Man: If women have right to choose, men should have right to deny support-DAILOL

In article .com,
says...

A man earns his living with his body, therefore any taking of the
fruits of his work is exploiting his body. He is denied the right to
decide what is done with his body.

That used to be called "slavery."

Oh phooey.

He works to provide for a responsibility. Like most people. A responsibility
he set himself up for by choices he made.

Banty


Well said.

In "The Nation," Katha Pollitt wrote in December of 1998: "Just as
pregnancy is a risk of sex, people behaving badly is a risk of love.
All the more reason for men to protect themselves (with better male
birth control). How many women, after all, carry unplanned pregnancies
to term because their boyfriends deceptively promise to marry them or
otherwise support the child? It's the oldest story in the world! Most
of those unwed mothers get no child support, and not much sympathy
either. How far would a woman get in court if she charged theft of
womb and demanded financial compensation?"

She goes on to say that given how, for the last century, women have
spent piles of out-of-pocket money they could ill afford, plus jail
time (especially before 1970) and even risked death for the sake of
better female BC, one has to ask why men's rights' groups aren't
exactly loud or angry about the slow pace of the production of new
methods of male BC.

After all, the question is not whether a wife can trust her husband to
use BC, but rather, can HE trust HER? Even the female pill, for those
who don't know, has a real-life failure rate of 6% (that includes
forgetfulness, of course).


Here's one of the best pieces I've ever seen on the subject (from
2002):
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archive...ice-for-men-2/

Excerpts:

"But their logic is shaky. According to Sacks and Thompson, 'On
average, every day 17 [U.S. workers] die - 16 of them male. Couldn't
men who work long hours or do hazardous jobs - and who suffer the
concomitant physical ailments and injuries - argue that their bodies
are on the line, too? Where is their choice?'

"Well, unless they're independently wealthy, they have no choice but
to work. But although the news doesn't seem to have reached Sacks and
Thompson, nearly everyone in the US has to work. It's not as if
unmarried fathers are forced to work while childless or married men
(or women for that matter) spend their days drinking brandy by the
fire. Sacks and Thompson say that for unmarried fathers to need to
work is a injustice, because it violates 'my body, my choice' - but
since when is it such a horrible violation of bodily integrity to have
a job? And if it is a violation of bodily integrity for unmarried
fathers, then why isn't it a violation for all other workers, as
well?.......

I actually think it's a fair argument that a man needing to work more hours, or
at a job that makes his current income potential that might be more dangerous or
damanding, that he'd otherwise move on from, in order to meet child support
payments, balances off to some extent the physical risks a woman undertakes in
pregnancy. Given the time duration of 18 years. I've seen some pretty wild
quantifications of that, ignoring all kinds of factors and poorly normalizing to
per capita calculations, but the underlying point is valid.

The physical ardor of hunging/farming/wagearning has long been more of a
masculine burden. Add warfaring to that, too.

It's not "slavery" of course.


"Any genuine discussion of "fairness" has to consider what's best for
all the parties involved - but Sacks and Thompson never consider
anyone's rights but the father's. What about the other parties?

"For instance, they propose giving fathers a right to cut and run -
but they don't propose giving mothers the same right. So let's say I
have a one-night stand and learn, eight months later, that the woman
is pregnant with our child. Under Sacks and Thompson's proposal, I -
as the man - would have the right to sign away all my obligations to
the child. But what if I want to keep the child, which the mother
wants to give it up for adoption? Well, under the laws of most states,
I'd automatically get custody - and the mother would be obligated to
pay me child support (although Sacks and Thompson seemingly think only
men ever pay child support, the truth is noncustodial parents of both
sexes pay). So men get to cut and run, but women don't. How is that
fair?

"My guess is that Sacks and Thompson would concede this point, and be
willing to modify their proposal to give women and men equal rights to
flee their obligations. But there's still an important party whose
rights haven't been considered: what's fair to the child?......."

Absolutely. Few account for all the interests on all sides. Neither side of
the political spectrum accounts for all sides.

Banty

And here are more comments:

By William Min at Binghamton University:
http://www.bupipedream.com/pipeline_...le.php?id=6257
"I understand the inequality men face when it comes to child support,
but the reason state and federal courts rule in favor of it is to
ensure that the child receives financial support from both parents. I
agree. Whether or not you intend to get that barmaid at the bowling
alley pregnant or knock up your history professor, you're responsible
for that child. It has half of your DNA and it gets half of your
money. Of course the real argument is that men don't have a choice.
Uh, that's a good thing. You think if men had a choice, would they
actually choose to pay the tuition of some kid they view as an
accident?"

And:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ne...matt&scoring=n

(eight articles or so)


Lenona.

On Nov 9, 9:17 am, Banty wrote:

If you create a system where men don't have a say in the decision of
whether their children will be aborted, and are not even required to
be informed before their unborn children are killed, lots of men,
rightly or wrongly, will feel that if they have no rights, they have
no responsibilities either if the mother decides not to abort.

