Only if Mom says so

To say that one case was decided in a counterintuitive way is not to say that the "law doesn't care." Was he? Presumably a jury didn't think so, or otherwise they surely would have applied the same legal structures that prevent rapists from suing for paternity.I can hardly comment on an unknown case. Did you have a link, specifically? A lot of these things are blown totally out of proportion by antifeminists. You don't organize your posts by chapter or verse, incidentally. Nonetheless, two of your three supposed, sourceless examples were situations where men had consensual sex and then were careless with their ejaculate. Nobody forced them to ejaculate; they chose to. What guy, Rrhain? So, what? He should be able to put her child up for adoption?Look, we tried it your way. We tried it where men had no obligations to out-of-wedlock children that they fathered. We tried that for a thousand years of Western history.The results weren't great. They were so bad we decided to do it differently. It was great for well-off men, but it sucked for everybody else. You're thinking of Holmes, I think. I didn't bring it up. Holmes brought it up. And what a surprise, his male-entitlement buddy showed up for the gang-bang. Or, use birth control. Or, have an abortion. See, that's the option. That's the choice. Men have the same choice, too. They can have all the abortions they want, just as soon as they can become pregnant. That's kind of the problem, since that's what's on topic here. Oh, phfft on "having to pay child support." That's possibly the easiest obligation to duck. Again, this is just a corner case. Women raping men, though the source of conniption fits for MRA's, hardly represents anything approaching an epidemic.You're much, much more likely to be raped by a man. In that case, ejaculate all you like. I'm pretty sure even you and Holmes would have to agree that men aren't likely to get pregnant any time soon. Or, have an abortion. See, that's the choice. And men can have abortions too, as soon as they start getting pregnant. Hey, so I guess there's parity after all.

To say nothing of bacterial or viral infections (including Hep C) that may result from drinking urine.If there's blood in the urine and the "donor" is HIV+, there's a (small) chance of HIV infection. He intended to cause uterine hemorrhage. Page not found – FreeAdvice Criminal negligence, criminal recklessness, criminal endangerment, wilful blindness. You mean to tell me that legal authorities have no expertise in what constitutes "assault"?Yeah. Good luck with that.

Uhhhh... again the deal with X would be dosage and usage. That it might be harmful in some amounts over a certain time does not argue that it always does in any amount over any time. Your own article did not detail the amounts necessary to effect humans, noting only that one animal had taken an unspecified amount for 4 days.As far as drinking urine, once again you lil' quote-miner you, the section you posted was from the Chinese Association of Urine Therapy, and was limited in scope. The site itself introduces it with "Unfortunately, however, not everybody can just jump right in and start drinking their own urine without negative side effects." and directly after the section you mined was the qualifying sentence: "These symptoms appear more frequently in patients suffering long term or more serious illnesses..." Plus it goes on to state that these recur a number of times before they go away and then the healing begins. But hey, why worry about what's actually written?The page you cited was debunking the use of urine as a therapy, which is something I wasn't claiming. Among its comments (not those of someone they are quoting)... Oh yes, if you happen to have diseases, your piss might actually contain something harmful. Duh. If you get water out of a dump it might also contain something harmful. Those special cases do not make the products in discussion harmful. So let me get this straight. If SHE had decided to take RU486, her intent was to harm herself, and not remove the fetus? Or does this just pertain to the guy? If so, why?And again with the list of harmful effects. Did they happen to this girl or what? Is this supposed to indicate how harmful the drug is or not? Mmmmmmm... me likey. I agree with these, particularly if she did suffer some physical problem. These are wholly different than intending to cause harm to her. Rather it is based on his indifference to what might happen to her, when trying to kill the fetus. So much smart-ass, so few logic skillz. Yes I'd say they are experts in telling me how their community defines something. Is that what's under discussion? Because from what I understand this thread is about the appropriateness of legal definitions. I mean by your logic then, you agree that his inducing an abortion WAS attempted homicide. After all he WAS charged with it. They would be the experts on that, right?Here's the quote again... So I guess the experts have spoken, right?Pwnd again. lol. Whatta punk.Edited by Silent H, : big fixEdited by Silent H, : equal scrubbing power, less abrasive

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

To say that one case was decided in a counterintuitive way is not to say that the "law doesn't care."

