Rights of the father. Watch

Akbar2k7
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#101
Report 4 years ago
#101
(Original post by lyrical_lie)
In my experience my father refused to pay child support after he cheated on my mother. If men really don't want to pay for their children they'll find a way not to. One of my favourite quotes from my family law lecturer is parents don't have "rights" they have "rights and responsibilities". These go hand in hand. I personally hope there are enough decent guys left in the world that if they ended up being with a girl who falls pregnant that he would pitch in and help even if it wasn't emotionally, at least financially. Considering children cost a fortune to raise.

Maybe I just have too much faith in men.
Haven't had a good laugh in a while.

You are such a victim poor helpless female.

I hate the fact I am biologically hardwired to fall for the machiavellian stuff females can spit out.

Decent guys died when women became empowered, no need for decency when your strong independent women.
0
reply
Wade-
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#102
Report 4 years ago
#102
(Original post by DorianGrayism)
That makes no difference to your argument. It still has nothing to do with you since you want to kill the baby anyway.
Where did I say I want to kill any babies? It does make a difference to my argument, a baby is part of both the mum and the dad and both should have a say in whether or not you have the child.

(Original post by DorianGrayism)
Not really.

Men have a choice. Don't have sex and then you won't have a baby.

You want to lie and pretend that men are completely helpless in the matter and then leave the problem for the tax payer to pick up.
So why do you support pro choice then? Women have a choice - use contraception. It's not really fair that one parent has a more chances to get out than the other.

Men are essentially helpless, they are left with the choice of either pay for a child they never wanted or break the law. If a man doesn't want a child and woman does then she should be the one to pick up the cost, not the tax payer




Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
DorianGrayism
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#103
Report 4 years ago
#103
(Original post by Wade-)
Where did I say I want to kill any babies? It does make a difference to my argument, a baby is part of both the mum and the dad and both should have a say in whether or not you have the child.
Well, we are not talking about keeping the baby. We are talking about Men running away from their responsibility. You want to kill the baby to give them a get out clause or get the Tax Payer to pay for it.

A baby is not part of the Dad. Therefore, he has no rights over a what should be done with the woman's body.

(Original post by Wade-)
So why do you support pro choice then? Women have a choice - use contraception. It's not really fair that one parent has a more chances to get out than the other.

Men are essentially helpless, they are left with the choice of either pay for a child they never wanted or break the law. If a man doesn't want a child and woman does then she should be the one to pick up the cost, not the tax payer
Posted from TSR Mobile
Being Pro-Choice and abortion is irrelevant.

You have no right to abort a child in the same way a woman has no right to force you to wear a condom or take one of your kidneys.

The Tax Payer will always end up picking up the cost for Single parent families. I don't need to quote the criminal and poverty statistics to state the obvious.
0
reply
Wade-
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#104
Report 4 years ago
#104
(Original post by DorianGrayism)
Well, we are not talking about keeping the baby. We are talking about Men running away from their responsibility. You want to kill the baby to give them a get out clause or get the Tax Payer to pay for it.

A baby is not part of the Dad. Therefore, he has no rights over a what should be done with the woman's body.



Being Pro-Choice and abortion is irrelevant.

You have no right to abort a child in the same way a woman has no right to force you to wear a condom or take one of your kidneys.

The Tax Payer will always end up picking up the cost for Single parent families. I don't need to quote the criminal and poverty statistics to state the obvious.
Please quote where I've said I want to kill any babies.

What I have in fact repeatedly said is that men should have to choice to remove themselves from a child's life before it's born; if the woman still wants to have the baby on her then that is her choice.

It's not irrelevant at all. I don't see how you can say that a man has to use contraception if he doesn't want baby but a woman doesn't have to use contraception if she doesn't want a baby.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
ChickenMadness
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#105
Report 4 years ago
#105
(Original post by SmallTownGirl)
Whether to keep a child or abort it should be entirely the woman's choice. It's her body so it's her decision.

