[an error occurred while processing this directive]
About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 60

Monday, March 20, 2006 - 6:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I went back and re-read the article. Matt Dubay - you are a snivelling, little, punk. The money you are spending taking this through the court system, could be used for the support of your child, you weasel.

Grow some testicular fortitude, take responsibility.


John






Post 61

Monday, March 20, 2006 - 7:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
LOL! John.

So it's okay with you if women have more rights then men. Unfortunately, Dubay disagrees.

We'll see what happens in court. Oh, and Dubay isn't paying anything for his representation. They're taking it on Pro Bono. He's also paying support until the case is settled. He's no "punk."

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 3/20, 7:11am)




Post 62

Monday, March 20, 2006 - 7:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teresa you are correct, my misread. I retract the statement calling him a punk.

I should have called him a dumbass instead.

Dubay - if....you....cum...inside...a...woman....you ...may...conceive...a...baby.

Of course men have rights Teresa. What is missing from the argument is that men all too often give these rights away. Yes, they *give* them away.

Dumbass Dubay is claiming that he is being "forced" into fatherhood? That is precious. His claim that they discussed it beforehand is not evidence of an agreement or contract. Her counterclaim is not evidence either.

All that is *real*, is the child.



Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 63

Monday, March 20, 2006 - 7:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I should have called him a dumbass instead.
I know it seems unsavory to you, but he has an actual, viable argument.

Dubay - if....you....cum...inside...a...woman....you ...may...conceive...a...baby.
No one conceives a "baby."  Zygotes are conceived. Babies are born. Calling a zygote a baby is a hugely misleading emotional ploy.  

Look at the inequality of rights this way: 

If Dubay really really really wanted her to have this child, but she chose an abortion or adoption instead, he still would have no right to a say in the outcome.

One person making an 18-20 year commitment for another is an obliteration of the other's rights.  


 




Post 64

Monday, March 20, 2006 - 7:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John,

I think you got it right the first time and can add on dumb ass.

I wonder how many folks here who think he's justified are parents.

If I had a daughter and she were the mother involved, we'd definitely have to talk, but heaven help that kid (the father) just the same.

If my son took such a position, although I cannot imagine my son being such a fool, I would be 100% opposed and would let him know and encourage him to understand that rejecting his own child for any reason or reasons is absolutely wrong.  But eventually, he'd bond with the baby/child cause it'd sure be over for visits at my house.

I wonder who, amongst those of you who agree with the father, might take a different position if that were your daughter

Or if it was your son, could you guys go along with that and reject your grandchild?

I know I wouldn't.

(Edited by Get to living! Donna Reed on 3/20, 7:16pm)




Post 65

Monday, March 20, 2006 - 8:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I wonder how many folks here who think he's justified are parents.
I have three kids, (all within a marriage and planned).  Hong has one child (I think just one), and Roger has a bunch of kids <g>. I'm not sure about the others.

I wonder who, amongst those of you who agree with the father, might take a different position if that were your daughter
I have two responsible daughters. Neither of them would think to sacrifice another human being to justify her own choices, nor would I give any form of sanction to the suggestion of sacrificing another to satisfy either's bad choices.

Or if it was your son, could you guys go along with that and reject your grandchild?
I also have a wonderful, handsome, bright, productive son. I'm starting to crave grandchildren from him, even though I told him I'd kill him if he made me a grandmother before I was 60.  He would receive my profound sympathy if his darling fiance' decided to stab him in the back. It's difficult for me to reject any infant. What I reject are many of their mothers.  




Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 66

Monday, March 20, 2006 - 9:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What is the difference between fraudulent entrapment (deceiving a man into getting you pregnant) and rape (forcing a woman to become pregnant)? The answer is that -- while Roe v. Wade is still in effect -- a woman has the freedom to seek and abortion, and thus cannot be forced to assume responsibility for a child who was conceived against her will (by rape), while this poor sap in Michigan is very much in jeopardy of being forced to assume responsibility for a child who was conceived against his will (apparently by fraudulent entrapment).