---

"One" case? Remember how you've been complaining to Silent H about arguing honestly and not misrepresenting people? You need to take your own medicine. I put forward three and they are just the tip of the iceberg.

quote:

---

Was he?

---

Yes, he was.

quote:

---

Presumably a jury didn't think so, or otherwise they surely would have applied the same legal structures that prevent rapists from suing for paternity.

---

Except that the law doesn't care about that. That's the entire point: When he rapes her, he has no claims upon the child though he is still responsible for providing for any child that results (which is as it should be). But when she rapes him, he's still responsible.This is because the standard is that support is a right of the CHILD. How many times do I have to point this out to you before you remember it? According to the law, it doesn't matter how the child came into being: The child needs to be supported. And in the general case, that makes perfect sense. But there are legitimate times where he should not be responsible. The law currently does not allow for that so it is not surprising to find men engaging in activity that ensures they won't pay child support.That doesn't condone their actions. It simply points out that men face an actual problem.

quote:

---

I can hardly comment on an unknown case. Did you have a link, specifically?

---

I gave you a reference and it is not the first time it has been brought up in this forum. Do I have to do your homework, too?

quote:

---

A lot of these things are blown totally out of proportion by antifeminists.

---

And then there are the sexists who think that "if he doesn't want to risk being a parent, he shouldn't have sex." Strange how we don't consider that to be a legitimate claim when applied to women. Why the double-standard?

quote:

---

You don't organize your posts by chapter or verse, incidentally.

---

Considering that I had only made one post to this thread prior to your response to it, it should be quite easy for you to find my words and quote back to me where I even hinted that "men have no choice but to ejaculate," as you put it. Remember how you've been complaining to Silent H about arguing honestly and not misrepresenting people? You need to take your own advice. Remember how you've pointed out that "here on the internet" (Message 39 of the "What the H - Holmes is back!" thread), our words are persistent? Time for you to actually put that to the test.Here's the link: Message 121.Where did I even hint that "men are somehow penis-slaves that can't possibly be relied upon to resist inseminating an inviting, warm hole"? It should be easy to do, crash, since there are only 295 words to go through and they're all in one place.

quote:

---

Nonetheless, two of your three supposed, sourceless examples were situations where men had consensual sex and then were careless with their ejaculate.

---

So if she's "careless with her eggs," then she should be forced to carry the baby to term and raise it, right?

quote:

---

What guy, Rrhain?

---

The one in the reference I gave you. You did read the post before responding, yes?

quote:

---

So, what? He should be able to put her child up for adoption?

---

No, he should be able to terminate his parental rights to it just as she is. If they're not married and she decides not to keep the baby, he can adopt it...but she has no obligation to provide support. Her act of giving up the baby terminates her obligation.If we truly believe in the concept that the decision to have sex is separate from the decision to become a parent, then he should have the same right.

quote:

---

Look, we tried it your way. We tried it where men had no obligations to out-of-wedlock children that they fathered. We tried that for a thousand years of Western history.

---

No, we didn't. The only way it works is if women are free to terminate their pregnancies. We haven't really gotten anywhere near that.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You're a fine one to talk about honesty.

---

​

You're thinking of Holmes, I think.

---

Nope, you. You're the one saying, and I quote: Therefore, you will need to show where I even hinted at such a thing. Remember, here on the internet, what I say and do does persist.

quote:

---

I didn't bring it up. Holmes brought it up.

---

But you were responding to it. You were the one who said that men should "use birth control" as if that had any bearing on what the law says. If you didn't think it was important, perhaps you should have reconsidered.

quote:

---

Men have the same choice, too. They can have all the abortions they want, just as soon as they can become pregnant.

---

And women can terminate their responsibilities to their children all they want...just as soon as men are allowed to, too. That means even in adoption, women are still responsible to provide support.If nobody can force her to use her body with regard to being a parent against her will, why can he be forced to use his body with regard to being a parent against his will? She has a way out. He doesn't. In fact, she has a way out such that she is no longer responsible while he is.

quote:

---

That's kind of the problem, since that's what's on topic here.

