Results 21 to 40 of 47
So why do you think these trends arise? And how do we best combat them?
"Risk management" is a bourgeois concept (in addition to being a capitalist economic theory) designed to eliminate the possibility for massive revolution by promoting the fear of a "chaotic" or "devolved" post revolution social condition.
Who cares if the "risk" involved under "post capitalist conditions" is very great if "post capitalist conditions" are never attained.
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein
Read Ian's post.
Monty, what you fail to realize is that child support is designed for men that don't want to be fathers. You are responsible for where you put your dick and nobody else. It isn't the girl's fault that you came in her, it isn't anyone else's fault that the condom broke. When you fuck you accept that risk.
It doesn't matter if he chose to do it or not. Should people that drive drunk and kill someone be acquitted because they didn't mean to do it? No. Motives aren't the issue.
It might be your sperm but it's the female's egg and body.
I hear that some men in the U$ must pay for children, even when they have proven they are not the paternal father.
I also read that if they have enough money to pay for a DNA test, then U$ courts dont even accept it as it was not court appointed, but the court wont pay for a DNA test anyway.
If thats true, the U$A is really sucks. especially for the children, who have been lied to.
Apparently you are confused about the issue. No one is arguing that the ovum is the genetic property of the female or if the female is the delivery device for offspring.
Once the sperm and the ovum combine, the newly "combined" and dividing cells contain equal portions of the male's and female's genetic code; allowing for the argument of property extraction to be applied.
Considering of course that it's your side that imposed the original "right to property" argument; the end result is more than just a touch "ironic".
Please feel free to ask about anything else if you are still confused.
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein
‘Indigo largely answered that point. But in further rely your giving the entire agency to the man as if he was the sole arbiter of the situations and therefore has all the responsibility. Which is bullshit Victorian ‘myth of the female organism’ kind of stuff we’re women supposably don’t like sex and get nothing out of sex bar pregnancy. Its complete bullshit their both responsible for their part in sexual intercourse - i.e. the women as a choice and volition too(you can't argue with that, but i guess you'll find a way).
‘’
There’s absolutely no continuity and comparability in those two different situations.
I think that under communism....this issue will eventually be much more about "Womens Rights"...I mean, I'm personally for the end of the current family structure, and I think that maybe someday, the community itself may even have a say.
But this isn't about that....
What I was getting at was, under CURRENT conditions....In a world where many females are still getting the shit kicked out of them by men....I think we need to side overwhelmingly with the FEMALES RIGHT TO HER OWN BODY....this IS an issue of patriarchy to me....and I will fight against it. I mean, there obviously won't be child support under communism.
"Criticism must be sharp… If you do not do things well, I won't be satisfied with it, and if I offend you, I offend you, and that's that. To be afraid of offending people is nothing more than being afraid of losing votes and being afraid of having difficult relations in one's work with one's co-workers. Will I starve if you don't vote for me? Nothing of the sort. Actually, relations will be smoother if you speak out and put the problem clearly on the table… A bull has two horns because it has to fight. One purpose is for defense and another purpose is for offence. I have often asked comrades, Have you grown any horns on your head?' You comrades can feel your heads and see… I think that it's better to grow two horns,' because that conforms to Marxism" - Mao
I confess I am bewildered by the expression "paternal rights" or why it would be discussed on this board.
Under bourgeois law, children (evidently including embryos) are still, in a sense, regarded as a kind of property.
And the concept of "paternal rights" appears to concern the "lawful" division of that "property".
Why should we concern ourselves with that?
It seems a fairly straight-forward matter to me that a woman who suffers an unwanted pregnancy has an abortion, period.
To place the burden of child-support on individual men (and women) is a feature of class society that we would obviously dispose of more or less instantly.
If a man is having sex because he wants a child, then it would seem to be incumbent on him to determine in advance that his chosen partner is willing to bear that child.
It's not the sort of thing one would want to "leave to chance", is it?
Listen to the worm of doubt for it speaks truth.
The Redstar2000 Papers
Also see this NEW SITE:@nti-dialectics
correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it be more fruitful to have society as a whole support children rather than place it on the fathers and mothers? I find both sides of this argument rather stuck in the bourgeois box of policy, and I don't think anything will come of it either way.
If a woman wants an abortion, then she gets an abortion. If she doesn't want one, then she doesn't get one. It's as simple as that.
