INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Al Swearegen on October 25, 2013, 08:39:16 PM
-
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/25/21150280-kansas-judge-hears-arguments-in-case-of-sperm-donor-sued-for-child-support?lite (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/25/21150280-kansas-judge-hears-arguments-in-case-of-sperm-donor-sued-for-child-support?lite)
-
To be fair, it was an insemination done on private accords, not a donor to a sperm bank.
Still, unfortunate, and very unfair of the mother to be suing him for money, just cus she has financial issues.
I'm glad suing someone, just cus one might need some money, is a non-possiblity over here -.-
Otherwise I'd sue everyone, hell, I'm broke, I need money.
-
That's not feminism that's done that
-
It is
-
To be fair, it was an insemination done on private accords, not a donor to a sperm bank.
Still, unfortunate, and very unfair of the mother to be suing him for money, just cus she has financial issues.
I'm glad suing someone, just cus one might need some money, is a non-possiblity over here -.-
Otherwise I'd sue everyone, hell, I'm broke, I need money.
The mother isn't suing him. The state of Kansas is.
It is
I agree with Adam. You could find many examples of child support laws in the US biased due to feminism, but this is something else. Note that the mother isn't suing the sperm donor; the state is. When a single mother receives public assistance, the state will try to track down the father of a child to make him pay instead. Supposedly, the law is in place to encourage artificial insemination done by trained doctors. In my opinion, it's a law that protects traditional family values while giving the state the means to provide as little public assistance as possible.
If you're looking for unfair child support laws, there are policies in some parts of America that require male statutory rape victims to pay child support to their rapists.
-
Feminism or not, the quote below is brilliant:
Seeking only a male as a father is discriminating on the basis of gender
It's a nice irony.
-
That's just how sick political correctness is.
-
The state has become Fathers by proxy.
Child Support laws are to protect women and children. They are set up to make sure that the Mother gets enough money to support the child in her charge. They calculated this amount on the basis of working out an amount that made it enviable for the Father to leave the family.
Only it never catered for the Father nor was to be used in any way to consider rights of the Father.
What if the Father did not leave but the mother did? What if the Mother is using the child simply as an income generator? What if the amount assessed was based in information that is no longer correct and the Father can not support the payments? What if the child is not the Father's and it is discovered after he has been paying money incorrectly? What if there was an honest agreement between the parties that the Father was in sperm only and not to be liable? What if the mother had tricked the man into thinking that she was having an abortion or that she was taking contraception at the time and she wasn't? (Yes you may say too bad the Father gets no rights in this instance BUT then if you say if she falls pregnant and he wants to be a Father and she doesn't want to be a mother then he gets no rights - then it sounds like he as a Father has no choice). What if Mother keeps the kids off the Father? What if the Mother lies in the divorce about the Father's behaviour to keep the Father away and get best outcome?
In all of these things it more and more is the case that there is little in the way of rights for the Father and the Mother gets all the protection and all the support. The Father gets no say and no protection and my not even be able to have a relationship with the children he has to pay for.
All of this inequity was bought about by Feminism. It was all infused into the public consciousness that men were likely to leave their partners penniless and their children without financial support and therefore had to be made to pay. Women needed protection and so did the children and so Mothers are protected by society.
Fathers? Nope. Hell, in recent times tell me any sitcom or cartoon which shows men as stupid/irrational/immature/flakey/hopeless/helpless/thoughtless/violent and their wives as naturing/smart/independent/forgiving
No point out the ones in recent times where it is the other way around.
Fathers are undervalued and minimised by society because of Feminism and they have had 40 years to try to convince the public consciousness that this is actually fine.
I am actually surprised that this article made it into the internet. Slow day in the news. I would have expect the article to say "Thoughtless sperm donor Dad refuses to pay what he owes". Pleasantly surprised it didn't but will not be surprised by the outcome.
-
If Kansas is suing - can't the mother disagree?
And why was her poor economic state brought up in this?
-
If Kansas is suing - can't the mother disagree?
And why was her poor economic state brought up in this?
No, she can't. In the US, many governments will try to pay out as little public assistance as possible. In this case, the mother is getting money from the government to support herself and her child. She isn't seeking money from the sperm donor. The government of Kansas found out who the biological father is and wants the donor to reimburse the state for the money that they paid to the mother, on the basis that it's the father's duty to support his child. As far as I know, the state isn't going after the other woman in the lesbian couple, only the sperm donor.
Just so you know, Kansas is a very conservative state. The Republican party dominates, as does their emphasis on traditional family values. They're not near the stereotypical Democratic feminists that typically influence child support laws.
-
No the state will collect child support payments as set out in some schedule irrespective of whether it is fair or equitable for the Father and sue the Father and pass money on to the Mother. Could she agree? Would not make any difference.
I was once in a position with cild support where she had been credit too much. They said "Do you want to have it collected back off her or do you wish to write it off? I said, well it is a bit but I am OK with having it sent to me over the next two years in equal instalments. They said "No we would collect it in one lump sum unless she made other arrangements with us"
I said "Wait a second. I am the end recipient in this and you have no direct interest in this either way so if I am cool with receiving it in equal instalments (and I know you have the ability to collect or pass on moneys fortnightly) why should it matter to you. Furthermore in insisting on lump sum, she is not likely to be angry t you, but instead angry at me for making her pay when she is used to receiving. She will use her "power" invested through departments like you to them get at me and this is not going to benefit the children." She sid "Yes but that is what we do and besides if she wants to negotiate..." I said "I know her. She won't she will pay it in a lump sum and then get angry at me"
In short that don't give a shit.
Her economic plight was as a justification.
Of course they made this financial arrangement and maybe as a friend and on request he allowed a couple to have a baby and with explicit instructions that this was to be his sole responsibility and obligation BUT she has now fallen on hard times and the poor Mother MUST be protected from a bad choice and the Father must be held into account.
-
No the state will collect child support payments as set out in some schedule irrespective of whether it is fair or equitable for the Father and sue the Father and pass money on to the Mother. Could she agree? Would not make any difference.
