saucisse Archive

Upvotes	Title	Category	Author	Subreddit	Date (UTC)

Upvotes	Comment on	Subreddit	Date (UTC)
0	This about sums it up. to allow men 30 days upon notification they are a father to opt-out. If women knew men had the option to opt-out But that gets back to my entire point: the right to support belongs to the child, and one person cannot unilaterally sign away another person's rights. Your "opt out" solution would make it legal to deny children parental support. Who is being punished here? Also, that doesn't answer my question at all, which was what do you do about two-parent consent to adoption when dad is nowhere …	/r/MensRights	30/08/11 12:31 PM
1	This about sums it up. Fair enough, that's an excellent point. I don't have a good solution to your other point, though, about don't know/can't find. "Don't know" gets into some shaky moralizing territory which I'd like to avoid, but "can't find" seems fairly straightforward, wouldn't you say?	/r/MensRights	30/08/11 12:22 AM
0	This about sums it up. Amnesty abandonment is crazy, I'd rather not talk about it here (unless you want me to go on a rant about moral hazard, which maybe you do!) I'm not sure how to answer the issue about can't find/don't know: if she can't find him, what is the solution to an unwanted child? Abortion by default? That seems like the opposite of the "solution" being argued in this thread, no? Looking for the source for consent requirements. I have in my head some news stories from years ago about women being required…	/r/MensRights	30/08/11 12:20 AM
2	This about sums it up. Oh I think that shit is bugfuck insane. I don't think 'selfish' is really the word to describe what is going on there, its pathological at that point.	/r/MensRights	28/08/11 05:28 AM
1	This about sums it up. What do you think of selfish bitches who get sperm from a donor and have a kid by themselves after they've been made infertile by nature? Point of fact: if a woman is infertile, she cannot get pregnant regardless of the source of the sperm. That's the definition of infertile.	/r/MensRights	28/08/11 04:13 AM
-1	This about sums it up. Because babies grow inside women. Its as simple as that. When babies grow in stainless-steel vats in baby-growing facilities, then this issue of parity of "choice" will kick in. Until then, women are the final decision-makers. End of story.	/r/MensRights	27/08/11 12:07 PM
0	This about sums it up. Amnesty abandonment should not exist, and it is certainly far from a universal law or even accepted convention. Adoption would not be illegal because adoption affirms that support is being passed from one responsible party to another. Party A is not -- and cannot -- withdraw support without Party B immediately taking it on.	/r/MensRights	27/08/11 12:06 PM
0	This about sums it up. That depends entirely on who you are dealing with, and where you are geographically located.	/r/MensRights	26/08/11 10:39 PM
-1	This about sums it up. Eh? It has everything to do with the notion that children are entitled to the support of the parties who brought them into being.	/r/MensRights	26/08/11 10:37 PM
0	This about sums it up. then a man cannot be morally obligated to support a possible personhood that might exist in the future. Why not? What happens if we change "possible" to "inevitable"? Not sure if you're American or not, but in the USofA the "personhood" question is hotly debated, extremely controversial, and is the direct root cause of multiple murders over the last couple of decades so you're not alone in seeing contradictions.	/r/MensRights	26/08/11 10:24 PM
0	This about sums it up. How so? If there is no personhood prior to birth, why would that suggest making abortion illegal? I think it suggests the opposite.	/r/MensRights	26/08/11 10:17 PM
-1	This about sums it up. Tangentially related because of the intent of both parties, which are very different in the scenarios described.	/r/MensRights	26/08/11 10:12 PM
0	This about sums it up. Been to South Dakota lately? The current argument presumes that the child's personhood is instantiated at the moment of birth, in which case all rights attach at that instant. Its immaterial when any decision about non-support is made; those rights are present at birth and cannot be unilaterally signed away by anyone.	/r/MensRights	26/08/11 10:11 PM
-1	This about sums it up. There is no 100% equality. There is parity in most things, but we are far from equal biologically. I'm not going to get into the moral questions of abortion here, the conversation presumes that the morality has already been decided in the affirmative.	/r/MensRights	26/08/11 10:07 PM
-1	This about sums it up. What does this mean? A child dies when it only has the income of one parent? This statement makes no sense. Until you can understand how they aren't "inextricably linked", this discussion is pointless. The definitely suffer a strong financial disadvantage. They also suffer an emotional disadvantage (again: cue angry replies from happy adults raised by single parents) of not having both parents available to support them as individuals, and to take the stress off each other during the exhausting b…	/r/MensRights	26/08/11 10:04 PM
1	This about sums it up. But we're not talking about mandatory shared custody, we're talking about purely financial arrangements. In that context, society (through the government) is entirely capable of paying the same amount of money to the custodial parent as the non-custodial parent would be forced to pay under the present system. It may not be desirable to many and it would certainly result in either significantly increased taxation or major budgetary changes, but it would be entirely possible. It is theoretically p…	/r/MensRights	26/08/11 09:53 PM