---

I know. But since you were wandering away, I was trying to let you know that your claims were not justified. I didn't want you to start pulling things out of your ass by trying to tie my opinion about whether or not a woman should be allowed to have an abortion with my letting you know that you were wandering into fantasy land. Didn't seem to work, however, because look at what you ended up saying: So when you are done lecturing Silent H about arguing with honesty and not misrepresenting people, you need to start following your own advice.

quote:

---

Oh, phfft on "having to pay child support." That's possibly the easiest obligation to duck.

---

Not in this day and age. The government has gotten involved to ensure that your wages will be garnished. Clinton signed UIFSA back in 1996. It makes it very easy for the custodial parent to file a wage garnishment on the non-custodial parent, even if the other parent is in another state. That's a good thing. It's a shame that the Bush administration has yanked funding for this program.But, the issue isn't the deadbeats. It's why someone should be forced into becoming a parent against his or her will in the first place.

quote:

---

Women raping men, though the source of conniption fits for MRA's, hardly represents anything approaching an epidemic.

---

Does it matter how rare it is? If it happens even once, shouldn't we treat him fairly?Hint: It isn't as rare as you think.

quote:

---

I'm pretty sure even you and Holmes would have to agree that men aren't likely to get pregnant any time soon.

---

What does that have to do with anything? Isn't this about becoming a parent against your will? If he should just "not have sex," then the same thing applies to her meaning that abortion should be illegal nor should she be allowed to give the baby up for adoption.

quote:

---

quote:

---

If she was so "cavalier" as to have sex, then surely she should be forced to carry to term and raise any child that comes from it.

---

​

Or, have an abortion.

---

No, she shouldn't. If she were so "cavalier" as to have sex, then she must take responsibility for that decision and carry and raise any baby that comes from it. No adoption, no abortion. She should have been more careful as to where her eggs wound up. You act like women have no choice but to ovulate, crash, that women are some uterus-slaves that can't possibly be relied upon to resist becoming inseminated from an inviting, erect penis.Surely you can see how ridiculous that sounds.Now, how this relates to the OP: Beyond the question of "He poisoned her" (which really is independent of her being pregnant), there are really two questions: Should abortion ever be allowed and if so, should we allow people to have an abortion simply because they don't want to become parents right now. We seem to be a bit wishy-washy regarding this, saying yes for some people but no for others (on a whole host of criterion including sex, financial situation, where you live, etc.) As a society, we haven't figured out exactly what our feelings are regarding sexuality.Personally, I feel that everyone has the right to decide if and when he or she will become a parent. And to that end, they have the right to determine how they will or will not do so. Suppose I have a car. I'm going to get rid of it. I have publically declared that I am going to take the car to the junkyard and have it turned into a cube.That doesn't give you the right to steal the car before I do so. Nor does it give you the right to be off the hook should you crash into me. You're still liable for the value of the car, even though I was going to get rid of it for scrap. It's my car, my decision. I might change my mind at the last second. Until that car is signed over to the junkyard, I'm the only one who gets to decide what happens to the car.But all of that is predicated on the idea that we can destroy the car in the first place and that I can do so at my discretion. If the car is jointly owned, doesn't it say something about how we feel about that if we allow one person to walk away but not the other? Just because one happens to own the garage the car is kept in? If it's wrong for one person to walk away, why on earth is it OK for the other owner to do so?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Try not to be dishonest at the same time you're accusing me of it. I don't need a degree in mathematics to count; you presented three cases but only one was rape. Who was? Are you sure about that? Citation? Should he not be? If support is a right of a child, why should it be obviated because of the actions of a third party? What reference? Message 121 is where you hinted that. When you make an argument that a poor, poor man was the victim of sperm-theft because he had consensual sex, what else am I to conclude but that you think that men simply don't have any choice but to have sex when the option is presented to them?If you didn't want to hint it, stop hinting it. If you're not here to whine about male entitlement and privilege, stop whining, already. What reference? Sure. Carry it, or use birth control, or get an abortion.You know, choice. It's not that hard a concept; I can't imagine why you're struggling with it. And? What, you think we invented abortion in 1970? Don't be ridiculous. In message 121. Which I replied to. What, it wasn't clear that I was replying to the only message you'd posted in the thread?If you didn't want to hint it, why did you? Why construe men as blameless, volitionless producers of sperm so relentlessly preyed upon by predatory mothers? So I wasn't the one who brought it up, was I? Try not to be dishonest at the same time you're accusing me of it. It only makes you look ridiculous. Use his body? Rape is rape, Rrhain. If somebody raped him then let charges be brought forth. If charges were brought forth and a conviction was obtained then the issue is over. If a child exists, it has a right to support from its parents regardless of whatever crimes they're guilty of.Or is your view that we should "let the crimes of the mother be visited on the child", but only when a man would benefit from it? It's nonsense. Rape is rape. Let it be prosecuted, I don't have a problem with convicting rapists male or female.But the child has the right to some support from its parents, or from whoever has volunteered to step into that role.For all that you're talking about parity, you seem to forget that adoption for the mother is a two-step process. The mother doesn't dissolve her obligations as a parent, she transfers them to someone else.And your putative male can do precisely the same thing, just as soon as he can find someone to volunteer. Perfect parity. And it isn't as common as you imply. Sure. Similarly, it's just as ridiculous for you to imply that men are regularly robbed of their choice to father children by manipulative sperm-stealing women. Who forced those guys to have intercourse that they admitted was consensual?And try not to forget that you have one case of rape when you reply, ok? I mean you wouldn't want to be dishonest, would you? Because we're talking about people, and not cars? And because your putative male can walk away, the very instant he's able to find someone to transfer those obligations to via adoption?