I was once in a position with cild support where she had been credit too much. They said "Do you want to have it collected back off her or do you wish to write it off? I said, well it is a bit but I am OK with having it sent to me over the next two years in equal instalments. They said "No we would collect it in one lump sum unless she made other arrangements with us"
I said "Wait a second. I am the end recipient in this and you have no direct interest in this either way so if I am cool with receiving it in equal instalments (and I know you have the ability to collect or pass on moneys fortnightly) why should it matter to you. Furthermore in insisting on lump sum, she is not likely to be angry t you, but instead angry at me for making her pay when she is used to receiving. She will use her "power" invested through departments like you to them get at me and this is not going to benefit the children." She sid "Yes but that is what we do and besides if she wants to negotiate..." I said "I know her. She won't she will pay it in a lump sum and then get angry at me"
In short that don't give a shit.
Her economic plight was as a justification.
Of course they made this financial arrangement and maybe as a friend and on request he allowed a couple to have a baby and with explicit instructions that this was to be his sole responsibility and obligation BUT she has now fallen on hard times and the poor Mother MUST be protected from a bad choice and the Father must be held into account.
???
I don't understand your story. Are you saying that it's the government's responsibility to smooth things over between you and your ex-wife?
I don't see this story as favoring the biological mother. It favors the non-biological mother, as I don't see any indication that she has been approached for child support. If anything, the biological mother is irrelevant. She is receiving a certain amount of assistance from the state, and the state is looking to shift that financial responsibility to the sperm donor. Will she receive more or less money per month if she is awarded child support? There's not enough information to tell.
-
These laws that perpetuate this double standard in law isn't due to feminism. I used to think it was, but it's due to deep-rooted sexism that stems from christian traditional values that made such laws in the first place.
The same values were the reason why rape laws were purely aimed at males until recently.
-
The CSA has not the slightest interest in the children's interest or what works for the families and that was the point of my story and a response to the question about what if the mother says whatever. Do I expect them to smooth things over with my ex? What a strange inquiry. I ask you honestly where did I even imply they should?
No the system benefits the Mother and disadvantages the Father. They do not say "OK partnership has gone south, we were set up to protect partners doing a flit and abandoning a woman with child so therefore the non-custodial parent is up for child support, and that would be the female ex-partner...
So easy. Well there had to be sperm from somewhere, so find that man and make him pay. Who gives a damn about the female partner, or agreements or any damn thing. Man , make him pay.
-
These laws that perpetuate this double standard in law isn't due to feminism. I used to think it was, but it's due to deep-rooted sexism that stems from christian traditional values that made such laws in the first place.
The same values were the reason why rape laws were purely aimed at males until recently.
Oh this is some "Patriarchy hurts men too" thing? Yeah I don't believe in that. I think it is a con job.
-
Erm, no. These laws weren't lobbied by feminists. That's all I'm saying.
The rape laws over here for example didn't get changed until the 90s. The problem? The Catholic church.
-
A council not too far from me is delving into options to do the same. To find biological fathers to pay for their kids. The plan is to cut women down on their income if they do not help to find the biological fathers.
This includes victims of abuse. Anything for the government not to have to pay.
Reaction of quite a few women was that they'd rather go completely poor than putting the lives of their kids and themselves at risk.
That money hunger doesn't sound like feminism to me.
-
A council not too far from me is delving into options to do the same. To find biological fathers to pay for their kids. The plan is to cut women down on their income if they do not help to find the biological fathers.
This includes victims of abuse. Anything for the government not to have to pay.
Reaction of quite a few women was that they'd rather go completely poor than putting the lives of their kids and themselves at risk.
That money hunger doesn't sound like feminism to me.
It is not to say that Money hunger equals feminism.
It is that Feminism has been behind putting a system in place. Once it is in place it is hard to shift and it may adapt in ways that will disadvantage women and children it also may be co-opted to benefit government or the rich or anything else.
I saw a video the other day about a woman who years ago married a guy that was very light on work and over the years made very little. They divorced, and she went on to become a high flyer on fat cash. He was barely employed.
He then claimed alimony (I think) off her and it was upheld. So she has to give tis bum she isn't married to money and a lot of it.
This was never designed to be a system by which women were to be penalised. But in this instance it is. He does not deserve the money, but then so many women in his situation have equally not deserved the money off their ex-partners.
So the fact that a system is put in place to benefit some and doesn't always or is corrupted or inefficient or unwieldily does not mean that much to me. It certainly doesn't mean it was not a product of Feminism
-
What you've pointed out here is a product of theists, Al. Feminists are just as assly, and I hate them too, but this wasn't their turd.
-
Yes, it is due to feminism. Men have no say about anything concerning legal/financial matters of their sperm. Have always believed there would be fewer unwanted/unprepared pregnancies if single men were legally able to 'choose' not to be a parent like women do. Equality is not.
-
Yes, it is due to feminism. Men have no say about anything concerning legal/financial matters of their sperm. Have always believed there would be fewer unwanted/unprepared pregnancies if single men were legally able to 'choose' not to be a parent like women do. Equality is not.
Yes. Thanks Jack
It is strange that if a mother wants to abort a child, the father has no say. If a Father wants to keep a child, he has no say. If a woman wants to adopt a child out, the father can not intervene and can not know where the child has been placed. If a woman lies about the paternity of a child and the lie is discovered after he has been paying child support for a long period of time, she does not have to give the money back. Furthermore, depending on how long this distressed man has been falsely being a Father to the child, he may have to keep paying child support until the child that an unfaithful wife or ex-wife is 18.
None of this is fair to the Father. If Feminism was really about equality, these things would have been attended.
These things all came about as a Feminist response to a perceived need of women to be protected by the state. It is ingrained in society for men to protect women and children so like many aspects of Feminist incursions into law and culture, there really was not going to be that much resistance. Women want to protect women and children and men want to protect women and children. Once a bit of ground is made then slowly eroding away Father's rights and obligations and the Paternal obligations to state obligations to enforce on Fathers is the next step.
