposal.

[ZPG_Zealot]

@miss_elizabeth

Oh my god.

BOTH PARENTS HAVE THE EXACT SAME RIGHTS IN REGARDS TO ADOPTION; THEY HAVE TO AGREE OR NEITHER CAN GIVE THE CHILD UP!

What is so freaking hard about this?! And, no, the state doesn’t “give” her custody and “force” the man to pay; very few fathers are interested in taking custody (BECAUSE IT’S HARDER) and would rather pay support. There is some discrimination in family court, true, but it is much improved these days. Women do NOT just get custody, if the father wants it too.

The issue is that men do not want custody and they also don’t want to pay, and to that the state says “Tough titty.” Which is as it should be.

ETA: and men DO have the right to give up the child if they can find a willing father, anyway. This happens ALL THE TIME, where a mom remarries and the new stepdad adopts her kids. What you can’t do is just bail and leave the child with one parent because you “don’t feel like being a dad”.

The fair question for the fathers is not do you want custody?, but do you want to be father at all?

[LeeshaJoy]

@maggenpye

You know this is a parody of the OP’s position, don’t you?

'Cause this is the second time you’ve quoted and respoded to it as though it’s a serious proposal.

ZPG is the same woman who equates adoption with kidnapping children, thinks offering a handshake marks a man as a potential rapist, and advocates strangling an infant for the crime of being locked in a room with you while crying.

All evidence points to her being a sociopath.

[ZPG_Zealot]

@LeeshaJoy

ZPG is the same woman who equates adoption with kidnapping children, thinks offering a handshake marks a man as a potential rapist, and advocates strangling an infant for the crime of being locked in a room with you while crying.

All evidence points to her being a sociopath.

Actually I advocated strangling the infant if and only if ending the crying was a matter of perserving one’s life or sanity. It’s called self-defense and is recognized by almost every code of law ever written as a justification for taking a life. The fact that I am willing to admit I would do it if necessary only points to me not being a hypocrite.

[LeeshaJoy]

@ZPG_Zealot

Actually I advocated strangling the infant if and only if ending the crying was a matter of perserving one’s life or sanity. It’s called self-defense and is recognized by almost every code of law ever written as a justification for taking a life. The fact that I am willing to admit I would do it if necessary only points to me not being a hypocrite.

I would argue that if you’re seriously contemplating strangling an infant, for any reason, the ship has already sailed on “preserving one’s sanity.”

[ZPG_Zealot]

@maggenpye

You know this is a parody of the OP’s position, don’t you?

'Cause this is the second time you’ve quoted and respoded to it as though it’s a serious proposal.

With someone who believes it’s okay to bill a man for 18 years for kid whose birth they never consented to, one can never be sure what outlandish, anti-social proposal they will come up with to deprive adults of their freedom in order to worship babies.

[erislover]

Baby worshippers. I like it.

[maggenpye]

@ZPG_Zealot

With someone who believes it’s okay to bill a man for 18 years for kid whose birth they never consented to, one can never be sure what outlandish, anti-social proposal they will come up with to deprive adults of their freedom in order to worship babies.

Not worshipping babies, protecting citizens.

Again, the men consent when they have sex without adequate protection, or outside the proscribed limits of ‘acceptable partner’ in your society.

[gamerunknown]

Again, the men consent when they have sex without adequate protection, or outside the proscribed limits of ‘acceptable partner’ in your society.

Except the law doesn’t force women to provide for the child financially or socially once she learns she’s pregnant (despite her not using adequate protection either). It definitely could and it would be horrendous if it did (by forcing couples to remain in relationships, banning abortion or adoption, etc.).

[even_sven]

@gamerunknown

Except the law doesn’t force women to provide for the child financially or socially once she learns she’s pregnant (despite her not using adequate protection either). It definitely could and it would be horrendous if it did (by forcing couples to remain in relationships, banning abortion or adoption, etc.).

A woman does, in fact, have to provide (or arrange for others to provide, should the father agree) financially and socially for any child she produces.

She doesn’t have to do jack shit for any fetuses she produces. Fine. Guys don’t have to keep fetuses company or buy them anything either. Guys are free to vacuum up any fetus they can get near. Fetuses aren’t owned jack shit by anyone.

[ZPG_Zealot]

@even_sven

A woman does, in fact, have to provide (or arrange for others to provide, should the father agree) financially and socially for any child she produces.

She doesn’t have to do jack shit for any fetuses she produces. Fine. Guys don’t have to keep fetuses company or buy them anything either. Guys are free to vacuum up any fetus they can get near. Fetuses aren’t owned jack shit by anyone.

Actually giving guys the freedom to vacuum up any fetus they can get near would solve the problem though personally, I would perfer a physican at an abortion clinic perform the procedures.