Teresa is right -- I have a lot of kids: four by natural birth and one by adoption, as well as two great step-kids. My older daughter has three children, and my second son and his wife have one on the way, so I am a granddad almost 4 times over, well before I'm 60. (So, boo-hoo, Teresa. :-)  These children have all been "wanted," and they are all loved. However, I can tell you, with no qualms whatsoever, that if I had found out "in time" (i.e., before emotional bonding with the children had occurred) that any of my wives had deceived me into thinking that a child conceived with some other man were mine, I would have done whatever was necessary (probably leaving the country) in order to cut her off without a cent from me. She and the taxpayers, or whoever felt generous about it, would have picked up the consequences of her actions, not me. And if I had found out about it too late to stall off the bonding with the child, I would have divorced her and supported the child, but not paid a cent of spousal support to her (again, leaving the country, if necessary). That's how strongly I feel about the issue and about being enslaved by another person's defrauding me.

There is fraud and there is fraud. Some people don't like being deceived and having their time wasted responding to the unreal -- but there is no way in hell that can remotely compare in wrecked relationships and lives to the shackling of a person's emotions and material wealth to the egocentric, exploitive use of unwanted babies to force another to do one's bidding. As Bush #1 said in a very different context, "This aggression will not stand."

The only thing about which I still think back with regret and anguish is that one of my wives (I won't say which) was so conflicted about our marriage (and her unfinished business), that she decided she wanted to abort our first conceived child. I was not in favor of the abortion, but I didn't try to stand in her way, and I didn't make it a marriage-ending issue, so a completely different sequence of children eventually followed as a result. I wouldn't trade any of the ones who were born, but can't help but sadly wonder what the one would have been like that didn't get born. Perhaps the child wasn't mine, and she was wanting to avoid sacrificing me to justify her choices (indiscretions?). I'll probably never know, but considering how manipulative and undercutting she has been toward me in so many other ways over the years, I doubt that justice toward me was her motivation. I suspect it was more likely an attempt to keep her options open in re her unfinished business, by not having a child to limit her chances to "jump ship." Not long after the abortion, she explored this avenue and it fell through, and we went on with our marriage and had three really great kids (and three grandkids at present count).

But it never ceases to amaze me that people will side with a woman whose rights have been violated by rape and condone her washing her hands of a pregnancy and a child she doesn't want, while a man whose rights have been violated by fraud apparently deserve no equal consideration. At least, the Pro-Lifers (rights from conception) are consistent. They're wrong as hell, but they don't use a double standard about it.

REB

(Edited by Roger Bissell on 3/20, 9:58pm)




Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 67

Monday, March 20, 2006 - 11:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teresa, I just wanted to thank you for your participation in this thread.  Your posts have been wonderful.  Some others have agreed, but I wanted to single yours out in particular.

This isn't the first time this topic has come up.  There is and was a large group which thinks the man should be forced to pay for child support, even if he didn't want the child.  They say he knew that it could happen when he had sex.  But this is exactly the argument  that many people use to say abortion should be illegal.  The girl knew there was a chance she could get pregnant, and so she must be forced to have the child.  The fetus/baby/whatever needs it.  She chose to have sex, and so indirectly she chose to get pregnant, and so she has some kind of mysterious obligation to have the baby and raise it.

I see no difference between these two arguments.  If a man should be forced to pay child support, the woman should be forced to have the baby.  Abortion might be legal in the case of rape (if you could prove it was rape), but as long as there is consenting adults, the government should control them.

What differences are there?  In one the woman is sacrificed for the fetus.  In the other, the man is sacrificed for the woman and the fetus.  In one, the woman's right to control her own body is violated.  In the other, the man's rights to his life and paycheck are violated.  In one, the woman is demonized as irresponsible, having abortions left and right, somehow lending credence to the violation of her rights.  In the other, the man is demonized as irresponsible, a dead-beat dad,  somehow lending credence to the violation of his rights.  In both, the choice to have sex is equated with the choice to have a baby and raise it, ignoring the fact that technology severs those choices.

I don't need to try to hide behind cases of fraud to defend the man's right to choose.  He should always have the choice, unless he specifically contracts otherwise.  I'll go further than just uphold his legal right.  I uphold his moral right.  He's morally right to not have children if he doesn't want to.  It would be the worst kind of immorality for him to sacrifice his life, violate his own reasoning mind, all for the sake of making some irresponsible girl able to have her cake and eat it.  Having children is a big decision, and it should be approached with one's full functioning mind, not some kind of knee-jerk moral duty that says a man should be enslaved to a woman because she's weak and needs it.

I find it ridiculous to say that a man has any form of obligation because he wants to have sex (except half the cost of abortion, as I think Luke said in a previous thread).  Having children is a huge decision, and it's completely different from the decision to have sex with someone.  Tying those choices together is artificial, and reeks of rationalizing a preexisting conclusion, just as the anti-abortion crowd do.