-
Disagree with the idea about men having any legal say about whether or not a woman gives birth. It creates sad circumstances for some men, but the alternative is just too much. Though if it's legal in society for a woman to terminate her own fetus, then can't see the problem with allowing men to legally sign away parental rights and obligation. It's just an opinion, but in my country birthcontrol is accessible and effective for the vast majority. Therefore can't help but believe, women would be more responsible about their bodies if they weren't able to legally force men to financially support their choices.
-
Disagree with the idea about men having any legal say about whether or not a woman gives birth. It creates sad circumstances for some men, but the alternative is just too much. Though if it's legal in society for a woman to terminate her own fetus, then can't see the problem with allowing men to legally sign away parental rights and obligation. It's just an opinion, but in my country birthcontrol is accessible and effective for the vast majority. Therefore can't help but believe, women would be more responsible about their bodies if they weren't able to legally force men to financially support their choices.
Look I agree. I would not use the abortion solely as an indicator of women having greater rights or greater say but combined with all of the above examples is a compelling argument.
I don't think that there ought to be a demand for women to give birth to kids they don't want either. Unfortunately there has to be a loser an the women ought not be that loser in that instance.
I just think that laws ought to be fair and equitable and not favour a gender.
-
Agreed.
-
Yes, it is due to feminism. Men have no say about anything concerning legal/financial matters of their sperm. Have always believed there would be fewer unwanted/unprepared pregnancies if single men were legally able to 'choose' not to be a parent like women do. Equality is not.
This is true, but it still looks to me like this particular nonsense is mostly the theist's fault.
-
Yes, it is due to feminism. Men have no say about anything concerning legal/financial matters of their sperm. Have always believed there would be fewer unwanted/unprepared pregnancies if single men were legally able to 'choose' not to be a parent like women do. Equality is not.
This is true, but it still looks to me like this particular nonsense is mostly the theist's fault.
No. Theist didn't advocate for the existence of these laws; women did.
-
Yes, it is due to feminism. Men have no say about anything concerning legal/financial matters of their sperm. Have always believed there would be fewer unwanted/unprepared pregnancies if single men were legally able to 'choose' not to be a parent like women do. Equality is not.
In the case of sperm donorship, I think the father chose not to be a parent, just helping someone out who wanted a kid.
In other cases, it's complicated. Can a man tell a woman to have an abortion, because he doesn't want to be a parent? Can a man tell a woman, who, unplanned, fell pregnant tell her to get the baby, because he wants to be a parent?
Ideally, there would be communication on this. But if the final say would be with the man, rape could become the way to get offspring.
I don't know. Feminism comes in many forms, as does socialism, capitalism and what not. If it can be used for benefit, every ideology will be bent to get that.
Feminist influence in my country means shared custody, by default, after a divorce. It means the richest of the two partners, after a divorce, will have to take financial care of the ex partner, no matter what gender. And, alimony for a partner will never be longer than 12 years. If the marriage hasn't lasted 5 years, alimony for a partner will not exceed the number of years the couple was married.
The maximum of 12 years will probably be brought back to 5 years.
Alimony for an ex partner makes sense. I know couples where there was the agreement they would study in succession, while the other provided the income. If after 6 years one partner got a degree, and a good job, and the time had come for the former provider to quit a job and get a degree, and divorce happened, the one with the degree better pay for the then unemployed and studying ex-partner. The degree had been paid for by the ex-partner.
Trying to pluck money from a sperm donor, well, a state who wants that done can use all kinds of ideologies to get that. Interest of the child, to know it's biological father, and the right of the child to know it's father cares, at least in a financial way, is a nice one to use. :P The "it isn't how god/nature intended children to be begotten" is another one.
-
What about laws that entitle RAPISTS to visitation rights (when the rape has resulted in pregnancy)
I suppose that's feminism too, eh, Les?
-
Hehe, in Sweden you can murder your wife/husband or parents and inherit them, since the law makes it compulsory with inheritance for children and legal partners :tard:
-
I think after all the risings to defense of "feminism" in here, I should post this.
(http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/The+Difference_f20935_4628836.jpg)
-
Ayaan Hirsi Ali = fucking brilliant
-
Yeah I like that lady. I'd totally do her. *looks around*
If I didn't have a gf, I mean. :LOL:
-
What about laws that entitle RAPISTS to visitation rights (when the rape has resulted in pregnancy)
I suppose that's feminism too, eh, Les?
Not aware of those particular laws but what are you trying to say?
That for this one law everything else I said is untrue or disclaimed or that one strange law is proof of something. As for me thinking that it was derived from Feminism? I don't, but I think it was derived from some unequally stupid and unfair ideology.
Does that help,Adam?
-
Hehe, in Sweden you can murder your wife/husband or parents and inherit them, since the law makes it compulsory with inheritance for children and legal partners :tard:
There's a specific rule in America that prevents that.
-
Yes, it is due to feminism. Men have no say about anything concerning legal/financial matters of their sperm. Have always believed there would be fewer unwanted/unprepared pregnancies if single men were legally able to 'choose' not to be a parent like women do. Equality is not.
In the case of sperm donorship, I think the father chose not to be a parent, just helping someone out who wanted a kid.
In other cases, it's complicated. Can a man tell a woman to have an abortion, because he doesn't want to be a parent? Can a man tell a woman, who, unplanned, fell pregnant tell her to get the baby, because he wants to be a parent?
Ideally, there would be communication on this. But if the final say would be with the man, rape could become the way to get offspring.
I don't know. Feminism comes in many forms, as does socialism, capitalism and what not. If it can be used for benefit, every ideology will be bent to get that.
Feminist influence in my country means shared custody, by default, after a divorce. It means the richest of the two partners, after a divorce, will have to take financial care of the ex partner, no matter what gender. And, alimony for a partner will never be longer than 12 years. If the marriage hasn't lasted 5 years, alimony for a partner will not exceed the number of years the couple was married.