Fathers shouldn't be forced to have practical and emotional involvement in the child's life because that wouldn't be a positive influence on the child but the should pay for the child whatever. It's not about punishing the father it's about not punishing an innocent child.
Thats a matter of perspective. I don't view the innocent child as part of the woman's body. It's another human being.

Anyway with current laws. The woman should take full financial responsibility seeing as she has all the rights and options while the father has none. If she doesn't have the money she has the option to kill it. The man doesn't.

I agree with a previous poster that said a man should be able to opt out up to the point where abortion isn't legal anymore. So that the woman can make an informed decision (whether the man willing to be paying or not).
0
reply
DorianGrayism
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#106
Report 4 years ago
#106
(Original post by Wade-)
Please quote where I've said I want to kill any babies.

What I have in fact repeatedly said is that men should have to choice to remove themselves from a child's life before it's born; if the woman still wants to have the baby on her then that is her choice.
It makes no difference. Either way, you want men to have the option to bail on the baby.

The only difference is that you want everyone else to pay for 18 years instead for millions of children.


(Original post by Wade-)
It's not irrelevant at all. I don't see how you can say that a man has to use contraception if he doesn't want baby but a woman doesn't have to use contraception if she doesn't want a baby.


Posted from TSR Mobile
No, I didn't say that. I said that there are a multitude of options include abstinence or even a vasectomy. You are choosing to the ignore that.

A woman doesn't have to use contraception. Ok and? This is known before they have sex and a man knows she can get pregnant.
0
reply
DorianGrayism
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#107
Report 4 years ago
#107
(Original post by ChickenMadness)
Thats a matter of perspective. I don't view the innocent child as part of the woman's body. It's another human being.

Anyway with current laws. The woman should take full financial responsibility seeing as she has all the rights and options while the father has none. If she doesn't have the money she has the option to kill it. The man doesn't.

I agree with a previous poster that said a man should be able to opt out up to the point where abortion isn't legal anymore. So that the woman can make an informed decision (whether the man willing to be paying or not).
Women have full financial responsibility for 9 months. No one can force a man to pay.
0
reply
ChickenMadness
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#108
Report 4 years ago
#108
(Original post by DorianGrayism)
Women have full financial responsibility for 9 months. No one can force a man to pay.
I thought they're forced to pay for the next 18 years?
0
reply
DorianGrayism
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#109
Report 4 years ago
#109
(Original post by ChickenMadness)
I thought they're forced to pay for the next 18 years?
You wrote women "The woman should take full financial responsibility seeing as she has all the rights"

This is only the case during pregnancy. After this point, the father has rights as well.

Therefore, during Pregnancy, women are the ones who take the financial and health risks. Not men.
0
reply
ChickenMadness
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#110
Report 4 years ago
#110
(Original post by DorianGrayism)
You wrote women "The woman should take full financial responsibility seeing as she has all the rights .

This is only the case during pregnancy. After this point, the father has rights as well.

Therefore, during Pregnancy, women are the ones who take the financial and health risks. Not men.
Are you being pedantic and ignoring the point of my post? What you said is rather trivial seeing as the woman doesn't need to go through the pregnancy if she doesn't want to.

Choices. The woman has all of them. Therefore should have all the responsibility as well.
0
reply
DorianGrayism
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#111
Report 4 years ago
#111
(Original post by ChickenMadness)
Are you being pedantic and ignoring the point of my post? What you said is rather trivial seeing as the woman doesn't need to go through the pregnancy if she doesn't want to.

Choices. The woman has all of them. Therefore should have all the responsibility as well.
I am not sure how it is pedantic. They do take full financial responsibility unless someone decides to help them.

I have no clue why you are talking about the next 18 years when you were clearly referring to pregnancy in "The woman should take full financial responsibility seeing as she has all the rights and options while the father has none. If she doesn't have the money she has the option to kill it."
0
reply
ChickenMadness
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#112
Report 4 years ago
#112
(Original post by DorianGrayism)
I am not sure how it is pedantic. They do take full financial responsibility unless someone decides to help them.