Post 68

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 5:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The crux of the matter is this:Is there any evidence, other than the young mans word, that he did not want the child, and that he communicated this to the woman?

If all one has to do to get out of paying child support is to claim that "I *told* her I didnt want a child", then let the party begin.


My position is that prior to sex, men take responsibility for their destinies, (for Gos sake don't leave it up to the woman!) and that after a child is born, *parents* take full responsibility for the childs care.

My question to a man standing before me arguing his case would be thus: If it is true that you did not want a child, what measures did *you* take to prevent conception?


The issue as a man is, am I willing to exercise reason, take responsibility for birth control, or surrender in faith, to the woman I am sleeping with?





Post 69

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 5:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe wrote: " I uphold his moral right. He's morally right to not have children if he doesn't want to. It would be the worst kind of immorality for him to sacrifice his life, violate his own reasoning mind, all for the sake of making some irresponsible girl able to have her cake and eat it."

Joe I too, uphold his moral right. In the exercise of this choice however, what is a man to do? Dubay violated his reasoning mind when he turned his destiny over to the girl.



Post 70

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 6:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This isn't the first time this topic has come up.  There is and was a large group which thinks the man should be forced to pay for child support, even if he didn't want the child.  They say he knew that it could happen when he had sex.  But this is exactly the argument  that many people use to say abortion should be illegal.  The girl knew there was a chance she could get pregnant, and so she must be forced to have the child.  The fetus/baby/whatever needs it.  She chose to have sex, and so indirectly she chose to get pregnant, and so she has some kind of mysterious obligation to have the baby and raise it.
One of Dubay's defense team members was on a television talking head show recently, and gave this exact analogy (my emphasis). I thought his argument was perfect, and struck at the very heart of the issue.  Absolutely.



 




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 71

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 6:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is not about abortion, or a womans right to choose. It is an analogy that doesn't hold up. It *is* about the exercise of control over ones life. Any man is *completely* free, to exercise that virtue, with respect to procreation.

John





Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 72

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 7:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Teresa,
Yes, you are right. I have just one child...result of a failed birth control. A lot of my friends (including my own family members) claim the same thing. Several of them have had abortions even within their marriage. So I think I know how things should work between two reasonable adults, at least from my own perspective. I can not begin to comprehend why a woman would want to have a child that she has absolutely no ability to raise without being a parasite of a guy who doesn't even love her.

 

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 3/21, 7:11am)




Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 73

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 11:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John wrote:
This is not about abortion, or a womans right to choose. It is an analogy that doesn't hold up. It *is* about the exercise of control over ones life. Any man is *completely* free, to exercise that virtue, with respect to procreation.
"Any man is *completely* free" to exercise control over his life?
Well, up to a point, I guess. But then the control isn't "complete", is it!

A woman can give the child up for adoption, and the man has no say in it. Is it his child or not? If so, then where is his "exercise of control" over his parenthood? A woman can abort her fetus, and the man has no say in it. Is it his child or not? If so then where is his "exercise of control" over his parenthood?

A woman is "completely free" (under Roe v. Wade) to control her life by aborting an unwanted baby, for at least the first six months of her pregnancy.

A man is "completely free" for...oh...gee, I guess until the woman gets pregnant, and then he's screwed, according to John. John would then have the law require the man to exercise "testicular fortitude" and support a baby he doesn't want, with no similar requirement of "ovarian fortitude" on the part of the woman if she doesn't want the baby.

The woman gets six months or more to second-guess her desire to be a legally responsible mother -- knowing that even later she can bail out and put the kid up for adoption. While the man gets all of that time to stand by with his checkbook and life on hold, pacing the floor, wondering "will she or won't she," what if I start liking the idea of fatherhood and she decides (out of spite or whim) to abort the baby, how much longer before she drops the shoe, what if she later tries to get the kid to help bring charges against me for sexual child abuse in order to get rid of me, what if she's just using me in order to have a kid that I will support while she goes off with a lesbian lover, etc. All because John would like the law to make it safe for manipulative women to ensnare unwilling men, so that they can play Procreation Roulette with the man's emotions and freedom.

If the man should be just as legally responsible as the woman for supporting the baby, then he should have an equal right to terminate the pregnancy. In fact, if the law is going to hold both the man and woman legally responsible for a child that is born of their procreation, then the legal presumption should be on the side of the person wanting to terminate the pregnancy -- whether the man or the woman -- since it involves legal commitment of time and resources they are not willing to provide.