The maximum of 12 years will probably be brought back to 5 years.
Alimony for an ex partner makes sense. I know couples where there was the agreement they would study in succession, while the other provided the income. If after 6 years one partner got a degree, and a good job, and the time had come for the former provider to quit a job and get a degree, and divorce happened, the one with the degree better pay for the then unemployed and studying ex-partner. The degree had been paid for by the ex-partner.
Trying to pluck money from a sperm donor, well, a state who wants that done can use all kinds of ideologies to get that. Interest of the child, to know it's biological father, and the right of the child to know it's father cares, at least in a financial way, is a nice one to use. :P The "it isn't how god/nature intended children to be begotten" is another one.
Marriage makes things completely different and more complicated; just really talking about people who aren't legally bound to each other. Once read a case where a man and woman had a prenuptial agreement not to have children, but when she became pregnant without consulting him, the agreement was superseded by governmental laws. Only talking about single people, and not talking about men telling women what to do with their bodies. The donor's intentions don't matter against the definition of the law.
-
What about laws that entitle RAPISTS to visitation rights (when the rape has resulted in pregnancy)
I suppose that's feminism too, eh, Les?
Which law is that?
-
Yes, it is due to feminism. Men have no say about anything concerning legal/financial matters of their sperm. Have always believed there would be fewer unwanted/unprepared pregnancies if single men were legally able to 'choose' not to be a parent like women do. Equality is not.
In the case of sperm donorship, I think the father chose not to be a parent, just helping someone out who wanted a kid.
In other cases, it's complicated. Can a man tell a woman to have an abortion, because he doesn't want to be a parent? Can a man tell a woman, who, unplanned, fell pregnant tell her to get the baby, because he wants to be a parent?
Ideally, there would be communication on this. But if the final say would be with the man, rape could become the way to get offspring.
I don't know. Feminism comes in many forms, as does socialism, capitalism and what not. If it can be used for benefit, every ideology will be bent to get that.
Feminist influence in my country means shared custody, by default, after a divorce. It means the richest of the two partners, after a divorce, will have to take financial care of the ex partner, no matter what gender. And, alimony for a partner will never be longer than 12 years. If the marriage hasn't lasted 5 years, alimony for a partner will not exceed the number of years the couple was married.
The maximum of 12 years will probably be brought back to 5 years.
Alimony for an ex partner makes sense. I know couples where there was the agreement they would study in succession, while the other provided the income. If after 6 years one partner got a degree, and a good job, and the time had come for the former provider to quit a job and get a degree, and divorce happened, the one with the degree better pay for the then unemployed and studying ex-partner. The degree had been paid for by the ex-partner.
Trying to pluck money from a sperm donor, well, a state who wants that done can use all kinds of ideologies to get that. Interest of the child, to know it's biological father, and the right of the child to know it's father cares, at least in a financial way, is a nice one to use. :P The "it isn't how god/nature intended children to be begotten" is another one.
Marriage makes things completely different and more complicated; just really talking about people who aren't legally bound to each other. Once read a case where a man and woman had a prenuptial agreement not to have children, but when she became pregnant without consulting him, the agreement was superseded by governmental laws. Only talking about single people, and not talking about men telling women what to do with their bodies. The donor's intentions don't matter against the definition of the law.
Sex will become very complicated. Condoms will be the easiest part. There have to be negotiations and legal documents signed. What to do, in cases of unwanted, unplanned pregnancies. Will there be an abortion or not? Will there be a baby or not? Will it be given up for adoption or not? Who will pay?
Don't think it will bring down teenage pregnancies. Nor that it will improve the fun in sex. :P
-
Sex will become very complicated. Condoms will be the easiest part. There have to be negotiations and legal documents signed. What to do, in cases of unwanted, unplanned pregnancies. Will there be an abortion or not? Will there be a baby or not? Will it be given up for adoption or not? Who will pay?
Don't think it will bring down teenage pregnancies. Nor that it will improve the fun in sex. :P
Not really sure what that even means. Legal documents and negotiations pre-sex for single people? If that's what you're saying, I'm being misunderstood. Not talking about that at all. Just talking about men having the legal right to not be a parent.
-
Sex will become very complicated. Condoms will be the easiest part. There have to be negotiations and legal documents signed. What to do, in cases of unwanted, unplanned pregnancies. Will there be an abortion or not? Will there be a baby or not? Will it be given up for adoption or not? Who will pay?
Don't think it will bring down teenage pregnancies. Nor that it will improve the fun in sex. :P
Not really sure what that even means. Legal documents and negotiations pre-sex for single people? If that's what you're saying, I'm being misunderstood. Not talking about that at all. Just talking about men having the legal right to not be a parent.
I was thinking about this state, and not just this state I think, suing. To prevent that, I was envisioning weird pre-coital agreements. Thinking the whole thing into the absurd. Brain fart of the bovine. Without any methane though.
-
Yes, it is due to feminism. Men have no say about anything concerning legal/financial matters of their sperm. Have always believed there would be fewer unwanted/unprepared pregnancies if single men were legally able to 'choose' not to be a parent like women do. Equality is not.
In the case of sperm donorship, I think the father chose not to be a parent, just helping someone out who wanted a kid.
In other cases, it's complicated. Can a man tell a woman to have an abortion, because he doesn't want to be a parent? Can a man tell a woman, who, unplanned, fell pregnant tell her to get the baby, because he wants to be a parent?
Ideally, there would be communication on this. But if the final say would be with the man, rape could become the way to get offspring.
I don't know. Feminism comes in many forms, as does socialism, capitalism and what not. If it can be used for benefit, every ideology will be bent to get that.
Feminist influence in my country means shared custody, by default, after a divorce. It means the richest of the two partners, after a divorce, will have to take financial care of the ex partner, no matter what gender. And, alimony for a partner will never be longer than 12 years. If the marriage hasn't lasted 5 years, alimony for a partner will not exceed the number of years the couple was married.