The father has nothing to do with it. When it boils down to its essentials, a father is a father only inasmuch as his genetic material has fertilized an egg. The rest of what we commonly refer to as fatherhood is a wholly social construct. I know plenty of "fathers" whose sperm hasn't once fertilized an egg.
The question of whether or not a genetic father should support a child makes about as much sense as asking whether the mother should be obligated to care for the child. Sure. So should everyone else on this planet. We are all responsible for the well being of humanity, as a whole and as individual units.
The problem is that this argument is taking place within the context of bourgeois social relations, and I think that's a fault. We shouldn't advocate a man having or not having to support a child, but instead advocate that child being supported, period. It isn't about the biological father, it's about the child.
<span style=\'color:red\'>The man who has got everything he wants is all in favor of peace and order.</span> - Jawaharlal Nehru
<span style=\'color:red\'>The distinguishing sign of slavery is to have a price, and to be bought for it.</span> - John Ruskin
-----------------------------------------------------
Red Apollo -- Anti-establishment, anti-authoritarian arts and projects <span style=\'color:red\'>New and improved! :P</span>
The Red Wiki
Mutiny At Sector Five -- revolutionary politics and adventure game
Make your own Commie Comic!
I agree very much, and said something similar in an above post.
But I also said that right now, under CURRENT CONDITIONS, that we should fight patriarchy. Sure, child support may be bullshit, just as parents "owning" "their" child is also bullshit, but right now, if there is no child support, then a lot of kids are gonna be left with a lot less then they already have.
"Criticism must be sharp… If you do not do things well, I won't be satisfied with it, and if I offend you, I offend you, and that's that. To be afraid of offending people is nothing more than being afraid of losing votes and being afraid of having difficult relations in one's work with one's co-workers. Will I starve if you don't vote for me? Nothing of the sort. Actually, relations will be smoother if you speak out and put the problem clearly on the table… A bull has two horns because it has to fight. One purpose is for defense and another purpose is for offence. I have often asked comrades, Have you grown any horns on your head?' You comrades can feel your heads and see… I think that it's better to grow two horns,' because that conforms to Marxism" - Mao
This is an appeal to emotion. The truth is, it doesn't change the fact that we need to think beyond the social limitations of bourgeoisie society, and instead actively seek its upheaval towards a system suited to human well-being.
By the same logic, one can say that we should participate in bourgeoisie elections, since the time isn't ripe for revolution in old industrialized nations.
<span style=\'color:red\'>The man who has got everything he wants is all in favor of peace and order.</span> - Jawaharlal Nehru
<span style=\'color:red\'>The distinguishing sign of slavery is to have a price, and to be bought for it.</span> - John Ruskin
-----------------------------------------------------
Red Apollo -- Anti-establishment, anti-authoritarian arts and projects <span style=\'color:red\'>New and improved! :P</span>
The Red Wiki
Mutiny At Sector Five -- revolutionary politics and adventure game
Make your own Commie Comic!
I think theres a huge difference between supporting elections and fighting for women and childrens well being in a man dominated world.
You can work within movements without being overrun by them.
"Criticism must be sharp… If you do not do things well, I won't be satisfied with it, and if I offend you, I offend you, and that's that. To be afraid of offending people is nothing more than being afraid of losing votes and being afraid of having difficult relations in one's work with one's co-workers. Will I starve if you don't vote for me? Nothing of the sort. Actually, relations will be smoother if you speak out and put the problem clearly on the table… A bull has two horns because it has to fight. One purpose is for defense and another purpose is for offence. I have often asked comrades, Have you grown any horns on your head?' You comrades can feel your heads and see… I think that it's better to grow two horns,' because that conforms to Marxism" - Mao
And when a female engage in intercourse willingly she doesn't submit herself to paying child support, or have the baby.
Putting sperm up your vagina is quite harmless, at least if you live in a civilised country where abortion is free.
Both parts should have the same consequenses from free sex... none
Severian
This is easily solved by making it standard for both parts to sign an I-want-this-baby contract in 3-4 weeks after every pregnancy starts.
It’s a fair idea I just think your timeline is out of wack…3-4 weeks after conception doesn’t allow enough time for either party to figure out what they want to do or change there mind which should be allowed up to a certain pint. It would have to be a very flexible legal time frame and system. I.e. the decision period is nine months or up until abortion is impossible.