I have no clue why you are talking about the next 18 years when you were clearly referring to pregnancy in "The woman should take full financial responsibility seeing as she has all the rights and options while the father has none. If she doesn't have the money she has the option to kill it."
Thought it's fairly obvious that once the baby is born someone also has to look after it and the man then has to give child support? Are these issues not connected? You are indeed being extremely pedantic and silly.

The point is that the woman can abort the baby if she wants to for whatever reason. But the man can't do anything other than accept what comes. So the man should be able to opt out since he isn't involved.
0
reply
DorianGrayism
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#113
Report 4 years ago
#113
(Original post by ChickenMadness)
Thought it's fairly obvious that once the baby is born someone also has to look after it and the man then has to give child support? Are these issues not connected? You are indeed being extremely pedantic and silly.
Ok and the Father has rights then which, again, has nothing to do with what you wrote.


(Original post by ChickenMadness)
TThe point is that the woman can abort the baby if she wants to for whatever reason. But the man can't do anything other than accept what comes. So the man should be able to opt out since he isn't involved.
Not really. It is already too late for the man to make a decision once the woman is pregnant.

He cannot opt out since it is solely the choice of the woman as she has full financial and physical responsibility of the child during pregnancy.
0
reply
username457532
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#114
Report 4 years ago
#114
(Original post by ChickenMadness)
Thats a matter of perspective. I don't view the innocent child as part of the woman's body. It's another human being.

Anyway with current laws. The woman should take full financial responsibility seeing as she has all the rights and options while the father has none. If she doesn't have the money she has the option to kill it. The man doesn't.

I agree with a previous poster that said a man should be able to opt out up to the point where abortion isn't legal anymore. So that the woman can make an informed decision (whether the man willing to be paying or not).
You are categorically wrong. A foetus is not a person and doesn't have rights until its autonomous. That isn't to say a baby who needs feeding and changing isn't a person because those jobs can be done by anyone. Whilst it is dependent on one person's body with no option of someone else taking over it IS part of that person's body. Forcing someone to carry a foetus to term is a major infringement on their right to body autonomy and will be thoroughly distressing for that person.

Also, our care system is already overcrowded. Why should we be bringing unwanted children into the world when there's no guarantee they'll get a stable home?

And my point, as I made earlier on, once a child is born it's not about the parents anymore, it's about the child. And paying for your child is not about punishing you for having sex, or rewarding the mother - it's about not punishing an innocent child and making sure it gets the best financial start in life.
0
reply
41b
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#115
Report 4 years ago
#115
(Original post by SmallTownGirl)
You are categorically wrong. A foetus is not a person and doesn't have rights until its autonomous. That isn't to say a baby who needs feeding and changing isn't a person because those jobs can be done by anyone. Whilst it is dependent on one person's body with no option of someone else taking over it IS part of that person's body. Forcing someone to carry a foetus to term is a major infringement on their right to body autonomy and will be thoroughly distressing for that person.

Also, our care system is already overcrowded. Why should we be bringing unwanted children into the world when there's no guarantee they'll get a stable home?

And my point, as I made earlier on, once a child is born it's not about the parents anymore, it's about the child. And paying for your child is not about punishing you for having sex, or rewarding the mother - it's about not punishing an innocent child and making sure it gets the best financial start in life.
A pretty shoddy defence of a grisly act. Would you have preferred if your parents aborted you?

If it's based on autonomy, then a foetus becomes a human as soon as it can survive outside of the womb. We are a few years away from creating artificial wombs which will be able to support life from conception. At that point, abortion ought to be illegalised, per your definition.
0
reply
ChickenMadness
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#116
Report 4 years ago
#116
(Original post by DorianGrayism)
1)Ok and the Father has rights then which, again, has nothing to do with what you wrote.