The maximum of 12 years will probably be brought back to 5 years.
Alimony for an ex partner makes sense. I know couples where there was the agreement they would study in succession, while the other provided the income. If after 6 years one partner got a degree, and a good job, and the time had come for the former provider to quit a job and get a degree, and divorce happened, the one with the degree better pay for the then unemployed and studying ex-partner. The degree had been paid for by the ex-partner.
Trying to pluck money from a sperm donor, well, a state who wants that done can use all kinds of ideologies to get that. Interest of the child, to know it's biological father, and the right of the child to know it's father cares, at least in a financial way, is a nice one to use. :P The "it isn't how god/nature intended children to be begotten" is another one.
Marriage makes things completely different and more complicated; just really talking about people who aren't legally bound to each other. Once read a case where a man and woman had a prenuptial agreement not to have children, but when she became pregnant without consulting him, the agreement was superseded by governmental laws. Only talking about single people, and not talking about men telling women what to do with their bodies. The donor's intentions don't matter against the definition of the law.
Sex will become very complicated. Condoms will be the easiest part. There have to be negotiations and legal documents signed. What to do, in cases of unwanted, unplanned pregnancies. Will there be an abortion or not? Will there be a baby or not? Will it be given up for adoption or not? Who will pay?
Don't think it will bring down teenage pregnancies. Nor that it will improve the fun in sex. :P
We should come up with a standard I2 contract for the orgies we have on the hidden boards. :3some: :zoinks:
-
:agreed:
-
Sex will become very complicated. Condoms will be the easiest part. There have to be negotiations and legal documents signed. What to do, in cases of unwanted, unplanned pregnancies. Will there be an abortion or not? Will there be a baby or not? Will it be given up for adoption or not? Who will pay?
Don't think it will bring down teenage pregnancies. Nor that it will improve the fun in sex. :P
Not really sure what that even means. Legal documents and negotiations pre-sex for single people? If that's what you're saying, I'm being misunderstood. Not talking about that at all. Just talking about men having the legal right to not be a parent.
I was thinking about this state, and not just this state I think, suing. To prevent that, I was envisioning weird pre-coital agreements. Thinking the whole thing into the absurd. Brain fart of the bovine. Without any methane though.
In the US, the state pursues their own interests. This particular case is one of state finances; she could also be looking at fraud if she claimed she didn't know the identity of the father. If this woman would have otherwise not been eligible for benefits if receiving child support, or if the child were eligible for healthcare under the father's insurance, then the state has a very good case.
-
I like to know where the non-biological parent (the ex-partner) figures in this. I think that things being "equal" they ought to have gone after her and not him. He was no part of the relationship or parenting. It is batshit crazy.
-
Indeed. Excellent point.
-
I like to know where the non-biological parent (the ex-partner) figures in this. I think that things being "equal" they ought to have gone after her and not him. He was no part of the relationship or parenting. It is batshit crazy.
Same-sex marriage is banned by the Kansas state constitution.
-
Yes, it is due to feminism. Men have no say about anything concerning legal/financial matters of their sperm. Have always believed there would be fewer unwanted/unprepared pregnancies if single men were legally able to 'choose' not to be a parent like women do. Equality is not.
In the case of sperm donorship, I think the father chose not to be a parent, just helping someone out who wanted a kid.
In other cases, it's complicated. Can a man tell a woman to have an abortion, because he doesn't want to be a parent? Can a man tell a woman, who, unplanned, fell pregnant tell her to get the baby, because he wants to be a parent?
Ideally, there would be communication on this. But if the final say would be with the man, rape could become the way to get offspring.
I don't know. Feminism comes in many forms, as does socialism, capitalism and what not. If it can be used for benefit, every ideology will be bent to get that.
Feminist influence in my country means shared custody, by default, after a divorce. It means the richest of the two partners, after a divorce, will have to take financial care of the ex partner, no matter what gender. And, alimony for a partner will never be longer than 12 years. If the marriage hasn't lasted 5 years, alimony for a partner will not exceed the number of years the couple was married.
The maximum of 12 years will probably be brought back to 5 years.
Alimony for an ex partner makes sense. I know couples where there was the agreement they would study in succession, while the other provided the income. If after 6 years one partner got a degree, and a good job, and the time had come for the former provider to quit a job and get a degree, and divorce happened, the one with the degree better pay for the then unemployed and studying ex-partner. The degree had been paid for by the ex-partner.
Trying to pluck money from a sperm donor, well, a state who wants that done can use all kinds of ideologies to get that. Interest of the child, to know it's biological father, and the right of the child to know it's father cares, at least in a financial way, is a nice one to use. :P The "it isn't how god/nature intended children to be begotten" is another one.
Disagree with the idea about men having any legal say about whether or not a woman gives birth. It creates sad circumstances for some men, but the alternative is just too much. Though if it's legal in society for a woman to terminate her own fetus, then can't see the problem with allowing men to legally sign away parental rights and obligation. It's just an opinion, but in my country birthcontrol is accessible and effective for the vast majority. Therefore can't help but believe, women would be more responsible about their bodies if they weren't able to legally force men to financially support their choices.
Look I agree. I would not use the abortion solely as an indicator of women having greater rights or greater say but combined with all of the above examples is a compelling argument.
I don't think that there ought to be a demand for women to give birth to kids they don't want either. Unfortunately there has to be a loser an the women ought not be that loser in that instance.
I just think that laws ought to be fair and equitable and not favour a gender.
You are not asking Jack or I these questions are you?
-
I like to know where the non-biological parent (the ex-partner) figures in this. I think that things being "equal" they ought to have gone after her and not him. He was no part of the relationship or parenting. It is batshit crazy.
Same-sex marriage is banned by the Kansas state constitution.
You do not have to be married to have a child. That was not your argument was it?
-
I like to know where the non-biological parent (the ex-partner) figures in this. I think that things being "equal" they ought to have gone after her and not him. He was no part of the relationship or parenting. It is batshit crazy.
Same-sex marriage is banned by the Kansas state constitution.