Of course, if you presume that children have rights from conception onward, as the mystics do, then all of this is beside the point. All abortion (except for health) is evil, murdering, rights-destroying. But unless that is John's position, I don't see how he can deny the "complete freedom" of both man and woman to opt out of a pregnancy or parental commitments before a child is born.




Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Post 74

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 11:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John,

It's clear we have some disagreements. Let's see if they're only skin deep, shall we?

First you said: "Is there any evidence, other than the young mans word, that he did not want the child, and that he communicated this to the woman?"

This discussion is on the use of force to violate a man's rights. There should be no presumption of guilt, where he has to try to prove that he did enough to prevent the pregnancy or didn't want it (nearly impossible). The burden should be on her to prove he agreed to the pregnancy.

Then you say "If all one has to do to get out of paying child support is to claim that 'I *told* her I didnt want a child', then let the party begin."

Again, you're placing the burden on him. But why should it be the case? Why should his life be forfeit unless he can prove otherwise? What claim does she have on his checkbook?

Maybe she needs it? Maybe the baby needs it? Maybe this is just some kind of unfunded welfare program. It's easy to point to the man and say "well, he's partially responsible...let's strip him of rights!". But the fact is that the choice to have the baby was hers, not his. And this is why people have to ignore reality and instead insists that the choice to have sex is the same as the choice to have a baby.

If this is just a welfare program, call it that. If her needs are a claim on someone else's life, state it openly.

On the other hand, maybe you agree that in principle he should have a choice. Maybe you just think that since women have made the choice to have a baby knowing they could force the man to give them money, it would be chaos for awhile and people would suffer.

This argument could be used to defend any and every welfare program. It was used to justify the continuation of actual slavery. The fact that some people alter their lifestyles to take advantage of free loot leaves the abolishment of the programs unsavory. People grow to depend on those programs, and would be hurt if they were removed.

But if this is your concern, at least you should agree that a law should be passed giving men the choice in the future.


You follow with "If it is true that you did not want a child, what measures did *you* take to prevent conception?".

I reject the implications of this question. I don't care if he did nothing at all to prevent it. This question determines whether he acted morally or not, but should have absolutely no implications with regard to child-rearing. The parallel with the abortion argument is disparaging the woman who uses abortion as a form of birth control. You can argue she's stupid and immoral, but you can't argue that it negates her rights.

You continue in the next post: "Joe I too, uphold his moral right. In the exercise of this choice however, what is a man to do? Dubay violated his reasoning mind when he turned his destiny over to the girl."

Under current Statist intervention, you can argue that he turned his destiny over to her. But I think the most fundamental part of this discussion is whether that is justified or not. The only reason his destiny is in her hands is because people are putting a gun to his head. The question is whether that should be the case.

So far, the arguments being made in favor of his enslavement are pretty weak. They use the usual conservative arguments against abortion, trying to force the choice to have sex to mean the choice to have a baby. And they use macho arguments about how the man is pathetic if he doesn't want to sacrifice his life in this way.

And so you say: "This is not about abortion, or a womans right to choose. It is an analogy that doesn't hold up."

I think the analogy is exactly right. By the same reasoning, abortion should be illegal. I fully recognize that most of the people arguing for the abdication of the rights of men are not arguing for the corresponding abdication of the rights of women. I see that as just inconsistency on their part. The arguments are the same. The strained connection between sex and child-rearing is the same. If you want to argue against this conclusion, you're welcome to show why these arguments don't apply to the woman. But even that's a waste of time, as the arguments are invalid (for the same reason they're invalid in the abortion argument).

Teresa, thanks for mentioning that Dubay's defense team used that argument. It is a powerful point, and hopefully will make people see that the parallels with the abortion debate are there, and that people just have to check many of their premises.

Roger, excellent post. Definitely. If the law is going to automatically hold both legally responsible, then either should be able to choose to abort. It's only fair. Of course, it's the first premise that needs to be checked.





Post 75

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 12:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
WOW:

But the fact is that the choice to have the baby was hers, not his. And this is why people have to ignore reality and instead insists that the choice to have sex is the same as the choice to have a baby.

That's such an excellent clarification. It's also another good point for responsibility. The woman is responsible for her body. She can choose to have the child or not, just as she can choose to have sex or not. Good post Joe.