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

you presented three cases but only one was rape.

---

Indeed. And? What does that have to do with anything? The point is that the law doesn't care about the man's intent. If his sperm winds up fertilizing an egg, then he is responsible, no matter how that sperm wound up there up to and including the forcible taking of it from him.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Yes, he was.

---

​

Who was?

---

The man in the reference I gave you in my original post. You did read the post before responding, didn't you? No, I'm not going to tell you his name because I'm not here to do your homework for you. Remember that complaint of yours about behaving with honesty? You need to start taking your own advice.

quote:

---

Are you sure about that? Citation?

---

You mean you didn't read the post before you responded? I already gave it to you. Remember that complain of yours about behaving with honesty? You need to start taking your own advice. If you aren't going to bother reading the posts to which you respond, what makes you think that anybody is going to take you seriously?And here's a thought: Did you stop to think of doing your own research? This isn't the first time this subject has been brought up here, crash. Have you forgotten already? We already talked about this scenario and the specific case I'm referring to.

quote:

---

If support is a right of a child, why should it be obviated because of the actions of a third party?

---

For the same reasons she gets to sever her ties. If he takes custody of his child (whom he has to adopt!), then she is not obligated to provide support. And yet, if she takes custody of her child, why does he become obligated to provide support?If she's raped, she has no obligation to the child (Division of Child Support Enforcement ex rel. Esther M. v. Mary L., No. 94-33812 (1994.DE.19031)). So why is it that when he is raped, he's still liable (and you already have this reference).

quote:

---

What reference?

---

The one in my original post. You did read it before responding, yes?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Where did I even hint that "men are somehow penis-slaves that can't possibly be relied upon to resist inseminating an inviting, warm hole"?

---

​

Message 121 is where you hinted that.

---

Then you should be able to give me the exact words.

quote:

---

When you make an argument that a poor, poor man was the victim of sperm-theft because he had consensual sex, what else am I to conclude but that you think that men simply don't have any choice but to have sex when the option is presented to them?

---

Huh? Where did that come from what I said? Be specific. Exact quotes, crash. Chapter and verse. I've given you the link...surely you can come up with the exact words used.

quote:

---

If you didn't want to hint it, stop hinting it.

---

What hint, crash? What were the exact words used?We're back to the remake of D.O.A.:When I say it, that's implying. How you take it, that's inferring.Chapter and verse, crash. It should be easy for you as there weren't that many words and they're all in the same place.

quote:

---

What reference?

---

The one in my original post. You did read it before responding, yes?

quote:

---

quote:

---

So if she's "careless with her eggs," then she should be forced to carry the baby to term and raise it, right?

---

​

Sure. Carry it, or use birth control, or get an abortion.

---

No, if the birth control fails, she is not allowed an abortion. She was careless with her eggs, therefore she is forced to carry to term and raise the child. No abortion, no adoption. The decision is made the moment she decided to have sex.

quote:

---

You know, choice.