You do not have to be married to have a child. That was not your argument was it?
I am saying that, right or wrong, the state of Kansas would not recognize the relationship of these two lesbians as being a marriage in any sense of the word.
-
I like to know where the non-biological parent (the ex-partner) figures in this. I think that things being "equal" they ought to have gone after her and not him. He was no part of the relationship or parenting. It is batshit crazy.
Same-sex marriage is banned by the Kansas state constitution.
You do not have to be married to have a child. That was not your argument was it?
I am saying that, right or wrong, the state of Kansas would not recognize the relationship of these two lesbians as being a marriage in any sense of the word.
But if they were an unmarried male and female, rather than female and femmale, the male partner of that couple (regardless of marital status) would be sought for child support whereas the non-married female partner wouldn't.
That is my point. marriage is a nonissue.
-
Sex will become very complicated. Condoms will be the easiest part. There have to be negotiations and legal documents signed. What to do, in cases of unwanted, unplanned pregnancies. Will there be an abortion or not? Will there be a baby or not? Will it be given up for adoption or not? Who will pay?
Don't think it will bring down teenage pregnancies. Nor that it will improve the fun in sex. :P
Just read this again and realized I missed the part here that's responding to something I said; females being responsible about their bodies. As to teen pregnancy specifically, yes, I think men's rights would change the mental mindset of young girls on a sociological level. Those young girls with dreamy ideals of baby and boyfriend forever might not be so common if it cam with the knowledge that the young boy can just say no thanks. It would change the mindset of some parents too.
-
Condoms will be the easiest part.
Condoms should only be insisted on for prevention of disease. Ghastly images of venereal disease is an important part of this process. Female contraception is much more effective; condoms are a big gamble against pregnancy in terms of odds. It's the female's body, and they have a larger variety of most effective contraception.
-
Yes, it is due to feminism. Men have no say about anything concerning legal/financial matters of their sperm. Have always believed there would be fewer unwanted/unprepared pregnancies if single men were legally able to 'choose' not to be a parent like women do. Equality is not.
In the case of sperm donorship, I think the father chose not to be a parent, just helping someone out who wanted a kid.
In other cases, it's complicated. Can a man tell a woman to have an abortion, because he doesn't want to be a parent? Can a man tell a woman, who, unplanned, fell pregnant tell her to get the baby, because he wants to be a parent?
Ideally, there would be communication on this. But if the final say would be with the man, rape could become the way to get offspring.
I don't know. Feminism comes in many forms, as does socialism, capitalism and what not. If it can be used for benefit, every ideology will be bent to get that.
Feminist influence in my country means shared custody, by default, after a divorce. It means the richest of the two partners, after a divorce, will have to take financial care of the ex partner, no matter what gender. And, alimony for a partner will never be longer than 12 years. If the marriage hasn't lasted 5 years, alimony for a partner will not exceed the number of years the couple was married.
The maximum of 12 years will probably be brought back to 5 years.
Alimony for an ex partner makes sense. I know couples where there was the agreement they would study in succession, while the other provided the income. If after 6 years one partner got a degree, and a good job, and the time had come for the former provider to quit a job and get a degree, and divorce happened, the one with the degree better pay for the then unemployed and studying ex-partner. The degree had been paid for by the ex-partner.
Trying to pluck money from a sperm donor, well, a state who wants that done can use all kinds of ideologies to get that. Interest of the child, to know it's biological father, and the right of the child to know it's father cares, at least in a financial way, is a nice one to use. :P The "it isn't how god/nature intended children to be begotten" is another one.
Disagree with the idea about men having any legal say about whether or not a woman gives birth. It creates sad circumstances for some men, but the alternative is just too much. Though if it's legal in society for a woman to terminate her own fetus, then can't see the problem with allowing men to legally sign away parental rights and obligation. It's just an opinion, but in my country birthcontrol is accessible and effective for the vast majority. Therefore can't help but believe, women would be more responsible about their bodies if they weren't able to legally force men to financially support their choices.
Look I agree. I would not use the abortion solely as an indicator of women having greater rights or greater say but combined with all of the above examples is a compelling argument.
I don't think that there ought to be a demand for women to give birth to kids they don't want either. Unfortunately there has to be a loser an the women ought not be that loser in that instance.
I just think that laws ought to be fair and equitable and not favour a gender.
You are not asking Jack or I these questions are you?
No, I was not asking Jack or you the bolded part.
I was extrapolating. If the state manages to sue the man, for his sperm is responsible for the conception of the child, then sex becomes a really dangerous thing. Because when responsibility comes, there also should be the right to have a say about it. If the state manages to sue the man, having men having a say about abortion or not becomes an option to extrapolate on. Very anti-feminist position, suing the man to pay for his biological offspring, in this case. Very dangerous, for both men and women.
-
If the state manages to sue the man, for his sperm is responsible for the conception of the child, then sex becomes a really dangerous thing.
Legally and financilly, sex has been a really dangerous thing for men for quite some time. :laugh:
-
The only way this guy is going to get out of this, is if she committed fraud. If she lied to the state about not knowing who he is, then the whole thing is her crime. She wasn't legally pursuing him for support, so outside of the realm of state finances, there was nothing wrong with their personal agreement.
-
If the state manages to sue the man, for his sperm is responsible for the conception of the child, then sex becomes a really dangerous thing.
Legally and financilly, sex has been a really dangerous thing for men for quite some time. :laugh:
anal! :green:
-
If the state manages to sue the man, for his sperm is responsible for the conception of the child, then sex becomes a really dangerous thing.
Legally and financilly, sex has been a really dangerous thing for men for quite some time. :laugh:
anal! :green:
I know I am, but what are you? :laugh:
-
If the state manages to sue the man, for his sperm is responsible for the conception of the child, then sex becomes a really dangerous thing.
Legally and financilly, sex has been a really dangerous thing for men for quite some time. :laugh:
For women too, so, now the sexes are both burdened by the consequences of the sins of the flesh. :zoinks:
-
If the state manages to sue the man, for his sperm is responsible for the conception of the child, then sex becomes a really dangerous thing.
