Men's Rights

[Black Dog]

Women don't need to trick men....the government will impose child support liability on a man via "presumption of paternity" laws.

Men's rights my ass.....

You seem to be suggesting this happens a lot, men paying for another man's kid. Got any evidence?

[bush_cheney2004]

Seriously ? You want evidence that wives get knocked up by men other than their husbands ?

Maybe this never happens in Canada.

[-1=e^ipi]

Dunno who "they" are here, but I for one have acknowledged that a double standard exists. The question is: is it a justifiable one? Some would argue that what you're asking for is to give men an option women don't have: that is the right to not support a living child.

Then give it to women as well. So if a girl gets pregnant and doesn't want to be a parent, but the father does, then the mother has the legal option to not be the legal parent.

[cybercoma]

Seriously ? You want evidence that wives get knocked up by men other than their husbands ?

Maybe this never happens in Canada.

What he said was that "you seem to think this happens a lot" and then he asked for evidence to back up your claim. But we both know you'll never provide it, so maybe this was the best response you've got.

[bush_cheney2004]

What he said was that "you seem to think this happens a lot" and then he asked for evidence to back up your claim. But we both know you'll never provide it, so maybe this was the best response you've got.

It doesn't matter what I think....the "evidence" is obvious and codified into public law. The usual insults were removed by the mods.

Use America's Google to search for "presumption of paternity" for family law going back to the 16th century.

Edited May 28, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[cybercoma]

It doesn't matter what I think....

You're right. It doesn't matter what you think. That's why Black Dog asked for you to cite some concrete facts.

the "evidence" is obvious and codified into public law. The usual insults were removed by the mods.

So obvious that you still haven't backed up your claim.

Use America's Google to search for "presumption of paternity" for family law going back to the 16th century.

Uh, no. You're the one making the argument. You get to support your claims, but if you can't or won't we can all just move on and ignore your unsupported rant as nonsense. In case you haven't looked at the forum guidelines in awhile:

If you are stating a fact, be prepared to back it up with some official sources

[bush_cheney2004]

You're right. It doesn't matter what you think. That's why Black Dog asked for you to cite some concrete facts.

Err...no...he devolved into the usual personal attacks and the mods stepped on him.

So obvious that you still haven't backed up your claim.

My "claim" is backed up in public laws and family court rulings...all across "North America".

Men's rights on the issue are extinguished and usurped by the presumption of paternity when married and/or other circumstances.

[cybercoma]

So nothing? You don't have any figures on how often a man who's not the father is forced to pay child support. That's fine. Just come out and say you're exaggerating how much of a problem it is.

[bush_cheney2004]

Here's the kind of paternity data that some Canadians really love.....from their very favourite source...American television !!!!

[cybercoma]

Cool. Now that we've established you have no support for your claims, keep quiet for awhile while the adults talk.

[bush_cheney2004]

Off topic....please try to contribute something to the discussion of men's rights.

[Bonam]

Dunno who "they" are here, but I for one have acknowledged that a double standard exists. The question is: is it a justifiable one? Some would argue that what you're asking for is to give men an option women don't have: that is the right to not support a living child.

Of course women have this option. A mother can give a child up for adoption if she is unable or unwilling to care for it.

[Moonlight Graham]

Yes. It's similar to how white people today should be discriminated against in job selection because 200 years ago unrelated white people, in a different country, held black people as slaves.

None of it makes any sense until you get into the mindset of the social justice activist... but if you do, then you realize that from this point of view, individuals don't matter at all. The rights and lives of individuals can be trampled and destroyed, because the only thing that matters in their narrative is groups and equalizing group results.

Exactly right. Certain organizations, even our federal government ("employment equity"), see people in only certain kinds of classified groups, and give them education/job advantages because of perceived "unfairness". You just can't split people down a line into a few groups without looking at individual circumstances. Affirmative action policies can mean giving a "visible minority" (let's call it what it is and cut the politically correct racist-washing BS: "non-white") who comes from an affluent family an advantage over a white person who grew up in a poor & abusive household. It's by very definition racist, and completely ridiculous, stereotyping, discriminatory, short-sighted, and racist (and in other cases, sexist).

Fighting racism with more racism and sexism with more sexism is wrong.

[Moonlight Graham]

Give males the legal option to opt out of being a legal parent if they did not consent to having children. I already told you that.

I like it! Hard thing to prove though...

[Moonlight Graham]

Besides the fact that a man can't give a woman the legal papers that he does not want to father a child before she rapes him, here are some suggestions for a man to avoid fathering a child (just so they don't have to go the legal route):

C. Ensure that his partner has taken the necessary precautions (all of the following): on the pill, has an iud, has a diaphragm, has access to the morning after pill (of course the male partner would have to ensure she takes this pill the morning after they have had sex)

How do you make sure a woman takes her birth control pill every darn day???