---

But apparently she has the choice to sever all her obligations to the child she brought into this world while he doesn't. If she's raped, she isn't responsible. If he's raped, he is.

quote:

---

I can't imagine why you're struggling with it.

---

It's because he doesn't have a choice. Now, let's not be disingenuous and say that he has a choice not to have sex. We're talking about the choice to become a parent. If his choice to have sex means he is choosing to become a parent, then it necessarily follows that her choice to have sex means she is choosing to become a parent and she is therefore not allowed to abort or put the baby up for adoption.

quote:

---

quote:

---

No, we didn't. The only way it works is if women are free to terminate their pregnancies.

---

​

And? What, you think we invented abortion in 1970? Don't be ridiculous.

---

Right, because it has been so simple for a woman to get an abortion. Most hospitals provide them at low cost and with privacy and confidentiality guaranteed, right? As molbiogirl pointed out, there is one provider of abortion in the entire state of South Dakota. I believe the same situation exists in Louisiana...which also requires that you must visit the doctor twice: Once for the initial consultation and then you must have a 24-hour "waiting period" before the actual procedure...meaning most women can't actually get one. Well over 80% of women in the United States cannot get an abortion if they want one given the restrictions that have been placed on the procedure.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Therefore, you will need to show where I even hinted at such a thing.

---

​

In message 121. Which I replied to.

---

But what were the exact words, crash? All you've done is claim that I did. See, here on the internet, what I say and do does persist. You can provide the exact words I used.

quote:

---

If you didn't want to hint it, why did you? Why construe men as blameless, volitionless producers of sperm so relentlessly preyed upon by predatory mothers?

---

And how did I hint this, precisely? Chapter and verse, crash. Exact quote, please. See, here on the internet, what I say and do does persist. You can provide the exact words I used.

quote:

---

Use his body? Rape is rape, Rrhain. If somebody raped him then let charges be brought forth.

---

They were. That wasn't good enough. When she is raped, she can sever ties to the child the rape brought about. When he is raped, he can't.

quote:

---

If a child exists, it has a right to support from its parents regardless of whatever crimes they're guilty of.

---

Except that isn't true. If she is raped, she is not obligated to raise the child that is produced (reference above). When he is raped, he is.

quote:

---

Or is your view that we should "let the crimes of the mother be visited on the child", but only when a man would benefit from it? It's nonsense.

---

Huh? From what anal cavity did you pull that? I've repeatedly pointed out that she doesn't have any obligations to the child that results from her being raped and I have not indicated that this is a bad thing at all. So where did you get this idea that I'm saying he should be able to get out of paying child support for a child that was created from his rape but she shouldn't?If she can get out of it (and I think she should), then surely he should be able to get out of it, too.

quote:

---

But the child has the right to some support from its parents, or from whoever has volunteered to step into that role.

---

So why does she get to sever ties from the child that was produced from her rape?

quote:

---

The mother doesn't dissolve her obligations as a parent, she transfers them to someone else.

---

Ahem...which dissolves her obligation as a parent. She doesn't need to provide any support for the child. When a man adopts his own child (!) from the mother, she no longer has any obligation to it as a parent. And yet, there is no reciprocal path for him. She can give their child to him and walk away. He can't give their child to her and do the same.

quote:

---

And your putative male can do precisely the same thing, just as soon as he can find someone to volunteer.

---

You mean like the mother? If she wants the child, she is free to keep it.

quote:

---

And it isn't as common as you imply.

---

Oh? And how common do I imply it to be? Remember, my statement is that if it happens even once, he should be treated fairly.

quote:

---

Similarly, it's just as ridiculous for you to imply that men are regularly robbed of their choice to father children by manipulative sperm-stealing women.