Ok agreeable but do you feel that progressive changes should not fought for? Or even worse allowing reactionary changes come into place such as restrictions on abortions because action on the issue would need engagement in the system?
I haven't been bothered to read ALL of this but just bits and pieces so I'll put in my $0.02. This sounds rather simplistic and sorry if it does but maybe if people wouldn't have unprotected sex than maybe we wouldn't have this issue to begin with. I know the condom (the most common method) isn't the perfect method but its a better chance of not getting yourself into such a predicament.
MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE. HAVE A GOOD ONE V That link down there, clicky it
This site > http://dpforums.2ya.com/forums < Go to it, register, enjoy
Or get BANNED FROM THE INTERNET!!!
</div><table border=\'0\' align=\'center\' width=\'95%\' cellpadding=\'3\' cellspacing=\'1\'><tr><td>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td id=\'QUOTE\'>I sometimws fel like i know you guys.Then i sober up.lol,</td></tr></table><div class=\'signature\'> -Anarion XD.........Can't say I blame him sometimes either.
This sounds like one of those "leading questions"...it implies that reformism is something that revolutionaries "should" (on occasion) engage in.
I have not noticed a "shortage" of reformists...there seem to be plenty of suckers willing to "engage the system".
What they'll "gain", if anything, is strictly up to the ruling class and what that class thinks is in its own class interests.
If millions of ordinary women are "in the streets" fighting for their reproductive freedom, then I'm certainly willing to support that.
But telling people to vote for Ms. Liberal in the next congressional election because she's "pro-choice"?
Nah!
She's a politician, ain't she? And since when are they obligated to tell us the truth!
Listen to the worm of doubt for it speaks truth.
The Redstar2000 Papers
Also see this NEW SITE:@nti-dialectics
Yeah that is rather simplistic, and impractical, people love sex!
It is, but there's a lot mitigating factors that might mean no condom is used, or fails, so it's important to discuss stuff like this.
........and thats why it would probably be a good idea to just hold off until you can get in contact with a pack of condoms. I assume that it probably wouldn't be that long of a wait either.
Well some people can go through life without sex but then again to those that can't I guess it wouldn't be impractical to wait till the above stated (first part) is reached.
MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE
This site > http://dpforums.2ya.com/forums < Go to it, register, enjoy
Or get BANNED FROM THE INTERNET!!!
</div><table border=\'0\' align=\'center\' width=\'95%\' cellpadding=\'3\' cellspacing=\'1\'><tr><td>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td id=\'QUOTE\'>I sometimws fel like i know you guys.Then i sober up.lol,</td></tr></table><div class=\'signature\'> -Anarion XD.........Can't say I blame him sometimes either.
Wow, this discussion is so messed up on both sides...apparently you need to either be a fascist misogynist with no respect for personal liberty, or a man-hating (self-hating as it is in most cases) reactionary rad-fem poser. Everyone needs to be able to make choices for themselves on their end reproductively and make sure that they'd be cool with whatever their partner is likely to do before sleeping with them.
I think in this debate its really important to seperate parental rights over a fetus and parental rights over a child. A fetus is part of a woman's body, no one else should have any rights to decide what happns to it, or even be informed on what happens to it, anymore then anyone should have any rights over someone elses kidneys or liver.
But a child is an independent person. Children don't "belong" to mothers anymore then they belong to fathers or anyone else, the way that fetuses do belong to the person carrying them. Asuming there was consent and no fraud, mothers and fathers are equally responsible for bringing a child into the world, in socities where children are regarded as the financial responsibility of their parents (non-socialist socities) they should have equal obligation and protection. In juristictions where mothers can give their children up for adoption and absolve themselves of all financial responsibility, fathers should have the same rights to opt out of responsibility...if a father could claim guardianship and expect child-support from a mother who didn't want to parent the child, though, then obviously a man should have to support any child he fathered. Otherwise its not an equal risk which is a basic requirement for an egalitarian society.
Women should always be able to decide what they want to do with their bodies and men who get them pregnant shouldn't have any rights to decide or even be informed on whats going on...but a child has nothing to do with a woman's body or a man's body once its born.
Clearly the wikipedia article on "parental rights" that suggests that it amounts to allowing a guy to dictate whether or not someone has an abortion is outragious and fascistic, but thats not what Monty Cantsin is arguing he's only talking about issues after a child is born (if i understand correctly).