Legally and financilly, sex has been a really dangerous thing for men for quite some time. :laugh:
For women too, so, now the sexes are both burdened by the consequences of the sins of the flesh. :zoinks:
Really? Will predominately men or women have a say in whether they become parents? When men and women become parents what is accepted parental leave? If they split up, who is favoured in the court system? Does the State tend to financially favour men or women?
The questions keep popping up and in each instance, the favoritism is with Women against men. In many, many areas the favouritism is obscenely skewed in favour of the women and ripe for women to (without censor) to abuse.
That said there are exceptions. In some instances there is 50% custody and all amicable and smiles. In some instances, the mother is screwed. These though are the exceptions. In general terms, Jack is dead right.
I really hope you were joking, Hyke. I really hope it was a joke I did not get.
-
If the state manages to sue the man, for his sperm is responsible for the conception of the child, then sex becomes a really dangerous thing.
Legally and financilly, sex has been a really dangerous thing for men for quite some time. :laugh:
For women too, so, now the sexes are both burdened by the consequences of the sins of the flesh. :zoinks:
'My body, my choice' this is the cry of the feminist, and they're absolutely right about that. It's the woman's body and they're the only ones who can or should be in control of it, but women aren't expected to be responsible for their bodies at the same time. Power without accountability is a dangerous thing, even when it's power over ones own body.
-
If the state manages to sue the man, for his sperm is responsible for the conception of the child, then sex becomes a really dangerous thing.
Legally and financilly, sex has been a really dangerous thing for men for quite some time. :laugh:
For women too, so, now the sexes are both burdened by the consequences of the sins of the flesh. :zoinks:
'My body, my choice' this is the cry of the feminist, and they're absolutely right about that. It's the woman's body and they're the only ones who can or should be in control of it, but women aren't expected to be responsible for their bodies at the same time. Power without accountability is a dangerous thing, even when it's power over ones own body.
Why do you think women are not expected to be responsible for their bodies? It's part of sex-education to teach responsibility for their own bodies.
-
If the state manages to sue the man, for his sperm is responsible for the conception of the child, then sex becomes a really dangerous thing.
Legally and financilly, sex has been a really dangerous thing for men for quite some time. :laugh:
For women too, so, now the sexes are both burdened by the consequences of the sins of the flesh. :zoinks:
'My body, my choice' this is the cry of the feminist, and they're absolutely right about that. It's the woman's body and they're the only ones who can or should be in control of it, but women aren't expected to be responsible for their bodies at the same time. Power without accountability is a dangerous thing, even when it's power over ones own body.
wat
-
If the state manages to sue the man, for his sperm is responsible for the conception of the child, then sex becomes a really dangerous thing.
Legally and financilly, sex has been a really dangerous thing for men for quite some time. :laugh:
For women too, so, now the sexes are both burdened by the consequences of the sins of the flesh. :zoinks:
'My body, my choice' this is the cry of the feminist, and they're absolutely right about that. It's the woman's body and they're the only ones who can or should be in control of it, but women aren't expected to be responsible for their bodies at the same time. Power without accountability is a dangerous thing, even when it's power over ones own body.
Why do you think women are not expected to be responsible for their bodies? It's part of sex-education to teach responsibility for their own bodies.
When people are actually expected to do something, they're held accountable to do it.
-
If the state manages to sue the man, for his sperm is responsible for the conception of the child, then sex becomes a really dangerous thing.
Legally and financilly, sex has been a really dangerous thing for men for quite some time. :laugh:
For women too, so, now the sexes are both burdened by the consequences of the sins of the flesh. :zoinks:
'My body, my choice' this is the cry of the feminist, and they're absolutely right about that. It's the woman's body and they're the only ones who can or should be in control of it, but women aren't expected to be responsible for their bodies at the same time. Power without accountability is a dangerous thing, even when it's power over ones own body.
wat
You heard me. And accountability with no power or control is just sad.
-
If the state manages to sue the man, for his sperm is responsible for the conception of the child, then sex becomes a really dangerous thing.
Legally and financilly, sex has been a really dangerous thing for men for quite some time. :laugh:
For women too, so, now the sexes are both burdened by the consequences of the sins of the flesh. :zoinks:
'My body, my choice' this is the cry of the feminist, and they're absolutely right about that. It's the woman's body and they're the only ones who can or should be in control of it, but women aren't expected to be responsible for their bodies at the same time. Power without accountability is a dangerous thing, even when it's power over ones own body.
wat
You heard me. And accountability with no power or control is just sad.
Well I saw what you typed..
So you're saying that women aren't expected to be responsible for their own bodies, they leave that up to the taxpayer. But they want full control over it, and government protection of that control.
Is that what you said? Because you're FUCKIN A RIGHT THATS GODDAMN MODERN FEMINISM fully explained right there. :agreed:
-
Yeah, equality for all IS a slippery slope. You just never know what will happen.
-
Well I saw what you typed..
So you're saying that women aren't expected to be responsible for their own bodies, they leave that up to the taxpayer. But they want full control over it, and government protection of that control.
Is that what you said? Because you're FUCKIN A RIGHT THATS GODDAMN MODERN FEMINISM fully explained right there. :agreed:
I'm speaking clearly, and you're a smart guy, Rage. :laugh:
-
Well I saw what you typed..
So you're saying that women aren't expected to be responsible for their own bodies, they leave that up to the taxpayer. But they want full control over it, and government protection of that control.
Is that what you said? Because you're FUCKIN A RIGHT THATS GODDAMN MODERN FEMINISM fully explained right there. :agreed:
I'm speaking clearly, and you're a smart guy, Rage. :laugh:
Not as smart as you, Jack. ;)
-
Teenage girl sues state for forcing her to have '16-year relationship' with rapist who fathered her child after he applies for right to see their daughter
A teenage girl is suing a US state for allegedly forcing her into a legal relationship with her rapist.