A man, even the father of a child, should *not* have a say in what someone does
to their own body. That's why. For example, I can't tell *you* to give a
kidney to anyone, even an aunt.

Are you opposed to even requiring the father to be *notified* that an
abortion is intended? That's what the law I cited was about.

Samuel Alito, nominated by George W. Bush to the Supreme Court (and
later confirmed), was criticized ruling in favor of a spousal
notification law in Pennsylvania. He was overruled, but polls show
that both men and women, by large margins, support such laws
http://people-press.org/commentary/pdf/122.pdf.

In article om, Beliavsky
says...

On Nov 9, 9:17 am, Banty wrote:

If you create a system where men don't have a say in the decision of
whether their children will be aborted, and are not even required to
be informed before their unborn children are killed, lots of men,
rightly or wrongly, will feel that if they have no rights, they have
no responsibilities either if the mother decides not to abort.

A man, even the father of a child, should *not* have a say in what someone does
to their own body. That's why. For example, I can't tell *you* to give a
kidney to anyone, even an aunt.

Are you opposed to even requiring the father to be *notified* that an
abortion is intended? That's what the law I cited was about.

Well, I don't think one should be intended, but, given the current regime of the
law on that, to what end would the father be notified?

Banty

On Nov 9, 8:00 am, "Stephanie" wrote:
"Illiana via FamilyKB.com" u38194@uwe wrote in messagenews:7af475cc9ea50@uwe...





updated 4:58 p.m. ET, Tues., Nov. 6, 2007
LANSING, Mich. - A federal appeals court has upheld the dismissal of a
lawsuit nicknamed "Roe v. Wade for Men" filed by a men's rights group on
behalf of a man who said he shouldn't have to pay child support for his
ex-
girlfriend's daughter.

A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a
decision
released Tuesday, agreed with a lower court judge that Matthew Dubay's
suit
was frivolous.

Dubay, 25, had said ex-girlfriend Lauren Wells knew he didn't want to have
a
child and assured him repeatedly she couldn't get pregnant because of a
medical condition.

He argued that if a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or
raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the
choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood.

If the man had any sense, and did not want to have children with this woman,
he should have chosen to

1. use a condum
2. put his penis elsewhere

Well, that's not the point. I believe this article is directed
towards people who are pro-abortion.

-Tom Enright

On Nov 9, 8:11 pm, Rosalie B. wrote:
Tom Enright wrote:
On Nov 9, 9:17 am, Banty wrote:

In article . com, Beliavsky
says...
On Nov 9, 8:00 am, "Stephanie" wrote:

snip

He argued that if a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or
raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the
choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood.

If the man had any sense, and did not want to have children with this woman,
he should have chosen to

obvious advice snipped

If you create a system where men don't have a say in the decision of
whether their children will be aborted, and are not even required to
be informed before their unborn children are killed, lots of men,
rightly or wrongly, will feel that if they have no rights, they have
no responsibilities either if the mother decides not to abort.

A man, even the father of a child, should *not* have a say in what someone does
to their own body. That's why. For example, I can't tell *you* to give a
kidney to anyone, even an aunt.

Agreed.

I *do* think the mother has a responsibility to her unborn child, just as the
father does, and that removes much of the dilemma. The law disagrees with me
(currently).

But "choice for men" only helps out the guys who want to walk away. Not exactly
a ringing endorsement for a proposal - it only gets certain people off scott
free. The woman has consequences to herself *whatever* she does. The father
who wants to raise the child still loses.

This contradicts your first point, which I agree with.

A man earns his living with his body, therefore any taking of the
fruits of his work is exploiting his body. He is denied the right to
decide what is done with his body.

No - he decides what kind of work he does with his body, or hopefully
with his brain. Deciding what to do with the money he earns by this
work is not slavery. It would be slavery if someone told him what
work to do.

Taking the fruit of one's labor is slavery. It has nothing to do at
all with what work one does and whether or not he chooses that work.

-Tom Enright

snip

-Tom Enright

On Nov 12, 4:27 pm, Banty wrote:
In article .com,
says...

snip

I actually think it's a fair argument that a man needing to work more hours, or
at a job that makes his current income potential that might be more dangerous or
damanding, that he'd otherwise move on from, in order to meet child support
payments, balances off to some extent the physical risks a woman undertakes in
pregnancy. Given the time duration of 18 years. I've seen some pretty wild
quantifications of that, ignoring all kinds of factors and poorly normalizing to
per capita calculations, but the underlying point is valid.

A woman decides whether or not to have a baby once she becomes
pregnant, she has a choice whether to take on this burden. The man
has no choice so their is no "evening-out" of the situation.
Furthermore working is far and away more dangerous than giving birth
or raising a family. Men live less healthy, shorter lives than women
in great part because they sacrifice themselves for their families.
If they choose to put their health at risk fine, but to be compelled
to by a woman with whom he had no contract with is slavery.

The physical ardor of hunging/farming/wagearning has long been more of a
masculine burden. Add warfaring to that, too.

It's not "slavery" of course.

