Man: If women have right to choose, men should have right to deny support-DAILOL

In article , Rosalie B. says...

"Illiana via FamilyKB.com" u38194@uwe wrote:

Tom Enright wrote:
In article . com, Beliavsky
says...
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
fruits of his work is exploiting his body. He is denied the right to
decide what is done with his body.

No - he decides what kind of work he does with his body, or hopefully
with his brain. Deciding what to do with the money he earns by this
work is not slavery. It would be slavery if someone told him what
work to do.

Taking the fruit of one's labor is slavery. It has nothing to do at
all with what work one does and whether or not he chooses that work.

-Tom Enright

Slavery would be if we never GOT the 'fruits of labor' or any part of
it. It isn't that we have to pay for things that we've bought or done

".. Slavery emphasizes the idea of complete ownership and control by a
master: as in to be sold into slavery. "

You might just as well argue that because we have to pay taxes, that
it is slavery. The government takes a part of what we make in many
ways and a lot of the time.

Actually, there are no fruits of labor when it comes to slavery. There is no
pay, and no reward.
I have to disagree and say it is not slavery.

Right. Calling child support slavery is a perversion of the concept
of slavery.


It's as if we're all slaves to the local grocery store and mortgage bank or
landlord.

It's not slavery.

Banty

On Nov 14, 7:58 am, "Illiana via FamilyKB.com" u38194@uwe wrote:
Tom Enright wrote:

Taking the fruit of one's labor is slavery. It has nothing to do at
all with what work one does and whether or not he chooses that work.

-Tom Enright

Actually, there are no fruits of labor when it comes to slavery. There is no
pay, and no reward.
I have to disagree and say it is not slavery.

Wrong, there is pay and reward for slavery. A slave receives food,
shelter and basic medical care. A slaveowner does not want his slave
to die, as he has spent money to purchase that slave. That is why in
the southern US in the 19th century Irish immigrants were often given
the most dangerous jobs. You wouldn't risk a slave . Slaves cost
money, the Irish are free.

-Tom Enright

--
Message posted via FamilyKB.comhttp://www.familykb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/parenting/200711/1- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Nov 14, 10:14 am, Banty wrote:
In article , Rosalie B. says...

Right. Calling child support slavery is a perversion of the concept
of slavery.

It's as if we're all slaves to the local grocery store and mortgage bank or
landlord.

So your local grocery store takes money from your paycheck without
your consent? Money that you have no way of deciding how it is
spent. Your grocery store can have you imprisoned if you refuse the
taking of this money? Really?

Where the hell to you live?

It's not slavery.

-Tom Enright

Banty

On Nov 13, 1:25 pm, Banty wrote:
In article om, Beliavsky
says...



On Nov 9, 9:17 am, Banty wrote:

If you create a system where men don't have a say in the decision of
whether their children will be aborted, and are not even required to
be informed before their unborn children are killed, lots of men,
rightly or wrongly, will feel that if they have no rights, they have
no responsibilities either if the mother decides not to abort.

A man, even the father of a child, should *not* have a say in what someone does
to their own body. That's why. For example, I can't tell *you* to give a
kidney to anyone, even an aunt.

Are you opposed to even requiring the father to be *notified* that an
abortion is intended? That's what the law I cited was about.

Well, I don't think one should be intended, but, given the current regime of the
law on that, to what end would the father be notified?

In a word, yes, I am opposed. It would be lovely if the woman
informed the man, discussed it with him, and they reached a decision
together. But should that be legally mandated? Hell no!

What if the woman was raped? Or the man was abusive? Or it was a one-
night stand and she doesn't even know where he is? If there were
notification laws, the woman would either be denied her right to
abort, or she would have to add the cost and trauma of a court hearing
to an already traumatic experience.

Or so that the man can browbeat her, in one direction or another?

But what do YOU believe? Do you believe that a man should be entitled
to force a woman to abort a child against her will? Because that
seems to be the only logical end of your arguments, if indeed there
*can* be a logical end to your arguments.

And BTW, the two groups that statistically live the longest are
married men and UNmarried women, destroying your entire argument (and
leading to the old joke that an engagement ring is payment for the
years that men suck off women's lives).

Barbara

In article .com, Barbara
says...

On Nov 13, 1:25 pm, Banty wrote:
In article om, Beliavsky
says...



On Nov 9, 9:17 am, Banty wrote:

If you create a system where men don't have a say in the decision of
whether their children will be aborted, and are not even required to
be informed before their unborn children are killed, lots of men,
rightly or wrongly, will feel that if they have no rights, they have
no responsibilities either if the mother decides not to abort.

A man, even the father of a child, should *not* have a say in what someone
does
to their own body. That's why. For example, I can't tell *you* to give a
kidney to anyone, even an aunt.

Are you opposed to even requiring the father to be *notified* that an
abortion is intended? That's what the law I cited was about.

Well, I don't think one should be intended, but, given the current regime of the
law on that, to what end would the father be notified?

In a word, yes, I am opposed. It would be lovely if the woman
informed the man, discussed it with him, and they reached a decision
together. But should that be legally mandated? Hell no!