---

Erwin L.D. v. Myla Jean L., 41 Ark. App. 16, 847 S.W.2d 45 (1993)
Beard v. Skipper, 182 Mich. App. 352, 451 N.W.2d 614 (1990)
Faske v. Bonanno, 137 Mich. App. 202, 357 N.W.2d 860 (1984)
Murphy v. Meyers, 560 N.W.2d 752 (Minn. Ct. App. (1997)
Welzenbach v. Powers, 139 N.H. 688, 660 A.2d 1133 (1995)
Pamela P. v. Frank S., 59 N.Y.2d 1, 462 N.Y.S.2d 819 (1983)
Weinberg v. Omar E., 106 A.D.2d 448, 482 N.Y.S.2d 540 (1984)
Douglas R. v. Suzanne M., 127 Misc. 2d 745, 487 N.Y.S.2d 244 (1985)
Smith v. Price, 74 N.C. App. 413, 328 S.E.2d 811 (1985)
Yost v. Unanuae, 1986 Ohio Lexis CA-6928 (1986)
Hughes v. Hutt, 500 Pa. 209, 455 A.2d 623 (1983)
Linda D. v. Fritz C., 38 Wash. App. 288, 687 P.2d 223 (1984)And that was with just 10 seconds effort researching the issue and those are simply cases of fraud. By the way, they were all rejected as the standard is that fraud on her part is not sufficient to obviate his obligations.

quote:

---

Who forced those guys to have intercourse that they admitted was consensual?

---

But that's just it: In two of the cases I mentioned, there was no consensual intercourse. One guy had oral sex with a condom. Another guy was raped.If she can sever her obligations with respect to the child even though she had consensual intercourse, why can't he?

quote:

---

Because we're talking about people, and not cars?

---

And the concept of analogy escapes you, why?

quote:

---

And because your putative male can walk away, the very instant he's able to find someone to transfer those obligations to via adoption?

---

You mean like the mother? If the couple aren't married and she doesn't want the baby, she can put the baby up for adoption, he has right of first refusal and if he takes it, she can walk away. Why is it he can't do the same? If he doesn't want the baby, why can't he put it up for adoption, she has right of first refusal and if she takes it, he can walk away.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

quote:

---

If potential humans can be "murdered", then what other rights do they have? Can a pregnant woman face criminal charges for smoking, drinking, overeating, undereating, exercising too much, not exercising enough, driving without a seatbelt, driving with a seatbelt... because of the potential danger to a potential life?

---

...or using an IUD?

quote:

---

S. F. also contends that he did not have consensual intercourse with T.M. and that he was a victim of a sexual assault by T. M. He argues that to require him to support the child that resulted from this nonconsensual intercourse would be to punish him, to deprive him of his property rights, and to deny him equal protection under the law. We note that S. F. does not contest that he is the biological father of T. M.'s child. A father has both a legal and moral duty to support his minor children.

---

The court ruled that whether he was raped was irrelevant to his requirement to support the child.

quote:

---

In Mercer County Dep't of Social Services v. Alf M., 155 Misc. 2d 703, 589 N.Y.S.2d 288 (Fam. Ct. 1992), the father claimed that, because he was 16 years old and the mother was 21 years old when they had sexual intercourse, he was the victim of statutory rape and could not legally consent to the intercourse that had resulted in the mother's pregnancy. He contended that he should not be held
legally responsible for the child. The court affirmed the finding of paternity and the imposition of child support payments

---

This was one of the cases they cited to confirm this position:- if a woman has sex with a minor boy and gets pregnant, the minor boy still has to pay child support for any resultant child. I don't know what the law the other way is, but I think these 'antifeminists' would suggest that underage girls would not be forced to look after a child that they had had after a consensually aged man had had sex with her. To confirm this they quote this:

quote:

---

"'The mother's alleged fault or wrongful conduct is irrelevant.... The primary purpose of a paternity proceeding is to protect the welfare of the illegitimate child and, accordingly, the mother's conduct should have no bearing on the father's duty of support nor upon the manner in which the parents' respective obligations are determined [citation omitted].'"

---

I think the 'antifeminists' are arguing that the father's alleged fault or wrongful conduct is relevant, but the mother's is not and that this represents an inequality. I'll give you a link, I found it acting on information in Message 121.

Nothing; it's just an indication of your dissembling. Why would a car be analogous to a person? He can do exactly the same. If he can find someone to volunteer to take on his obligations, he can walk away from them, just like the mother can. If, indeed, he can convince the mother to take on his obligations and waive child support, he ducks the obligation.It's perfect parity. You're asking me why he can't duck the obligation and leave the mother to find someone to meet them. Why on Earth should he have that right?That's what it comes down to, for antifeminists - special rights for men.