It is the very definition of slavery. A slave must provide his owner
with work, his work has a value or else there would be no reason to
hold slaves. The slave owner decides what is done with the result of
this labor. The slave is given food and shelter, which is a form of
payment, but by virture of this payment he in no way is free.

"Any genuine discussion of "fairness" has to consider what's best for
all the parties involved - but Sacks and Thompson never consider
anyone's rights but the father's. What about the other parties?

"For instance, they propose giving fathers a right to cut and run -
but they don't propose giving mothers the same right. So let's say I
have a one-night stand and learn, eight months later, that the woman
is pregnant with our child. Under Sacks and Thompson's proposal, I -
as the man - would have the right to sign away all my obligations to
the child. But what if I want to keep the child, which the mother
wants to give it up for adoption? Well, under the laws of most states,
I'd automatically get custody - and the mother would be obligated to
pay me child support (although Sacks and Thompson seemingly think only
men ever pay child support, the truth is noncustodial parents of both
sexes pay). So men get to cut and run, but women don't. How is that
fair?

"My guess is that Sacks and Thompson would concede this point, and be
willing to modify their proposal to give women and men equal rights to
flee their obligations. But there's still an important party whose
rights haven't been considered: what's fair to the child?......."

Absolutely. Few account for all the interests on all sides. Neither side of
the political spectrum accounts for all sides.

All parts of the spectrum account for "all sides." They just may
reject them.

-Tom Enright

Banty

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:08:54 -0800, Tom Enright wrote:

On Nov 12, 4:27 pm, Banty wrote:
In article .com,
says...

snip

I actually think it's a fair argument that a man needing to work more hours, or
at a job that makes his current income potential that might be more dangerous or
damanding, that he'd otherwise move on from, in order to meet child support
payments, balances off to some extent the physical risks a woman undertakes in
pregnancy. Given the time duration of 18 years. I've seen some pretty wild
quantifications of that, ignoring all kinds of factors and poorly normalizing to
per capita calculations, but the underlying point is valid.

A woman decides whether or not to have a baby once she becomes
pregnant, she has a choice whether to take on this burden. The man
has no choice so their is no "evening-out" of the situation.
Furthermore working is far and away more dangerous than giving birth
or raising a family.

Being pregnant and giving birth is very taxing on the human body. Ask the
moms. Throughout the ages, dying during childbirth was a real concern.

Men live less healthy, shorter lives than women
in great part because they sacrifice themselves for their families.

I don't believe that. The female gene is more resilient. That's just how
nature made it. It is that way from birth. Girls tend to be hardier at
birth. If it is a preemie, the girl has the odds on surviving. If there
is a genetic defect, the females have the odds on surviving and not ending
in miscarriage.

Many women, BTW, both work and care for the children. Some men do, too,
but women usually bear the brunt of the childcare duties when both spouses
work. My OB/gyn was just complaining about that the other day. I don't
see those women living shorter lives.

It is the very definition of slavery. A slave must provide his owner
with work, his work has a value or else there would be no reason to
hold slaves. The slave owner decides what is done with the result of
this labor. The slave is given food and shelter, which is a form of
payment, but by virture of this payment he in no way is free.

Most people work for whomever they want. They do not have an owner. They
do not work for food and shelter. They work for money, which they spend as
they please, which likely includes food and shelter.

Tom Enright wrote:
In article . com, Beliavsky
says...
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
fruits of his work is exploiting his body. He is denied the right to
decide what is done with his body.

No - he decides what kind of work he does with his body, or hopefully
with his brain. Deciding what to do with the money he earns by this
work is not slavery. It would be slavery if someone told him what
work to do.

Taking the fruit of one's labor is slavery. It has nothing to do at
all with what work one does and whether or not he chooses that work.

-Tom Enright

snip

-Tom Enright
Actually, there are no fruits of labor when it comes to slavery. There is no
pay, and no reward.
I have to disagree and say it is not slavery.

--
Message posted via FamilyKB.com
http://www.familykb.com/Uwe/Forums.a...nting/200711/1

"Illiana via FamilyKB.com" u38194@uwe wrote:

Tom Enright wrote:
In article . com, Beliavsky
says...
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
fruits of his work is exploiting his body. He is denied the right to
decide what is done with his body.

No - he decides what kind of work he does with his body, or hopefully
with his brain. Deciding what to do with the money he earns by this
work is not slavery. It would be slavery if someone told him what
work to do.

Taking the fruit of one's labor is slavery. It has nothing to do at
all with what work one does and whether or not he chooses that work.

-Tom Enright

Slavery would be if we never GOT the 'fruits of labor' or any part of
it. It isn't that we have to pay for things that we've bought or done

".. Slavery emphasizes the idea of complete ownership and control by a
master: as in to be sold into slavery. "

You might just as well argue that because we have to pay taxes, that
it is slavery. The government takes a part of what we make in many
ways and a lot of the time.

Actually, there are no fruits of labor when it comes to slavery. There is no
pay, and no reward.
I have to disagree and say it is not slavery.

Right. Calling child support slavery is a perversion of the concept
of slavery.