[bush_cheney2004]

There's an app for that.....

[Bonam]

I like it! Hard thing to prove though...

Shouldn't have to prove anything. Frankly, even if he did initially "consent to have children", he should be able to later change his mind, just as the woman can.

A woman is able to choose not to have a child at the time of intercourse by using a contraceptive, throughout the course of pregnancy by having an abortion, or even after the child is born by giving up the child. These are choices that a woman very rightfully has access to. No one should be forced to be a parent against their will. Not only does it infringe upon the rights of the individual, but it's also no good for a child to have a parent that does not want to be a parent.

A man should have the same rights and choices. Although obviously a man cannot have an abortion (and certainly should not have any right to compel a woman to have one or not to have one), he should be able to decide, at any time throughout the pregnancy, or after the pregnancy, that he is not interested in acting as a father, just as the woman can.

Seems pretty straightforward and equal to me.

[overthere]

A man should have the same rights and choices. Although obviously a man cannot have an abortion (and certainly should not have any right to compel a woman to have one or not to have one), he should be able to decide, at any time throughout the pregnancy, or after the pregnancy, that he is not interested in acting as a father, just as the woman can.

Your choice was made when you chose to have unprotected sex and a child was conceived. There is no reason for the state to assume a lifetime financial burden for your choice.

Nobody ever forces you to be a father, meaning a person who accepts the emotional responsibility for a young life. But when you voluntarily choose to donate the sperm, you take the risk that there are lifetime consequences. It is pretty simple..

[Black Dog]

Err...no...he devolved into the usual personal attacks and the mods stepped on him.

Let's recap shall we?

You seem to be suggesting this happens a lot, men paying for another man's kid. Got any evidence?

Seriously ? You want evidence that wives get knocked up by men other than their husbands ?

Maybe this never happens in Canada.

Pretty clear where the disconnect lies.

[Black Dog]

Shouldn't have to prove anything. Frankly, even if he did initially "consent to have children", he should be able to later change his mind, just as the woman can.

If a man consents to having kids and changes his mind, he should still have to bear the consequences of his earlier decision.

A man should have the same rights and choices. Although obviously a man cannot have an abortion (and certainly should not have any right to compel a woman to have one or not to have one), he should be able to decide, at any time throughout the pregnancy, or after the pregnancy, that he is not interested in acting as a father, just as the woman can.

Seems pretty straightforward and equal to me.

What about the best interests of the child? As a society, should we not be seeing to it that the vulnerable are not subject to the capriciousness of individuals?

[bush_cheney2004]

Pretty clear where the disconnect lies.

There is no disconnect....presumption of paternity laws and family court decisions burden thousands of men each year with child support payments and other obligations.

I don't know why you insist on numbers to back up such an obvious outcome of such policies and laws. There certainly are numbers derived from known case law volume and DNA testing, even from a dubious source:

http://rense.com/general51/chsup.htm

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/nov/28/childrensservices.politics

The "interests of the child" argument should be trumped by individual constitutional rights (it sure does when women want to abort their babies). Men who wish to do so can voluntarily incur such liability. Paternity fraud is not rare.

http://www.mensdefense.org/STM_Book/PaternityFraud.htm

Edited May 29, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[Black Dog]

There is no disconnect....presumption of paternity laws and family court decisions burden thousands of men each year with child support payments and other obligations.

I don't know why you insist on numbers to back up such an obvious outcome of such policies and laws.

Because that's how things are supposed to work around here, duh.

The "interests of the child" argument should be trumped by individual constitutional rights.

Which specific right?

Men who wish to do so can voluntarily incur such liability. Paternity fraud is not rare.

Meh. I don't have a ton of sympathy for men who would willingly act as father to a child but who would abandon those obligations because they aren't he biological father. IOW: being a parent is about more that sperm.

[bush_cheney2004]

Meh. I don't have a ton of sympathy for men who would willingly act as father to a child but who would abandon those obligations because they aren't he biological father. IOW: being a parent is about more that sperm.

They don't need or care about your sympathy....they just don't want the presumed child support and other burdens. Second wives of such men are also peeved about the presumed liability.

[Black Dog]

They don't need or care about your sympathy....they just don't want the presumed child support and other burdens. Second wives of such men are also peeved about the presumed liability.

Once a man accepts social and legal responsibility for a child – with or without knowledge of their genetic paternity – their status as the child’s legal father should not be abrogated except in extreme circumstances where deliberate fraud can be proven.

[bush_cheney2004]

Once a man accepts social and legal responsibility for a child – with or without knowledge of their genetic paternity – their status as the child’s legal father should not be abrogated except in extreme circumstances where deliberate fraud can be proven.

I disagree....men who have accepted such an obligation under presumption laws and/or paternity fraud should have legal recourse to seek remedy and damages. Courts strip parental rights all the time for many reasons.