I think it's astounding that any time there's a thread about an unfortunate situation that affects women, certain individuals pop up to steer the conversation towards unfortunate but irrelevant situations that affect only men.I urge you not to play along, Mod. One or two cases every few years of paternity through fraud simply don't represent anywhere near the level of inequality that women are subject to every single day in every facet of our culture.But that's antifeminism in a nutshell - anything to avoid discussing the obstacles that affect women. Hence, all the "what about the MEN!" whining.

Maybe I should throw a pity party and go sulk in a corner, claiming that the system hates men. It would contrast nicely the paranoia made by a couple members that there is some grand conspiracy to despise women with a hate eternal.Some men claim that they have virtually no paternal rights, that society unfairly favors the woman in all cases. He says he has to pay child support while she reaps all the benefits.Well, truth be told, I hate these kinds of arguments where a husband is against his wife, where a girlfriend is against her boyfriend, where men and women are using their personal problems to extrapolate and extend these on sexist scale.Its not right. Its just sad. I wish they would find a way to work out their differences with love and compassion. This bickering between the sexes is silly because it is an argument against a specific sex, not on an individual basis. Its no different than racism, where you blame an entire race, rather than basing one's indignation on the individual level.The idea of equality was that we would all be equal. Then lets make it equitable.Is it messed up that a man can take all the precautions only to have the women dig through the trash so she can trap him in to a relationship with her? Does he have any obligation to the child he doesn't want?Obviously one has to ask why she has the right of choice, but he doesn't. He never has a choice. That's far from being equitable. If he is crying, pleading, and begging to keep a baby, she can tell him to piss off. If he says, hey, stop being crazy and digging through the garbage and grabbing a turkey baster because I am not emotionally ready to be a father -- doesn't matter. He has no choice.But as for me, I think of these things in an entirely different light than many people, supposing such a thing would have happened to me. While it may be a moral travesty for her to have done that, it would have been equally tragic for him to just walk away and wash his hands clean of it.This comes down to accountability for one's actions. He still made his choice when he decided to sleep with a woman before he understood how insane she was. This is precisely why our society should not be viewing sex so flippantly. There are a myriad of other reasons why, not just this one example, which is in an extreme minority.Secondly, that is his child! Even though it was messed up for her to have done that, how can you just walk away? Wouldn't you feel like you are abandoning your son or daughter to live a life with a crazy woman? Wouldn't worry about their well-being? Wouldn't you want to be there for your child to protect her/him?And that's another thing. Whatever happened to the Darwinian belief about the protection of the progeny? What a farce, given just how many people avoid, like the plague, a child. I thought our ravenous sexual appetites were supposed to be proof of this. What a sham.Back to the topic at hand: Two wrongs don't make a right. A man or a woman can be essentially raped, and forced in to a life they never wanted. Its tragic. There is no other way to describe it. However, two wrongs don't make a right. They never have, they never will.And while a fetus may look like an indiscernable blob to some mow, but there is no question that all of the genetic material is present to be just like you, me, and the rest of us. This is how every SINGLE one of us got our start. We all developed from fetus to infant to toddler to child to teenager to adult.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

And, yet, not everybody believes that this is sufficient to be considered a new, fully-fledged human being.It's not just atheists vs. Christians, or pro-life vs. pro-choice. For instance the Mormons believe that, while a conceptus has it's unique genetic code, it's still not a person - doesn't have a soul - until implantation, when it attaches to the uterine wall. In times past the legal standard for the beginning of life was at "quickening", the earliest point at which the movements of the fetus could be detected by touch.Any point that you would like to establish as the beginning of life, NJ, is going to be as completely arbitrary and personal as the point I would choose, or the point the Mormons choose. We can't simply privilege your belief over the Mormon's belief, or my belief; neither can my belief be privileged over yours.Thus it's obvious that the appropriate compromise is to defer to the individual conscience of she whose body is host; the mother. If the mother believes that life begins at birth then she can abort freely any time until then. If the mother believes, as you do, that life begins at conception then we have no power to force her to abort her pregnancy after that.That, as you may have recognized, is the pro-choice position. And it's why it's so incoherent to speak about "compromising" with pro-lifers. The position of choice already is a compromise; it's the perfect compromise that respects individual conscience and individual belief on the beginning of life. It's the compromise that protects individualism.

crasfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

it's just an indication of your dissembling.