What if the woman was raped? Or the man was abusive? Or it was a one-
night stand and she doesn't even know where he is? If there were
notification laws, the woman would either be denied her right to
abort, or she would have to add the cost and trauma of a court hearing
to an already traumatic experience.

Or so that the man can browbeat her, in one direction or another?

It's only notifying him if she *plans* an abortion. But yes, the only reason I
see for such a notification is for a browbeating. Or maybe even to force her
into naming someone.

Notification of *parents* regarding minors, however, is a different matter IMO.
It shouldn't be like any other medical procedure or medication.

But independant adults don't owe each other discussion of anything like this.
Given that abortion is legal.

Banty

In article , Banty says...

In article .com, Barbara
says...

On Nov 13, 1:25 pm, Banty wrote:
In article om, Beliavsky
says...



On Nov 9, 9:17 am, Banty wrote:

If you create a system where men don't have a say in the decision of
whether their children will be aborted, and are not even required to
be informed before their unborn children are killed, lots of men,
rightly or wrongly, will feel that if they have no rights, they have
no responsibilities either if the mother decides not to abort.

A man, even the father of a child, should *not* have a say in what someone
does
to their own body. That's why. For example, I can't tell *you* to give a
kidney to anyone, even an aunt.

Are you opposed to even requiring the father to be *notified* that an
abortion is intended? That's what the law I cited was about.

Well, I don't think one should be intended, but, given the current regime of the
law on that, to what end would the father be notified?

In a word, yes, I am opposed. It would be lovely if the woman
informed the man, discussed it with him, and they reached a decision
together. But should that be legally mandated? Hell no!

What if the woman was raped? Or the man was abusive? Or it was a one-
night stand and she doesn't even know where he is? If there were
notification laws, the woman would either be denied her right to
abort, or she would have to add the cost and trauma of a court hearing
to an already traumatic experience.

Or so that the man can browbeat her, in one direction or another?

It's only notifying him if she *plans* an abortion. But yes, the only reason I
see for such a notification is for a browbeating. Or maybe even to force her
into naming someone.

Notification of *parents* regarding minors, however, is a different matter IMO.
It shouldn't be like any other medical procedure or medication.

Whoops - it *should* be like any other medical procedure.

(I think I mentally switched between "should be like" and " shouldn't be any
different from" mid-stream.)

Banty

In article . com, Tom Enright
says...

On Nov 14, 10:14 am, Banty wrote:
In article , Rosalie B. says...

Right. Calling child support slavery is a perversion of the concept
of slavery.

It's as if we're all slaves to the local grocery store and mortgage bank or
landlord.

So your local grocery store takes money from your paycheck without
your consent? Money that you have no way of deciding how it is
spent. Your grocery store can have you imprisoned if you refuse the
taking of this money? Really?

Where the hell to you live?



If you don't pay the grocer, he can do worse than that!

Banty

In article om, Tom Enright
says...

On Nov 14, 7:58 am, "Illiana via FamilyKB.com" u38194@uwe wrote:
Tom Enright wrote:

Taking the fruit of one's labor is slavery. It has nothing to do at
all with what work one does and whether or not he chooses that work.

-Tom Enright

Actually, there are no fruits of labor when it comes to slavery. There is no
pay, and no reward.
I have to disagree and say it is not slavery.

Wrong, there is pay and reward for slavery. A slave receives food,
shelter and basic medical care. A slaveowner does not want his slave
to die, as he has spent money to purchase that slave. That is why in
the southern US in the 19th century Irish immigrants were often given
the most dangerous jobs. You wouldn't risk a slave . Slaves cost
money, the Irish are free.

Leaving aside this idea that supporting one's own child has no reward
(amazing...), you can think of it as a fine or payment for damages caused. Not
slavery; something owed that could have been avoided. Certainly in this kind of
case.

Banty

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 07:51:35 -0800, Tom Enright wrote:

On Nov 14, 10:14 am, Banty wrote:
In article , Rosalie B. says...

Right. Calling child support slavery is a perversion of the concept
of slavery.

It's as if we're all slaves to the local grocery store and mortgage bank or
landlord.

So your local grocery store takes money from your paycheck without
your consent? Money that you have no way of deciding how it is
spent. Your grocery store can have you imprisoned if you refuse the
taking of this money? Really?

Where the hell to you live?

So your boss can have you imprisoned if you refuse work for him? Really?

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 07:46:48 -0800, Tom Enright wrote:

On Nov 14, 7:58 am, "Illiana via FamilyKB.com" u38194@uwe wrote:
Tom Enright wrote:

Taking the fruit of one's labor is slavery. It has nothing to do at
all with what work one does and whether or not he chooses that work.

-Tom Enright

Actually, there are no fruits of labor when it comes to slavery. There is no
pay, and no reward.
I have to disagree and say it is not slavery.

Wrong, there is pay and reward for slavery. A slave receives food,
shelter and basic medical care.

Most working people do not work directly for food and shelter. They make
money which they use to pay for such things. They have a choice to work or
not work for their employer. That makes it not slavery.