Ethan




Post 76

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 12:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
REGARDING:  What is the difference between fraudulent entrapment (deceiving a man into getting you pregnant) and rape (forcing a woman to become pregnant)? The answer is that -- while Roe v. Wade is still in effect -- a woman has the freedom to seek and abortion, and thus cannot be forced to assume responsibility for a child who was conceived against her will (by rape), while this poor sap in Michigan is very much in jeopardy of being forced to assume responsibility for a child who was conceived against his will (apparently by fraudulent entrapment).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

The difference is that  a woman who is "raped" is forced into the sexual act. 

She does not have the opportunity to say -

"No, Thank You". 

This pitiful character was not FORCED to have sex with anybody.  

As long as he knew the possibility of pregnancy existed, and that he does not have the final say on what happens if pregnancy does occur, it was NOT against his will.

If he were severely mentally retarded, that would be something else.



YOU SAY:  However, I can tell you, with no qualms whatsoever, that if I had found out "in time" (i.e., before emotional bonding with the children had occurred) that any of my wives had deceived me into thinking that a child conceived with some other man were mine, I would have done whatever was necessary (probably leaving the country) in order to cut her off without a cent from me. She and the taxpayers, or whoever felt generous about it, would have picked up the consequences of her actions, not me.
___________________________________________________________________________________________

no sir, it's YOUR CHILD who would have "picked up" the consequences.


To me, a man rejecting his child because of what the woman said or did or didn't do is MADNESS.

I can see a man being pissed off about it, but not rejecting his own child who had no say in the whole sloppy affair.




I feel for babies and children whose parents' money or fucked up resentments with each other are more important to them than their children.

I'm so grateful that I didn't grow up that way.  I'm not saying I had perfect parents, nobody does, but I knew, without a doubt, that they would kill or die for me, to protect me.  Being abandoned because of some damn money wasn't even a possibility.

(Edited by Get to living! Donna Reed on 3/21, 1:11pm)




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 77

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 1:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe, I am arguing for men to control what they are able to control. There are other factors that come afterwards, abortion, adoption, parenting, custody etc that are a complex part of the issue.

I am *encouraging* men to exercise reason. I have three boys. My hope is they will become men and not slaves. To do so, they must make choices to prevent the possibility of them becoming enslaved. Knowing that the speed limit is 15mph, don't drive 75mph and *expect* not to get a ticket. And don't *expect* sympathy from people for doing so, even if the traffic laws are immoral.

Do the laws suck for men? Absolutely. And not just in terms of child-support, but in many many facets of the male/female parenting relationship.

I just don't see how one could argue successfully, that there is sufficient evidence to support this Dubays claim that he didnt agree to a child. He will lose this case. The only solution to the problem we men may find ourselves in, is the exercise of self-control,and self-management.


John





Post 78

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 1:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John,

One of your posts brings up another point

In these sloppy affairs, there's the three sides to the story - his, hers and the truth

"She said...she said..."

Did he even know her ass?  Or does she have a nice, round one, so he just jumped into bed with her

NOT CARING about the consequences and possibilities in the proverbial "heat of the moment".

People have a grand old time playing their relationship games, then when someone loses or perceives him/herself as losing, they run crying foul.

What about manning-up and dealing with the web one weaves?


I'm sorry...well, for the baby.

There is NO reason, no excuse, no rationalization and no justification for a man to abandon, reject, and/or neglect his own child.

And if he has a job and his child isn't eating well, he's a child abuser and NEEDS to go to jail.

(Edited by Get to living! Donna Reed on 3/21, 1:27pm)




Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 79

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 1:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John, instead of a speeding example, let's try one closer to sex. How about laws against homosexual sex. Now sure you can argue that men should control what they can control. They can not have sex. And yes, you can say you're encouraging reason by telling them to repress, since the law is what it is. But I think they should expect sympathy, precisely because the laws are immoral.

My problem here is that you're attacking the victims of an unjust law, and not bothering to denounce the law, or encourage someone fighting against it. You've got it entirely backwards, and your statements are consistent with a defense of that law.

And once again, I'll say that I don't think he should have to provide evidence he didn't want the kid. He may lose the case, but that would be an injustice, and reminding him or us that it is the law does not make it any less of an injustice.

"The only solution to the problem we men may find ourselves in, is the exercise of self-control,and self-management."

No...the only solution to this problem is to abolish those unjust laws. We have the choice to stand up and make a moral case for men's rights. We have the choice to denounce the primitive arguments and superstitions that are just as often used to argue against abortion. We have the choice to uphold individual rights against conservative social engineering. The only solution to this is a consistent defense of rights.

Anything less is surrender.



Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Forward one pageLast Page
[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]