---

Where? Be specific. My words are there for all to see, crash. All you have to do is provide the specific words that I used that even hinted at what you claimed I was saying.

quote:

---

Why would a car be analogous to a person?

---

Because it is something that is valued, requires care and maintenance, and can be transferred to another person with the proper paperwork.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why is it he can't do the same? If he doesn't want the baby, why can't he put it up for adoption, she has right of first refusal and if she takes it, he can walk away.

---

​

He can do exactly the same. If he can find someone to volunteer to take on his obligations, he can walk away from them, just like the mother can.

---

You do realize that your second sentence contradicts your first, yes?If she doesn't want the baby, she can give it up for adoption where he gets the first crack at taking it (adopting his own child?!) If he does decide he wants to keep it, she's done. She no longer has any obligation to the child.But if he doesn't want the baby, he does not have the ability to give it up for adoption at all let alone where she gets the first crack at taking it and if she does decide she wants to keep it, he's done where he no longer has any obligation to the child."If he can find someone"? You mean like the mother? If she wants to keep the child, she can have it. If he wants the child, he can have it. In the former case, he is still obligated. In the latter case, she is not.Why the double-standard?

quote:

---

If, indeed, he can convince the mother to take on his obligations and waive child support, he ducks the obligation.

---

Nice try, but we've been through this: If she keeps the child, his obligations for support cannot be waived as they are the right of the child. If, however, he keeps the child, her obligations for support suddenly vanish because the child is no longer hers.

quote:

---

You're asking me why he can't duck the obligation and leave the mother to find someone to meet them.

---

Close, but not quite. I'm asking you why she is alloed to duck the obligation and leave the father to do it.You're conflating two different scenarios (remember your rants about arguing with honesty?) You're conflating the child being given to a third party and the child being given to the father. In the former case, both the mother and the father no longer have any obligation to the child. Both sets of ties are severed and the child is now the responsibility of the third party.In the latter case, only the mother's ties are severed. She gets to walk away because the father has decided to care for his own child.So why can't he do the same thing? If the child isn't going to a third party, if she has decided to keep it, why not let him sever his ties, too, because the mother has decided to care for her own child?

quote:

---

Why on Earth should he have that right?

---

Because she does.Either they both get to do it or neither do. The current situation of she-can-but-he-can't is sexism, plain and simple.Special rights for women.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

No.The typical street dose has been reported to be between 75 and 120 mg and one dose is sufficient.Dosage is only relevant to the animal studies of serotonin levels. The cite is appropriate.One may suffer those side effects if one drinks as little as one ounce of urine. Criminal negligence, criminal recklessness, criminal endangerment, wilful blindness.UTIs in men are (often) asymptomatic. He intended to cause harm. His ignorance of the full range of possible harm is part of his crime. And, as I said earlier, because the law is on the books, he should be charged with it.Patel should also be charged with assault.He wasn't.Which has been the point of contention all along. Ah. Such hubris.With such a fine legal mind, perhaps you ought to consider donating your services to your local Legal Aid society.

I told you, already. Message 121. The whole thing.I'm not going to quote your whole post, and I don't think you've forgotten what you wrote. But it's an incomplete analogy, because a car has no rights of its own, unlike a child. Hence, it's a faulty analogy.Do you really not understand the concept of a faulty analogy? We're done talking about cars. Because she's found someone to meet those obligations in her place. It's not sufficient for her to drop the child off in the street and say "ok, you're adopted Junior, don't come back now." That's child abandonment, and the fact that mothers can and are charged and convicted of it indicates that mothers don't have the right to unilaterally dissolve their obligations at will, contrary to your assertion. Sure, if the mother agrees. He can't force another person to meet his obligations, no more than a mother can force another person to adopt her child against their will. As I've said, there is none. When he can find someone to voluntarily take on his obligations - by adopting his child - his obligations are dissolved. Same as the mother. She's not. She has to find someone to take on her obligations, by adoption. He can do exactly the same thing, if the mother volunteers to take on his obligations. Perfect parity. But she doesn't. She can no more force another person to take on her obligations than the father can force another person - like the mother - to take on his.It's perfect parity. There's no double standard. There's just special rights, special privileges you're asserting that it's unfair for men to have, even though women don't have them either.It's the refrain of the antifeminist. If men don't have special rights they're being oppressed. It's nonsense.