I think it really depends. If you're a guy having unprotected sex with a girl who you have no reason to assume is on birth control and you know she would not want to have an abortion if she got pregnant, then i think thats very clear implied consent to support any child you have a not-unlikely chance of producing from that. Having sex in this case would involve consenting to a known risk.
On the other hand if a guy insists on using a condom and some additional form of birth control, has been told that the girl he's sleeping with is pro-choice and would not want to have a child at this point in her life, and they don't have any expectation of a long term, live-in relationship, i think it would be highly unfair to think that this guy could having willingly and knowingly consented to supporting a child. If they still managed to have an accident in this scenario and the girl changed her mind (say she had a spiritual conversion lol) i don't think it would be fair to expect a guy to enter into a situation that he had absolutely no reason to think he was at risk for.
Just when it looked like the self-hating male rad fems were going to be the biggest nutcases, you start arguing a near-fascist line! You don't have any f'ing rights over your genes when they're in other people. You think you're f'ing grandfather should be able to make choices for you?
Sperm donors don't have to pay child support, they do it for money.
Or, if you're characterizing any biological father as a 'sperm donor', something doesn't count as a 'donation' if it wasn't given willingly...if a guy using a condom and spermicide and stuff manages to get someone pregant (it breaks, doesn't work, whatever) its not the same as like willingly handing over his sperm.
Or worse, what if he had sex on the basis of fraudulent information. What if a woman told a guy that she had some form of reliable birth control thats not obvious (hormonal birth control, either the pill or something else, IUD, tubal ligation, something like that) and he agreed to have unprotected sex with her on that basis, when she was infact lying. Would she then be entitled to collect child support from a man who was clearly decieved? I really don't think so.
What if a guy lied about having a vasectomy and got someone pregnant who had sex with him without contraceptives because she thought he had that done? Surely someone doing that should face criminal charges for the physical harm it would inflict.
He's a rightwing nutcase, it has nothing to do with not having a liberal/american historical view of Stalin.
What is military registration and draft of men but not women; offering maternal leave but not paternal leave; awarding mothers who are no more capable or less capable of taking care of their children custody during break ups, even against the child's wishes, simply because they're mothers; constantly accusing men of "degrading women" by thinking about them in a sexual way while not seeing any degradation in the reverse situation; and so on, other than sexism against men?
Even if there is more oppression on the basis of sex against women (which is a question open for debate), communists need to defend everyone from descrimination and oppression.
There is absolutely nothing "equal" about human reproduction. Its not equal that one sex has to get increasingly fat over a period of 9 months while having their hormones messed up, getting perminant scars across their abdomen, and then have to go through excruciating pain for hours while actually giving birth, while the other sex just has to have an orgasm. Fathers can get equality of choice when they can get pregnant and give birth.
You're attitude is ultra-rightist, has no respect for personal freedom and comes off as frankly bizzar.
You're totally right and its really quite awful. I think some leftist white boys are so eager to pick "oppressed" groups to identify with completely that they end up reacting against their own demographics to a reactionary point, while unfairly politicizing whatever group they want to latch onto whether its women or non-whites or gays or whatever. It really drives me crazy.
Any rights to decide at all are unequal rights as there are no equivolent rights over the man's body. Unless you're imagining a scenario where a woman could have 'equal rights to decide' whether a man should have to keep a rapidly growing hormonally active tumor in his abdomon for nine months, or whether he should have an unnessessary organ removed, as that would be the equivolent.
Probably because asshole pro-lifers have them convinced now that they 'killed their baby' or something like that. If they thought of it as simply making a decision on what they thought was best for them then guilt and mental trama wouldn't come into it.
uh...you'd hope she had something to do with it.
So what? Their pillow is likely to contain a roughly equal mix of both partners skin and hair cells, you probably exchange a few skin cells just by shaking hands and definately by making out. You don't have rights over your cells once they're no longer part of your body. Guys can claim rights over their sperm cells while they're still inside them if you like.
I agree. Parents should have absolutely no rights over their children, it is in effect a sort of politically correct slavery. However in capitalist societies where children are not taken care of collectively, parents by virtue of the fact that they willingly brought them into the world have certain responsibilities and obligations to them; they didn't ask to be born.
very true.
☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
You’re making a generalisation; I don’t see how my position constituted either of those two extremes.
That’s all I had to say, I don’t want to be considered a ‘fascist misogynist’ or “reactionary rad-fem poser”. Though I can definitely see those position represented here.
