UllrsIshtar
Posts: 3693
Joined: 7/28/2012 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: blnymph quote:
ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar Since when has this become a discussion on "your country vs my country"? From the very first posts on ... if you bother to read from the beginning. If you look at the top of this page you 'll find a remark about Ohio. When reading certain Aussieamerican posts you 'll find a lot of references to the American situation with explicit remarks about France and Germany (without any knowledge of both) I wasn't replying to the first post, I made a Fast Reply speaking generally about the subject, specifying specifically that I was talking about legislation in ALL Western countries. What Germany specifically does is of no concern to me, besides the fact that it -like all other Western countries- denies men the same rights that it grants women when in regards to offspring. quote:
ORIGINAL: blnymph quote:
ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar My original post stated that I was surprised that no Western country has yet to grant men the same rights as women when it comes to claiming or abdicating parental rights, and that it would be an issue mostly solved if both parties where required to either claim or decline that claim after conception. At no point did I say anything about Germany specifically. Which is wrong concerning "no western country". There are possibilities in case of adoption - which can only be discussed after birth of course. That is nonsense. There isn't a Western country that allows MEN to put a child up for adoption without the woman's consent. On the flip side, all Western countries (as far as I'm aware) allow women to put a child up for adoption without the father's consent. All she needs to do to accomplish this is claim that she doesn't know who the father is. Further, while a woman can abdicate her parental rights by means of adoption without the father's consent, he cannot do the same in case she decides to keep the child. In that case he is on the hook for child support EVEN IF it would have been his choice to put the child up for adoption. So again, a woman can force a man to be involved in child rearing, regardless of his choices in the matter. Or she can force him to not have an opportunity to raise his own child, even had he wanted to do so (by simple not telling him, and then adopting out the child). Women have rights in the matter of whether to keep the child, men do not. quote:
ORIGINAL: blnymph They neither own the womb nor what may be in it nor what they want to be in it. Here basic law meets basic biology. Sorry but this is how childbearing works since mammals stopped laying eggs (Platypus and Echidna still do). Neither good nor bad just nature. Worked or nobody would exist right now. Men have to wait until birth. Always. I take it you are against abortion then? Because biologically speaking, women have also needed to wait until birth. Always. However that's not the case anymore. Women no longer have to wait until birth. Women now have the option to kill the man's offspring without his knowledge or consent, something that is absolutely unnatural, and has never before occurred in human history. How is it that this change has made it so that women now have the right to decide whether to keep the child or not, yet men do not? Biologically speaking, a man who fertilizes a woman has the right to see his offspring in the flesh, baring the pregnancy going amiss. Women now have the potential to deny the man that right. Why is it that men have no say in the matter? Why do you support a woman's right to kill off a man's offspring without his consent, seeing that the ability to do so is clearly not based on natural biology? Furthermore, biologically, historically speaking, both parents have always had the ability to abandon their offspring. A man not wanting to be involved in child rearing could just take off. The same with a woman not willing to raise her offspring. Sometimes this resulted in the death of the infant, sometimes some unrelated party, or the other parent would step in and raise the child. Your premise that it's biologically naturally for women to have the ability to control a pregnancy, while men do not is ludicrous. Neither sex biologically has the ability to control a pregnancy, and it's exactly the fact that women now have gained that ability, while men have not, that's creating a huge rights imbalance between the sexes. A further unnatural event compounding the issues is this new situation where forced parenting is now state sanctioned. Something which is relatively new, and biologically non-existing. Historically, biologically, both parents have been able to abandon unwanted offspring, even if the other party chose to keep and raise it. It's exactly the fact that women have retained (and increased) their options to abandon offspring, while men's ability to do so has diminished that's causing the issues. Women have options to abdicate their parental duties -adoption, abortion- without the consent of men. Men have no options to abdicate their parental duties, unless a woman first grants him permission. Take that inequality away by granting men the same rights as women (by giving them the option to state that they wish an abortion and thereby abdicating any responsibility for the child before birth even if the women elects to keep it) and you're taking 99% of the issues of unwilling men dodging child support out of the equation. Women now, for the first time in history, have the choice on whether or not they wish to be parents before birth. They have further maintained the ability they have always had to abandon their offspring after birth. Why are you so opposed to men having that exact same right?
< Message edited by UllrsIshtar -- 9/15/2016 11:55:35 AM >
_____________________________
I can be your whore I am the dirt you created I am your sinner And your whore But let me tell you something baby You love me for everything you hate me for
|