2)Not really. It is already too late for the man to make a decision once the woman is pregnant.

3)He cannot opt out since it is solely the choice of the woman as she has full financial and physical responsibility of the child during pregnancy.
1) The father doesn't have the same rights as the mother lol. The mother has the right to be absolved of all responsibility of the child by terminating it. Where as the father does not have that right.

What I've said does have connection to what I wrote since a child suddenly doesn't stop being a thing once it's born after 9 months lol. You're just being pedantic on purpose to be annoying.

2) Yes, which is what is wrong and should be changed.

3) But not once the child is born. the cost of pregnancy is nothing in comparison to the cost of raising a child.

(Original post by SmallTownGirl)
1)You are categorically wrong. A foetus is not a person and doesn't have rights until its autonomous. That isn't to say a baby who needs feeding and changing isn't a person because those jobs can be done by anyone. Whilst it is dependent on one person's body with no option of someone else taking over it IS part of that person's body. Forcing someone to carry a foetus to term is a major infringement on their right to body autonomy and will be thoroughly distressing for that person.

2)Also, our care system is already overcrowded. Why should we be bringing unwanted children into the world when there's no guarantee they'll get a stable home?

3)And my point, as I made earlier on, once a child is born it's not about the parents anymore, it's about the child. And paying for your child is not about punishing you for having sex, or rewarding the mother - it's about not punishing an innocent child and making sure it gets the best financial start in life.
1) Your argument is an opinion so you can't say you are right and I am wrong.

2) Which is why abortion is legal. If the man doesn't want to pay, and the woman doesn't want to either she can just abort it. Everyone is happy (apart from the child). But what it wants isn't taken into account with our current laws anyway which are from the point of view of the mother.

3) Again this is one of the points used to argue for abortion. Rather than punish the child by letting it have a life you just abort it instead.

All your points are negated by the fact you can just terminate the child under current laws.
0
reply
username457532
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#117
Report 4 years ago
#117
(Original post by 41b)
A pretty shoddy defence of a grisly act. Would you have preferred if your parents aborted you?

If it's based on autonomy, then a foetus becomes a human as soon as it can survive outside of the womb. We are a few years away from creating artificial wombs which will be able to support life from conception. At that point, abortion ought to be illegalised, per your definition.
I love my mother. And for that reason if she hadn't wanted me I would much rather she wasn't forced to go through a pregnancy and birth that she didn't want.
0
reply
username457532
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#118
Report 4 years ago
#118
(Original post by ChickenMadness)
1) Your argument is an opinion so you can't say you are right and I am wrong.

2) Which is why abortion is legal. If the man doesn't want to pay, and the woman doesn't want to either she can just abort it. Everyone is happy (apart from the child). But what it wants isn't taken into account with our current laws anyway which are from the point of view of the mother.

3) Again this is one of the points used to argue for abortion. Rather than punish the child by letting it have a life you just abort it instead.

All your points are negated by the fact you can just terminate the child under current laws.
When you want to take away someone's rights, that definitely makes your opinion wrong.
0
reply
DorianGrayism
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#119
Report 4 years ago
#119
(Original post by ChickenMadness)
1) The father doesn't have the same rights as the mother lol. The mother has the right to be absolved of all responsibility of the child by terminating it. Where as the father does not have that right.


.
I deleted my post off the other thread.

Anyway, the points are largely the same so I am going to deal with the first one.

That is correct. How can the Father to choose to be absolved of responsibility when he has no responsibility during pregnancy?

He has neither physical or financial responsibility during that time period so he cannot be absolved of responsibility when he has none.
0
reply
ChickenMadness
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#120
Report 4 years ago
#120
(Original post by SmallTownGirl)
When you want to take away someone's rights, that definitely makes your opinion wrong.
What rights do I want to take away? I want to give rights to people that don't have any.

The fathers right to be absolved of responsibility. Just like the woman has.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (65)
23.3%
No (214)
76.7%

Watched Threads

View All