1	This about sums it up. Oh man, this is quite the can of worms, isn't it? I don't have a magic number, and I'm not sure there is one. Indeed, the idea of a "nuclear family" of two parents going it alone is very new, emerging only within the last 60 or so years and is largely a product of post WWII economic expansion that allowed married couples to purchase their own homes, and more importantly cars -- which allowed them to live greater than walking distance/public transit from their extended family and support system. …	/r/MensRights	26/08/11 09:45 PM
0	This about sums it up. They are linked by default, but that default can be altered under very specific conditions, namely that there is a party or parties willing and able to absorb the cost (financial/emotional/social) of those rights and affirmatively take them on. "Society" does pay -- they pay through CPS departments (underfunded and undervalued as they are), subsidized foster programs, and institutional care. All of those options are sub-optimal and frequently have very poor outcomes, and are a poor substitute fo…	/r/MensRights	26/08/11 09:34 PM
0	This about sums it up. Life isn't equitable all the time, sometimes biology trumps philosophy. Right, which is why the woman has 100% control over whether or not she has the baby. Correct. Financial obligations are not biology. But they are inextricably linked to biology, and they are supported by law as well as social convention, in every society on this planet. Before the child is born, which is why the woman can choose to have the baby or not. Maybe she won't have the baby if she can't take the man's money without …	/r/MensRights	26/08/11 08:51 PM
1	This about sums it up. I'm not familiar with the specifics of adoption law, but there are legalities around one entity affirmatively taking over support of a child from another. Simply handing your child to someone without any kind of legal affirmation of responsibility on the part of the recipient would be considered abandonment, I'm fairly certain.	/r/MensRights	26/08/11 08:40 PM
1	This about sums it up. She is required to in some place. What if she can't, though?	/r/MensRights	26/08/11 08:34 PM
1	This about sums it up. Adoption terminates parental rights, it does not terminate the child's rights to support.	/r/MensRights	26/08/11 08:32 PM
2	This about sums it up. Adoption terminates parental rights, it does not terminate the child's rights to support.	/r/MensRights	26/08/11 08:28 PM
-2	This about sums it up. No, two people are responsible for the child's existence. The problem is that only one person gets to make a choice regarding their involvement. Life isn't equitable all the time, sometimes biology trumps philosophy. At what point do the child's rights and best-interests engage? The woman would have to consider if she really wants to have the child if she would be having the child by herself. Perhaps the gentleman should consider whether he is willing to risk fatherhood before he has unprotected…	/r/MensRights	26/08/11 07:55 PM
0	This about sums it up. You need to send a postcard into a registry. Do you have a better suggestion for establishing paternity of a child when your name is not on the birth cert and/or you are not married to mom?	/r/MensRights	26/08/11 07:53 PM
1	This about sums it up. Wow, loaded questions and only tangentially related to the issue at hand, but since I love nothing so much as the sound of my own voice, I'll engage: 1) Sperm banks should not be banned, but see #3 below 2) Yes I do think that women who opt to have children without a partner of either sex are depriving their child (cue angry emails from people happily and successfully raised by single parents). 3) No, with the caveat that there are lawsuits already out there and the beginnings of established -- …	/r/MensRights	26/08/11 07:53 PM
2	This about sums it up. Describe?	/r/MensRights	26/08/11 07:52 PM
1	This about sums it up. Per Lehr v. Robertson, unmarried fathers must either be on the birth certificate (in which case they become the legal father) or sign a putative-father's registry in order to have standing to file a petition to halt any adoption proceeding and/or petition to gain custody. If they are established as the putative father (or absolutely established by being on the birth certificate) they can simply not consent to the unilateral termination of their parental rights. Consent may be unnecessary if mom …	/r/MensRights	26/08/11 07:40 PM
1	This about sums it up. What difference does it make if he disavows all responsibility before or after the child is born? Once the child is born, it is still without the support of the man responsible for his/her existence.	/r/MensRights	26/08/11 07:30 PM
2	This about sums it up. Ideally? Yes. That is alraedy the case in some states, which becomes problematic when the mother can't find the father because he has already split.	/r/MensRights	26/08/11 07:16 PM
-2	This about sums it up. What to you think of the child's right to support from both parents who brought him/her into the world?	/r/MensRights	26/08/11 07:14 PM
-2	This about sums it up. Do you think it is correct that one person should be able to unilaterally sign away the rights of another person? The rights you speak of belong to the child -- not to either parent.	/r/MensRights	26/08/11 07:13 PM