Who's right to choose, a womans right to choose.

[Zzarchov]

You go ahead and continue to think that when I, or anyone, argue the viewpoint that: a man that participates in the creation of a child is forever responsible for that child, then we are hysterical, misinformed and biased. Abortion is not an alternative for a huge percentage of the population so prefacing your debate with abortion as an "opt out" choice for women is equivalent to begging the question.

Wait so your arguing women should not be responsible? If women are free of responsibility they should also be free of privelage.

I know the laws are set up sweet right now and you can force your will on the other gender..and it breaks your heart to change it, but tough.

For along time it was reverse and Women were at the beck and call of the man's whims. It wasn't right then, it isn't right with the tables reversed.

For their to be equal responsibility (ethically) their must be equal rights. Seeing as equal rights would be invasive to the woman, then one must have less rights (the male), no one is arguing that. But since the Male has less rights, Ethically he must have less responsibility.

Please point out the error in my logic in the above paragraph. As that seems to be Crux, keeping in mind that contraception and sex are equally the domain of the woman and the man. No one is arguing that in situations where it is not (ie rape) that different rules would not need to apply. No one is arguing a child should not be brought into this world without support, the counter logic being don't bring a child into this world if you can't support it. If it makes it easier, assume the above point about responsibility dealt with another subject in society (ie, the ownership of a business or a joint bank account)

 

[Kreskin]

Just a couple of points (I can't believe that I actually took the time to go back through this thread):

A review (and clarification) of the formula, since Ad seems to have forgotten it:



Note: In no way is the male able to force his will on that of the female. He cannot force an abortion or an adoption. The choice is entirely her's. At the same time, the female cannot force parenthood on the male. Force is not used.


Second point: This is a question about the legalities of the current system, not the ethics of it. Obviously if we were talking ethics, the right thing to do would be to support the female in her choice. If that meant raising the kid, thats what it would be. But we are not asking an ethical question, we are asking a legal question. We are asking, is it right for a woman to use the state to force another person to support her decision to keep the child. It is okay for her to hold a gun to his head and take his money. Is it okay to use the state as a hired goon to hold down another person, take his money, and potentially kill him in the process.


Third point: Any time you use the legal system to force a person to do something, in essence you are holding a gun to their head. In actual fact, you could potentially be killing a person in an effort to get them to bend to your will.

Would you be okay with harrassing, threatening (verbally, and physically), using less-lethal weapons (mace, taser, rubber bullets), using potentially lethal weapons, imprisonment, torture (many people would call what happens in prisons torture), and/or killing the person, in your effort to force him to pay up?

If not, you need to re-think your position because all of these things are possible events and conclusions when you use the legal system to do your bidding.

Third point: Any time you use the legal system to force a person to do something, in essence you are holding a gun to their head. In actual fact, you could potentially be killing a person in an effort to get them to bend to your will.

That is the entire point of making abortion legal. You can't force a woman to give birth. You can't put someone in padded room to force them physically to do anything. This has nothing to do with parental or financial responsibility.

Are you familiar with contract law? I'm no lawyer but here is one of the basic elements. If someone doesn't do something contractually you can't physically force them to do it. You can seek monetary compensation but no one, not even a building contractor, can be forced to carry through physically with a contract. A hockey player can't be forced to play hockey. There is not one law on our books that forces anyone to physically do anything. Not one. A woman is not physically enslaved to the baby she is carrying, nor to the father of that baby. She is also not enslaved to having to commit an abortion just because someone else would like her to. There is no legal, ethical or moral obligation in any way shape or form to have an abortion. Our society doesn't want her to have one. She has a right to it because she is not a slave, but it is not an expectation or desired outcome. The right to not be physically enslaved does not in any way shape or form absolve her and the father of their responsibilities to the child that they have brought into the world.

The male is not physically enslaved to anything. Having to work to pay support is not physical enslavement. We all have to work to put food on the table or we can choose to live in a gutter. The act of having to work for a living is a responsibility to oneself and family. No one says you must physically do this job or that job, that would be slavery. A financial obligation is not.

 

[CDNBear]

Just a couple of points (I can't believe that I actually took the time to go back through this thread):

A review (and clarification) of the formula, since Ad seems to have forgotten it:



Note: In no way is the male able to force his will on that of the female. He cannot force an abortion or an adoption. The choice is entirely her's. At the same time, the female cannot force parenthood on the male. Force is not used.


Second point: This is a question about the legalities of the current system, not the ethics of it. Obviously if we were talking ethics, the right thing to do would be to support the female in her choice. If that meant raising the kid, thats what it would be. But we are not asking an ethical question, we are asking a legal question. We are asking, is it right for a woman to use the state to force another person to support her decision to keep the child. It is okay for her to hold a gun to his head and take his money. Is it okay to use the state as a hired goon to hold down another person, take his money, and potentially kill him in the process.


Third point: Any time you use the legal system to force a person to do something, in essence you are holding a gun to their head. In actual fact, you could potentially be killing a person in an effort to get them to bend to your will.

Would you be okay with harrassing, threatening (verbally, and physically), using less-lethal weapons (mace, taser, rubber bullets), using potentially lethal weapons, imprisonment, torture (many people would call what happens in prisons torture), and/or killing the person, in your effort to force him to pay up?

If not, you need to re-think your position because all of these things are possible events and conclusions when you use the legal system to do your bidding.

well, that would be simple wouldn't it, as then, as was long ago, women would not have ANY
where to turn for ANY help whatsoever, if the future father of her child did not want to help in
ANY way, so, this conversation wouldn't be necessary, and women would have to gather together
and help each other, as that would be all they would have, with the exception of course, of the
men who were responsible and loving for their children to be, or their partners in sex, and it would
be interesting to know what that percentage would be. hmmmmm! I wonder

I'm sure it would be the desire of many many men, NOT to have the legal system interferring with
their desire to ignore, flee, harrass, control, or even kill the woman who carries the child belonging to
both of them.

Give us all a break, please.

Wait so your arguing women should not be responsible? If women are free of responsibility they should also be free of privelage.

I know the laws are set up sweet right now and you can force your will on the other gender..and it breaks your heart to change it, but tough.

For along time it was reverse and Women were at the beck and call of the man's whims. It wasn't right then, it isn't right with the tables reversed.

For their to be equal responsibility (ethically) their must be equal rights. Seeing as equal rights would be invasive to the woman, then one must have less rights (the male), no one is arguing that. But since the Male has less rights, Ethically he must have less responsibility.

Please point out the error in my logic in the above paragraph. As that seems to be Crux, keeping in mind that contraception and sex are equally the domain of the woman and the man. No one is arguing that in situations where it is not (ie rape) that different rules would not need to apply. No one is arguing a child should not be brought into this world without support, the counter logic being don't bring a child into this world if you can't support it. If it makes it easier, assume the above point about responsibility dealt with another subject in society (ie, the ownership of a business or a joint bank account)

Thank gawd a voice of analytical and measured reason.

You go ahead and continue to think that when I, or anyone, argue the viewpoint that: a man that participates in the creation of a child is forever responsible for that child, then we are hysterical, misinformed and biased. Abortion is not an alternative for a huge percentage of the population so prefacing your debate with abortion as an "opt out" choice for women is equivalent to begging the question.

No, a man and a woman participated EQUALLY in sex for pleasure. Once again you have not read the question. Then you added emotion, not reason to your arguement of the wrong question. Get it right or start a thread that involves only delusions and emotions. I'll leave you alone there.

I do not think Kreskin is hysterical, passionate yes, but not hysterical. But then again, he hasn't tried to tell us that abortion operations are Draconian or mid evil, that men just want to sew their wild oates, nor did he continue an agressive smear campain or try to tell us all that he was somehow intellectually superior to anyone because they choose to look at things from an analytical, not emotional point of view. Your bias towards men is quite evident in your posts, that's quite clear to a few people I have talked to. So your point was?

Third point: Any time you use the legal system to force a person to do something, in essence you are holding a gun to their head. In actual fact, you could potentially be killing a person in an effort to get them to bend to your will.

That is the entire point of making abortion legal. You can't force a woman to give birth. You can't put someone in padded room to force them physically to do anything. This has nothing to do with parental or financial responsibility.

Are you familiar with contract law? I'm no lawyer but here is one of the basic elements. If someone doesn't do something contractually you can't physically force them to do it. You can seek monetary compensation but no one, not even a building contractor, can be forced to carry through physically with a contract. A hockey player can't be forced to play hockey. There is not one law on our books that forces anyone to physically do anything. Not one. A woman is not physically enslaved to the baby she is carrying, nor to the father of that baby. She is also not enslaved to having to commit an abortion just because someone else would like her to. There is no legal, ethical or moral obligation in any way shape or form to have an abortion. Our society doesn't want her to have one. She has a right to it because she is not a slave, but it is not an expectation or desired outcome. The right to not be physically enslaved does not in any way shape or form absolve her and the father of their responsibilities to the child that they have brought into the world.

The male is not physically enslaved to anything. Having to work to pay support is not physical enslavement. We all have to work to put food on the table or we can choose to live in a gutter. The act of having to work for a living is a responsibility to oneself and family. No one says you must physically do this job or that job, that would be slavery. A financial obligation is not.

Kreskin, you're using emotion again. LRG and I are looking at this analytically. Just for a second, take a look at it without emotion, apply reason and see if you do not agree with our stance. We all have our opinions about abortion and/or support, but look at it like a lawyer.

 

[Kreskin]

Kreskin, you're using emotion again. LRG and I are looking at this analytically. Just for a second, take a look at it without emotion, apply reason and see if you do not agree with our stance. We all have our opinions about abortion and/or support, but look at it like a lawyer.

I just told you a very basic principle of law. No one is physically forced to do anything. What is confusing about that? You guys are arguing out of emotion. The woman has ALL these rights. Ya right. Tell me one physical thing any male is forced to do?

 

[CDNBear]

I just told you a very basic principle of law. No one is physically forced to do anything. What is confusing about that? You guys are arguing out of emotion. The woman has ALL these rights. Ya right. Tell me one physical thing any male is forced to do?

Pay support or...

Have it garnished from your wages.

Be denied OSAP and other financial funding.

Be denied a Drivers license.

Be denied a License plate tag.

Be dragged before the courts in infinitum.

Last but not least my fave...

Lose your freedom.= FORCABLE confinement.

 

[Kreskin]

Bear, you guys are getting caught up in the emotion. You're comparing apples to oranges. You tracking rights like a scoreboard. A right to an abortion has nothing to do with parental responsibility. You guys seem intent on mixing the two when they have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

 

[CDNBear]

Bear, you guys are getting caught up in the emotion. You're comparing apples to oranges. You tracking rights like a scoreboard. A right to an abortion has nothing to do with parental responsibility. You guys seem intent on mixing the two when they have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

How can you say that. Oh I know, because it somehow makes you right?

The whole point of the thread is a scorecard.

If equallity is or was supposed to be the result of the feminist revolution, then there should be equality. There is no equallity in the process as it is.

You can not reasonably say there is.

That is our arguement.

You and I came to a reasonable solution to but one of the facits of the debate, but that does not apply equallity to the man in the situation.

Funny how only treu "Feminists" feel that LRG and I are right.

 

[Kreskin]

Pay support or...

Have it garnished from your wages.

Be denied OSAP and other financial funding.

Be denied a Drivers license.

Be denied a License plate tag.

Be dragged before the courts in infinitum.

Last but not least my fave...

Lose your freedom.= FORCABLE confinement.

The woman has not broken a law by staying pregnant or terminating a pregnancy. She isn't forced to decide based upon someone else deciding for her, and if she does terminates she is not causing the male any financial problem. If she delivers, which society wants her to and the male has entered an implied contract by jointly creating the person, and she decides to leave her child outside in a shoebox on his front step, she too may be subject to forcible confinement.

 

[Sassylassie]

Well in order for Bear and LRG to be happy regarding "Fairness" women would have to be relegated back to being second class citizens (not going to happen)where men decide what females can and cannot do (sorta like Islam in the middle east)

I have a degree in Criminology not family law but I'll wade into the deep end for a moment.

A tale alas woe it's me from a male perspective:

Option 1

A women gets pregnant said male doesn't want her to have the child so in order for it be considered fair the man can force a women to have an abortion, under the law that is classified as slavory and it's never been legal in Canada.

Second Option

A female keeps said child and the male is ordered to pay child support for the HIS unwanted child well he can run and hide like half who father unwanted children do to Calgary and hide out as a rig pig and change jobs every few months so he doesn't have to pay said child support. Meanwhile the female is raising the child by herself with no interferance or finacial support from the male.

Third option:

The male can pay child support and have no contact with the child and be absolved of any responsibility of raising the child.

I hardly think requiring a male to support a child he fathered to be an undo hardship nor is it discrimination. If males do not want to father mulitiple children use protection whilst having sex.

Now the reverse argument:

A woman gets pregnant and wants an abortion but the male wants her to carry the child, back to the top of the page lads again slavory has never been legal in Canada.

Second Option:

There isn't one because it's our RIGHT to choose what we do with our bodies, when men evolve and can carry a child then you can have the right to choose. Until then all other choices would be to force a female to bend to a males wishes and sorry fellas women have done that for generation and it's gone over bye bye total male domination.

 

[CDNBear]

Well in order for Bear and LRG to be happy regarding "Fairness" women would have to be relegated back to being second class citizens (not going to happen)where men decide what females can and cannot do (sorta like Islam in the middle east)

I have a degree in Criminology not family law but I'll wade into the deep end for a moment.

A tale alas woe it's me from a male perspective:

Option 1

A women gets pregnant said male doesn't want her to have the child so in order for it be considered fair the man can force a women to have an abortion, under the law that is classified as slavory and it's never been legal in Canada.

Second Option

A female keeps said child and the male is ordered to pay child support for the HIS unwanted child well he can run and hide like half who father unwanted children do to Calgary and hide out as a rig pig and change jobs every few months so he doesn't have to pay said child support. Meanwhile the female is raising the child by herself with no interferance or finacial support from the male.

Third option:

The male can pay child support and have no contact with the child and be absolved of any responsibility of raising the child.

I hardly think requiring a male to support a child he fathered to be an undo hardship nor is it discrimination. If males do not want to father mulitiple children use protection whilst having sex.

Now the reverse argument:

A woman gets pregnant and wants an abortion but the male wants her to carry the child, back to the top of the page lads again slavory has never been legal in Canada.

Second Option:

There isn't one because it's our RIGHT to choose what we do with our bodies, when men evolve and can carry a child then you can have the right to choose. Until then all other choices would be to force a female to bend to a males wishes and sorry fellas women have done that for generation and it's gone over bye bye total male domination.

Neither LRG or myself are trying to assert that man or anyone else should tell or force woman to do anything.

We are asking for equallity and nothing more.

 

[CDNBear]

Actually I would like to correct that last post...

We are asserting that woman be forced to take responsiblity for their actions and choices. Seeming as they make them all.

 

[Kreskin]

Well in order for Bear and LRG to be happy regarding "Fairness" women would have to be relegated back to being second class citizens (not going to happen)where men decide what females can and cannot do (sorta like Islam in the middle east)

I have a degree in Criminology not family law but I'll wade into the deep end for a moment.

A tale alas woe it's me from a male perspective:

Option 1

A women gets pregnant said male doesn't want her to have the child so in order for it be considered fair the man can force a women to have an abortion, under the law that is classified as slavory and it's never been legal in Canada.

Second Option

A female keeps said child and the male is ordered to pay child support for the HIS unwanted child well he can run and hide like half who father unwanted children do to Calgary and hide out as a rig pig and change jobs every few months so he doesn't have to pay said child support. Meanwhile the female is raising the child by herself with no interferance or finacial support from the male.

Third option:

The male can pay child support and have no contact with the child and be absolved of any responsibility of raising the child.

I hardly think requiring a male to support a child he fathered to be an undo hardship nor is it discrimination. If males do not want to father mulitiple children use protection whilst having sex.

Now the reverse argument:

A woman gets pregnant and wants an abortion but the male wants her to carry the child, back to the top of the page lads again slavory has never been legal in Canada.

Second Option:

There isn't one because it's our RIGHT to choose what we do with our bodies, when men evolve and can carry a child then you can have the right to choose. Until then all other choices would be to force a female to bend to a males wishes and sorry fellas women have done that for generation and it's gone over bye bye total male domination.

Exactly Sassy. A court can't force anyone to do anything physical unless they have broken a criminal law, and even then we don't have chain gangs in prisons anymore. Slavery is outlawed. The two guys here keep comparing the fundamental right to not be enslaved to some form of parental rights scoreboard. They have nothing to do with each other in any fashion.

 

[LittleRunningGag]

Third point: Any time you use the legal system to force a person to do something, in essence you are holding a gun to their head. In actual fact, you could potentially be killing a person in an effort to get them to bend to your will.

That is the entire point of making abortion legal. You can't force a woman to give birth. You can't put someone in padded room to force them physically to do anything. This has nothing to do with parental or financial responsibility.

If a guy refuses to pay child support, what do you think will happen? He will be forcibly brought in by the state and given penalties. If he continues to refuse to pay, eventually he will be imprisoned. If he refuse imprisonment, he will be shot and killed. Nope no one is being forced to do anything.

Are you familiar with contract law? I'm no lawyer but here is one of the basic elements. If someone doesn't do something contractually you can't physically force them to do it. You can seek monetary compensation but no one, not even a building contractor, can be forced to carry through physically with a contract.

What happens when they refuse? They are sued. What happens if they refuse to pay after they are sued? They are held in contempt of court and arrested. What happens if they refuse arrest? They are shot and killed. Nope, no force.

A hockey player can't be forced to play hockey. There is not one law on our books that forces anyone to physically do anything. Not one. A woman is not physically enslaved to the baby she is carrying, nor to the father of that baby. She is also not enslaved to having to commit an abortion just because someone else would like her to. There is no legal, ethical or moral obligation in any way shape or form to have an abortion. Our society doesn't want her to have one. She has a right to it because she is not a slave, but it is not an expectation or desired outcome. The right to not be physically enslaved does not in any way shape or form absolve her and the father of their responsibilities to the child that they have brought into the world.

Who is trying to force her to have an abortion? Why does this keep coming up? It says specifically in my post:

Point B) Female has sole right to terminate the pregnancy. Male has zero rights to this option. If woman aborts, story ends.

Specifically, NO ONE IS FORCING ANYONE TO HAVE AN ABORTION.

The male is not physically enslaved to anything. Having to work to pay support is not physical enslavement.

See my first point.

We all have to work to put food on the table or we can choose to live in a gutter. The act of having to work for a living is a responsibility to oneself and family. No one says you must physically do this job or that job, that would be slavery. A financial obligation is not.

We are not talking about an ethical obligation. We are talking about a legal obligation. Obviously, the guy is ethically obligated, but why should he be forced into it? When you are under the threat of legal retribution, that is force. See my first point.

 

[CDNBear]

Exactly Sassy. A court can't force anyone to do anything physical unless they have broken a criminal law, and even then we don't have chain gangs in prisons anymore. Slavery is outlawed. The two guys here keep comparing the fundamental right to not be enslaved to some form of parental rights scoreboard. They have nothing to do with each other in any fashion.

Yet the courts force men into virtual slavery to women, in the guise of child support.

But somehow that's OK?

 

[CDNBear]

If a guy refuses to pay child support, what do you think will happen? He will be forcibly brought in by the state and given penalties. If he continues to refuse to pay, eventually he will be imprisoned. If he refuse imprisonment, he will be shot and killed. Nope no one is being forced to do anything.


What happens when they refuse? They are sued. What happens if they refuse to pay after they are sued? They are held in contempt of court and arrested. What happens if they refuse arrest? They are shot and killed. Nope, no force.


Who is trying to force her to have an abortion? Why does this keep coming up? It says specifically in my post:


Specifically, NO ONE IS FORCING ANYONE TO HAVE AN ABORTION.


See my first point.


We are not talking about an ethical obligation. We are talking about a legal obligation. Obviously, the guy is ethically obligated, but why should he be forced into it? When you are under the threat of legal retribution, that is force. See my first point.

LRG, another astounding breath of fresh and clear air.

 

[LittleRunningGag]

Bear, how much bigger do we have to write it for it to go through?

Here:

No one wants to force women to do anything.

We simply want a system in which a woman doesn't have the option of using the state as hired goons, holding down a man, with a gun to his head, forcebly taking money from his pocket. That is illegal in any other situation. Why do people advocate it here?

 

[Kreskin]

Yet the courts force men into virtual slavery to women, in the guise of child support.

But somehow that's OK?

Where's the slavery in having a responsibility to your child?

 

[LittleRunningGag]

Where's the slavery in having a responsibility to your child?

If it is an ethical responsibility, than there is none. But when the 'justice' system is brought into it, that's when slavery ensues.

 

[Kreskin]

Bear, how much bigger do we have to write it for it to go through?

Here:

No one wants to force women to do anything.

We simply want a system in which a woman doesn't have the option of using the state as hired goons, holding down a man, with a gun to his head, forcebly taking money from his pocket. That is illegal in any other situation. Why do people advocate it here?

The courts are acting on behalf of the child. It's not spa treatment support or alimony. You keep bringing the woman into this llike she's the devil for having your kid.

Damn right the court should force the money out of your pocket to put food in your own kid's mouth. It would be highly irresponsibile not to.

 

[selfactivated]

Just a couple of points (I can't believe that I actually took the time to go back through this thread):

A review (and clarification) of the formula, since Ad seems to have forgotten it:



Note: In no way is the male able to force his will on that of the female. He cannot force an abortion or an adoption. The choice is entirely her's. At the same time, the female cannot force parenthood on the male. Force is not used.


Second point: This is a question about the legalities of the current system, not the ethics of it. Obviously if we were talking ethics, the right thing to do would be to support the female in her choice. If that meant raising the kid, thats what it would be. But we are not asking an ethical question, we are asking a legal question. We are asking, is it right for a woman to use the state to force another person to support her decision to keep the child. It is okay for her to hold a gun to his head and take his money. Is it okay to use the state as a hired goon to hold down another person, take his money, and potentially kill him in the process.


Third point: Any time you use the legal system to force a person to do something, in essence you are holding a gun to their head. In actual fact, you could potentially be killing a person in an effort to get them to bend to your will.

Would you be okay with harrassing, threatening (verbally, and physically), using less-lethal weapons (mace, taser, rubber bullets), using potentially lethal weapons, imprisonment, torture (many people would call what happens in prisons torture), and/or killing the person, in your effort to force him to pay up?

If not, you need to re-think your position because all of these things are possible events and conclusions when you use the legal system to do your bidding.

See I dont get whats not to get here. Its well said and well thought out. I wish I was half as intellegent as yall are! Then I could get my point across.