The unnamed victim from Massachusetts was aged 14 when raped at her home in 2009 by Jamie Melendez, 24, who was then 20, before she became pregnant and eventually gave birth to his child.
The rapist, who had met the schoolgirl at a church youth group in Norfolk in the state, was sentenced to 16 years' probation and later ordered to pay $110 a week in child support to her by a family court.
Source (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2399756/Teenage-girl-sues-Massachusetts-forcing-16-year-legal-relationship-rapist.html)
Source (http://abcnews.go.com/US/massachusetts-rapist-seeks-visitation-victims-child/story?id=17349095)
Yes, I realize that I quoted the Daily Mail.
-
Not aware of those particular laws but what are you trying to say?
That for this one law everything else I said is untrue or disclaimed or that one strange law is proof of something. As for me thinking that it was derived from Feminism? I don't, but I think it was derived from some unequally stupid and unfair ideology.
Does that help,Adam?
^^^ Still applies. Firstly someone taking an Administrative decision to allow the rapist to see his child, is not by itself indicative of a legal position saying it was allowed. It may be that it was not allowed and they made a mistake or had not known the background or had thumbed their noses at a law that said the contrary or that there was no law either way
Let's assume though there was a law saying this, then does that somehow denounce every other point made on this thread? Why? Because there is a proof that other stupid rules, laws and guideline exist?
I think Adam was flat out saying nothing again but trying to imply something greater than what was substance.
-
Teenage girl sues state for forcing her to have '16-year relationship' with rapist who fathered her child after he applies for right to see their daughter
A teenage girl is suing a US state for allegedly forcing her into a legal relationship with her rapist.
The unnamed victim from Massachusetts was aged 14 when raped at her home in 2009 by Jamie Melendez, 24, who was then 20, before she became pregnant and eventually gave birth to his child.
The rapist, who had met the schoolgirl at a church youth group in Norfolk in the state, was sentenced to 16 years' probation and later ordered to pay $110 a week in child support to her by a family court.
Source (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2399756/Teenage-girl-sues-Massachusetts-forcing-16-year-legal-relationship-rapist.html)
Source (http://abcnews.go.com/US/massachusetts-rapist-seeks-visitation-victims-child/story?id=17349095)
Yes, I realize that I quoted the Daily Mail.
Going to assume people reading this thread actually understand what I'm talking about. Though just to make it clear, I am not, have not, nor will ever advocate for the rights of rapists. I haven't been discussing the rights of rapists. My views on rapist rights are very different than my views on men's rights. Men's rights have nothing to do with rapists or the rights of rapists.
Still, the specific rape case you've presented is an interesting one. Read both articles and came to the conclusion that his petition is evil just like him, merely an attempt to get out of paying, because he offered to drop the petition if support arrangements were voided. The original judge who referred this case to family court is an idiot, and should have ordered nothing as payment if believing the case didn't warrant restitution. She has a good case against the state for being legally harassed by proxy of the state. Yes, the court mandated child support which she and her council protested. I don't know why she accepted the support; the court didn't order that, but seriously doubt this guy will be granted any sort visitation. I'll continue to refer to you as 'he', Semicolon, though my logic constantly tells me otherwise.
-
Teenage girl sues state for forcing her to have '16-year relationship' with rapist who fathered her child after he applies for right to see their daughter
A teenage girl is suing a US state for allegedly forcing her into a legal relationship with her rapist.
The unnamed victim from Massachusetts was aged 14 when raped at her home in 2009 by Jamie Melendez, 24, who was then 20, before she became pregnant and eventually gave birth to his child.
The rapist, who had met the schoolgirl at a church youth group in Norfolk in the state, was sentenced to 16 years' probation and later ordered to pay $110 a week in child support to her by a family court.
Source (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2399756/Teenage-girl-sues-Massachusetts-forcing-16-year-legal-relationship-rapist.html)
Source (http://abcnews.go.com/US/massachusetts-rapist-seeks-visitation-victims-child/story?id=17349095)
Yes, I realize that I quoted the Daily Mail.
Going to assume people reading this thread actually understand what I'm talking about. Though just to make it clear, I am not, have not, nor will ever advocate for the rights of rapists. I haven't been discussing the rights of rapists. My views on rapist rights are very different than my views on men's rights. Men's rights have nothing to do with rapists or the rights of rapists.
Still, the specific rape case you've presented is an interesting one. Read both articles and came to the conclusion that his petition is evil just like him, merely an attempt to get out of paying, because he offered to drop the petition if support arrangements were voided. The original judge who referred this case to family court is an idiot, and should have ordered nothing as payment if believing the case didn't warrant restitution. She has a good case against the state for being legally harassed by proxy of the state. Yes, the court mandated child support which she and her council protested. I don't know why she accepted the support; the court didn't order that, but seriously doubt this guy will be granted any sort visitation. I'll continue to refer to you as 'he', Semicolon, though my logic constantly tells me otherwise.
I've seen similar cases, where male victims of statutory rape are required to pay child support. The government is biased against rape victims of both genders, it seems. Use whichever pronoun you prefer, Jack. :)
-
Yes I agree. Law is against rape. Males are by and large socialised to protect women and rapists and child molestors are not socially condoned. So what the fuck this may have to do with men's rights, I can not imagine. I smell like a red herring
-
semicolon is an 'it'
-
Yes I agree. Law is against rape. Males are by and large socialised to protect women and rapists and child molestors are not socially condoned. So what the fuck this may have to do with men's rights, I can not imagine. I smell like a red herring
It's a child support case that was decided against the values of modern feminism. It's a counterpoint to your original article. As for its interpretation, you clearly have one of your own.
-
I've seen similar cases, where male victims of statutory rape are required to pay child support. The government is biased against rape victims of both genders, it seems. Use whichever pronoun you prefer, Jack. :)
:)
I smell like a red herring
Jack smells like flowers.
-
Modern Feminism poisons everything.
-
Modern Feminism poisons everything.
Correct :plus: