Thanks, Luna.
Advertisement
by Katganistan » Fri May 17, 2019 6:43 pm
by Soldati Senza Confini » Fri May 17, 2019 6:44 pm
Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:Soldati Senza Confini wrote:
I believe I have said it before, but yes, I would be willing to part with my money into improving foster care.
Will everyone else do it too, that’s the thing? Because I often see that the interest wanes and ends after the birth. And really, it is after the birth that the help would be needed the most.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Katganistan » Fri May 17, 2019 6:46 pm
Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:Katganistan wrote:While admirable, they will introduce problems namely: 1)who will support the child, if neither mother nor father wants the responsibility and 2) how will the already overburdened foster care system be expected to absorb all these Awomb babies? Conservatives are notoriously tight when it comes to welfare and support programs.
That’s a question I’ve asked. Ok, so the live birth happens, then what? Because this couldn’t be only important while in utero. What about what comes after?
by Nanatsu no Tsuki » Fri May 17, 2019 6:46 pm
Soldati Senza Confini wrote:Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
Will everyone else do it too, that’s the thing? Because I often see that the interest wanes and ends after the birth. And really, it is after the birth that the help would be needed the most.
That's the thing, I know many people are not warm towards it, which is why I also bash pro-life people who are not willing to go that step, and, while I am just one person, I am trying to convince as many as possible that the most compassionate way to go about legislation is the better way.
Slava Ukraini
Also: THERNSY!!
Your story isn't over;֍Help save transgender people's lives֍Help for feral cats
Cat with internet access||Supposedly heartless, & a d*ck.||Is maith an t-earra an tsíocháin.||No TGsRIP: Dyakovo & Ashmoria
by Galloism » Fri May 17, 2019 7:25 pm
Katganistan wrote:Unless the rapist carried and birthed the child, they should have no right to visitation, and no right to demand their victim either get or not get an abortion.
by The Free Joy State » Fri May 17, 2019 7:47 pm
by Galloism » Fri May 17, 2019 7:55 pm
The Free Joy State wrote:Galloism wrote:Why should a rapist who carried and birthed the child get a right to visitation?
For me, removing the child routinely would undermine the legal basis that when someone gives birth -- barring evidence of risk to the child or legal surrender -- they are entitled to parent (or at least see) the child.
That's why, with surrogacy agreements, the birthmother is entitled to take the child home -- despite any contract she may have signed -- in much of the Western world, because the law recognises her right to parent the child she birthed.
Automatically removing that right from people who committed a reprehensible act would risk people who'd given birth having to prove some additional "likeability" factor to see their children, and it's not too difficult to see -- considering the trend towards authoritarianism in certain governments -- how such a test could be manipulated or extended beyond those who've done heinous things.
Additionally, when people commit other heinous acts, they do not have their parental rights severed.
People who commit rape and carry a pregnancy to term should not be able to demand support from their victim, and the victim should be able to not put their name on the birth certificate (if he would prefer). Just as rape victims who become pregnant should be able to seek an abortion, and -- if they choose to maintain the pregnancy -- have no contact (either themselves, or the resulting offspring) with their rapist.
But demanding that someone give birth haves the resulting offspring automatically immediately removed seems a fundamental threat to people's -- law-abiding people's, too -- right to a family life, and it seems like cruel punishment -- almost like a way to coerce abortion, because women fear becoming attached.
by The Free Joy State » Fri May 17, 2019 8:09 pm
Galloism wrote:The Free Joy State wrote:For me, removing the child routinely would undermine the legal basis that when someone gives birth -- barring evidence of risk to the child or legal surrender -- they are entitled to parent (or at least see) the child.
I'm not sure why we should keep that as a legal basis - it seems unnecessarily sexist.
That's why, with surrogacy agreements, the birthmother is entitled to take the child home -- despite any contract she may have signed -- in much of the Western world, because the law recognises her right to parent the child she birthed.
Automatically removing that right from people who committed a reprehensible act would risk people who'd given birth having to prove some additional "likeability" factor to see their children, and it's not too difficult to see -- considering the trend towards authoritarianism in certain governments -- how such a test could be manipulated or extended beyond those who've done heinous things.
Additionally, when people commit other heinous acts, they do not have their parental rights severed.
People who commit rape and carry a pregnancy to term should not be able to demand support from their victim, and the victim should be able to not put their name on the birth certificate (if he would prefer). Just as rape victims who become pregnant should be able to seek an abortion, and -- if they choose to maintain the pregnancy -- have no contact (either themselves, or the resulting offspring) with their rapist.
But demanding that someone give birth haves the resulting offspring automatically immediately removed seems a fundamental threat to people's -- law-abiding people's, too -- right to a family life, and it seems like cruel punishment -- almost like a way to coerce abortion, because women fear becoming attached.
So, to compare your proposal:
Male rapist > male rapist must financially support victim, has no parental rights
Female rapist > male victim let off if he wants, rapist keeps parental rights
These two things don't appear all that similar in treatment based on sex.
by Soldati Senza Confini » Fri May 17, 2019 8:13 pm
The Free Joy State wrote:Galloism wrote:
I'm not sure why we should keep that as a legal basis - it seems unnecessarily sexist.
It's related entirely to the biology of the biology of the people who become pregnant, carry the foetus for forty weeks and endure childbirth.
I would argue the same if someone of the male gender became pregnant and gave birth.
So, to compare your proposal:
Male rapist > male rapist must financially support victim, has no parental rights
Female rapist > male victim let off if he wants, rapist keeps parental rights
These two things don't appear all that similar in treatment based on sex.
I was talking about in relation to the resulting conception of rape.
-- Male victims probably should get financial compensation from their victim from the trauma he's suffered (criminal compensation is a thing in some countries), but that is outside the scope of this debate. Male rapists do not pay financial support to the victim; they pay it for the child.
-- Both impregnated rape victims and rape victims who impregnate someone else should be relieved of their parental responsibilities if they want (by abortion for the person who becomes pregnant, or a paper abortion for the victim who is forced to impregnate).
-- I did not gender the rapists: if a male rapist became pregnant and gave birth, then -- of course -- he should maintain his parental rights (Transmen do exist, and some have given birth). I think it is risky to automatically remove parental rights from the birthing party; I have already laid out my arguments for that.
-- Male rapists should not have rights to their offspring, no. Unlike the pregnant party, they did not give up their body for 40 weeks of their creation, and giving male rapists a parental role in the child's upbringing gives the rapist a role in the life of his victim (a constant reminder for 18 years). Allowing the female rapist to keep access does not keep the female rapist in her victim's life.
Female rapists (all rapists) have done a heinous and inexcusable thing. But I think that the arbitrary removal of parental rights is a dark and dangerous road.
Or, would you like to remove the parental rights from all other criminals who offend bodily autonomy: murderers, muggers?
What do you propose doing with their children?
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Galloism » Fri May 17, 2019 8:13 pm
The Free Joy State wrote:Galloism wrote:
I'm not sure why we should keep that as a legal basis - it seems unnecessarily sexist.
It's related entirely to the biology of the biology of the people who become pregnant, carry the foetus for forty weeks and endure childbirth.
I would argue the same if someone of the male gender became pregnant and gave birth.
So, to compare your proposal:
Male rapist > male rapist must financially support victim, has no parental rights
Female rapist > male victim let off if he wants, rapist keeps parental rights
These two things don't appear all that similar in treatment based on sex.
I was talking about in relation to the resulting conception of rape.
-- Male victims probably should get financial compensation from their victim from the trauma he's suffered (criminal compensation is a thing in some countries), but that is outside the scope of this debate. Male rapists do not pay financial support to the victim; they pay it for the child.
-- Both impregnated rape victims and rape victims who impregnate someone else should be relieved of their parental responsibilities if they want (by abortion for the person who becomes pregnant, or a paper abortion for the victim who is forced to impregnate).
-- I did not gender the rapists: if a male rapist became pregnant and gave birth, then -- of course -- he should maintain his parental rights (Transmen do exist, and some have given birth). I think it is risky to automatically remove parental rights from the birthing party; I have already laid out my arguments for that.
-- Male rapists should not have rights to their offspring, no. Unlike the pregnant party, they did not give up their body for 40 weeks of their creation, and giving male rapists a parental role in the child's upbringing gives the rapist a role in the life of his victim (a constant reminder for 18 years). Allowing the female rapist to keep access does not keep the female rapist in her victim's life.
Female rapists (all rapists) have done a heinous and inexcusable thing. But I think that the arbitrary removal of parental rights is a dark and dangerous road.
Or, would you like to remove the parental rights from all other criminals who offend bodily autonomy: murderers, muggers?
What do you propose doing with their children?
by The Free Joy State » Fri May 17, 2019 8:26 pm
Soldati Senza Confini wrote:
We already remove parental rights for people who pose a danger to a child https://family.findlaw.com/parental-rig ... ights.html
The question here is not whether or not a parent should lose parental rights, we already do revoke these rights. The question is should we remove parental rights from rapists?
Galloism wrote:The Free Joy State wrote:It's related entirely to the biology of the biology of the people who become pregnant, carry the foetus for forty weeks and endure childbirth.
I would argue the same if someone of the male gender became pregnant and gave birth.
I was talking about in relation to the resulting conception of rape.
-- Male victims probably should get financial compensation from their victim from the trauma he's suffered (criminal compensation is a thing in some countries), but that is outside the scope of this debate. Male rapists do not pay financial support to the victim; they pay it for the child.
-- Both impregnated rape victims and rape victims who impregnate someone else should be relieved of their parental responsibilities if they want (by abortion for the person who becomes pregnant, or a paper abortion for the victim who is forced to impregnate).
-- I did not gender the rapists: if a male rapist became pregnant and gave birth, then -- of course -- he should maintain his parental rights (Transmen do exist, and some have given birth). I think it is risky to automatically remove parental rights from the birthing party; I have already laid out my arguments for that.
-- Male rapists should not have rights to their offspring, no. Unlike the pregnant party, they did not give up their body for 40 weeks of their creation, and giving male rapists a parental role in the child's upbringing gives the rapist a role in the life of his victim (a constant reminder for 18 years). Allowing the female rapist to keep access does not keep the female rapist in her victim's life.
Female rapists (all rapists) have done a heinous and inexcusable thing. But I think that the arbitrary removal of parental rights is a dark and dangerous road.
Or, would you like to remove the parental rights from all other criminals who offend bodily autonomy: murderers, muggers?
What do you propose doing with their children?
Well, I wouldn't recommend telling a rape victim we were going to leave their child with their rapist. You talk about giving the rapist a role in the life of her victim - that's a serious one. A constant reminder that your child is being raised by the woman who raped you because of accident of biology.
I can think of little worse mental torture - particularly when it was a statutory rape situation. A child rapist is now raising your child, and your only two choices are to walk away and always live with the torture of leaving your child with your rapist, or being involved in your child's life and constantly having to deal with (and pay) your rapist.
Talk about the state forcing your rapist to live rent free in your head.
by Galloism » Fri May 17, 2019 8:30 pm
The Free Joy State wrote:Galloism wrote:Well, I wouldn't recommend telling a rape victim we were going to leave their child with their rapist. You talk about giving the rapist a role in the life of her victim - that's a serious one. A constant reminder that your child is being raised by the woman who raped you because of accident of biology.
I can think of little worse mental torture - particularly when it was a statutory rape situation. A child rapist is now raising your child, and your only two choices are to walk away and always live with the torture of leaving your child with your rapist, or being involved in your child's life and constantly having to deal with (and pay) your rapist.
Talk about the state forcing your rapist to live rent free in your head.
Oh, for fuck sake! Now you've jumped to statutory rape?
Well, I would suggest that if a person had raped a child that would suggest they are not safe to be around children and the case for removal just got considerably stronger.
I think I said -- on more than one occassion -- "barring risk to the child".
Well, I think a child rapist meets the definition of "risk".
by The Free Joy State » Fri May 17, 2019 8:55 pm
Galloism wrote:The Free Joy State wrote:Oh, for fuck sake! Now you've jumped to statutory rape?
Well, I would suggest that if a person had raped a child that would suggest they are not safe to be around children and the case for removal just got considerably stronger.
I think I said -- on more than one occassion -- "barring risk to the child".
Well, I think a child rapist meets the definition of "risk".
Why does a regular rapist not meet the definition of a risk to a child?
Rape is a serious crime, you know. And people who would rape other people aren't necessarily the good sort who don't feel like they shouldn't violate the rights of others.
Even if it's not statutory rape, isn't "hey totes, we're going to give your child to your rapist, but you don't have to be involved unless you want to, hope we're cool bro" make any sense?
Imagine the reverse - where a woman was raped by a man, we took the child and gave the child to the rapist, then told the mother they could be involved in the child's life if they wanted to, but otherwise have a nice life.
Sound horrifying? It does to me too. So does the reverse.
by Galloism » Fri May 17, 2019 8:59 pm
The Free Joy State wrote:Galloism wrote:Why does a regular rapist not meet the definition of a risk to a child?
Rape is a serious crime, you know. And people who would rape other people aren't necessarily the good sort who don't feel like they shouldn't violate the rights of others.
Even if it's not statutory rape, isn't "hey totes, we're going to give your child to your rapist, but you don't have to be involved unless you want to, hope we're cool bro" make any sense?
Imagine the reverse - where a woman was raped by a man, we took the child and gave the child to the rapist, then told the mother they could be involved in the child's life if they wanted to, but otherwise have a nice life.
Sound horrifying? It does to me too. So does the reverse.
I am well aware that rape is a serious crime, thank you.
I did not say that every other child should be left with the pregnant rapist. Merely that blanket rulings on taking someone's child away are a very dark road to go down, and risk had to be assessed holistically: the mother's beliefs and her likelihood of reoffending, whether there is an appropriate support system that is likely to keep her on the right road, whether she understands bodily autonomy, whether she's mentally capable, her psychological balance, whether she realises she committed an offence, does she/can she feel remorse.
These are all things that would have to be looked at.
Child Protective Services reviewing the familial situation and deciding to leave the child with the person who just pushed it out -- or to grant her visitation, while placing it with someone else -- is not "taking the child and giving it to a rapist" (unlike removing a child physically from the rape victim who had just given birth and giving it to their rapist).
Do I think that many people willing to violate the body autonomy of others are likely to be assessed as being capable parents? Probably not.
But do I think that there should be one blanket ruling, allowing children to be automatically taken away from the people who've given birth? No.
by Godular » Fri May 17, 2019 9:07 pm
by The Free Joy State » Fri May 17, 2019 9:08 pm
Galloism wrote:The Free Joy State wrote:I am well aware that rape is a serious crime, thank you.
I did not say that every other child should be left with the pregnant rapist. Merely that blanket rulings on taking someone's child away are a very dark road to go down, and risk had to be assessed holistically: the mother's beliefs and her likelihood of reoffending, whether there is an appropriate support system that is likely to keep her on the right road, whether she understands bodily autonomy, whether she's mentally capable, her psychological balance, whether she realises she committed an offence, does she/can she feel remorse.
These are all things that would have to be looked at.
Child Protective Services reviewing the familial situation and deciding to leave the child with the person who just pushed it out -- or to grant her visitation, while placing it with someone else -- is not "taking the child and giving it to a rapist" (unlike removing a child physically from the rape victim who had just given birth and giving it to their rapist).
Do I think that many people willing to violate the body autonomy of others are likely to be assessed as being capable parents? Probably not.
But do I think that there should be one blanket ruling, allowing children to be automatically taken away from the people who've given birth? No.
I don't even understand why there should be a preference in place for mothers over fathers as you seem to indicate in your previous posts. There's no reason to assume the mother, as a default, is a better primary parent than the father.
Essentially, why should the mother have default custody anyway? Why isn't default custody the father's? Or why not have a default custody, and start figuring these things out somewhere in the third trimester?
Essentially, the notion that the mother is a better default parent than the father is where you started with a sexist presumption, and from there, tried to come up with ways to justify that position. The baby needs to be given to someone after birth, but there's no reason to automatically presume that person would be the mother. It should essentially be a coin flip between mother and father by default, and given that it should be a coin flip by default, it would seem to be the presumption in a rape situation is that the child goes to the victim and not the perpetrator.
Godular wrote:This thread seems to have deviated... could that be rectified?
by Galloism » Fri May 17, 2019 9:10 pm
The Free Joy State wrote:Galloism wrote:I don't even understand why there should be a preference in place for mothers over fathers as you seem to indicate in your previous posts. There's no reason to assume the mother, as a default, is a better primary parent than the father.
Essentially, why should the mother have default custody anyway? Why isn't default custody the father's? Or why not have a default custody, and start figuring these things out somewhere in the third trimester?
Essentially, the notion that the mother is a better default parent than the father is where you started with a sexist presumption, and from there, tried to come up with ways to justify that position. The baby needs to be given to someone after birth, but there's no reason to automatically presume that person would be the mother. It should essentially be a coin flip between mother and father by default, and given that it should be a coin flip by default, it would seem to be the presumption in a rape situation is that the child goes to the victim and not the perpetrator.
I started with no sexist presumption, merely the biological assumption that is underpinned in lat that whoever gives birth -- regardless of their gender -- is recognised at the moment as having the legal right to take that baby home.
Point me to one place where I said that the parent who gives birth is "a better default parent". Find me one post where I've said that.
I've also never stated any opposition to male rape victims filing for custody if they wish and feel they would make a better parent.
The Free Joy State wrote:For me, removing the child routinely would undermine the legal basis that when someone gives birth -- barring evidence of risk to the child or legal surrender -- they are entitled to parent (or at least see) the child.
That's why, with surrogacy agreements, the birthmother is entitled to take the child home -- despite any contract she may have signed -- in much of the Western world, because the law recognises her right to parent the child she birthed.
by The Free Joy State » Fri May 17, 2019 9:14 pm
Galloism wrote:The Free Joy State wrote:I started with no sexist presumption, merely the biological assumption that is underpinned in lat that whoever gives birth -- regardless of their gender -- is recognised at the moment as having the legal right to take that baby home.
You're trying to focus on a super tiny percentage of the population - less than 0.01% - and pretend you're not being sexist.
The fact that grandfather clauses allowed SOME black people to vote didn't make them not racist.
Your attempts at disguising the birth-based sexism won't work.Point me to one place where I said that the parent who gives birth is "a better default parent". Find me one post where I've said that.
I've also never stated any opposition to male rape victims filing for custody if they wish and feel they would make a better parent.The Free Joy State wrote:For me, removing the child routinely would undermine the legal basis that when someone gives birth -- barring evidence of risk to the child or legal surrender -- they are entitled to parent (or at least see) the child.
That's why, with surrogacy agreements, the birthmother is entitled to take the child home -- despite any contract she may have signed -- in much of the Western world, because the law recognises her right to parent the child she birthed.
There you go.
by Galloism » Fri May 17, 2019 9:15 pm
The Free Joy State wrote:Galloism wrote:
You're trying to focus on a super tiny percentage of the population - less than 0.01% - and pretend you're not being sexist.
The fact that grandfather clauses allowed SOME black people to vote didn't make them not racist.
Your attempts at disguising the birth-based sexism won't work.
There you go.
And I say that women are "better" parents, where?
As I said -- I am merely describing the current legal underpinning. I don't even assign gender to "someone who gives birth... they are entitled to parent".
I make no moral judgements, merely state legal facts.
But Godular wants us to stop.
by Beggnig » Fri May 17, 2019 9:21 pm
by The Free Joy State » Fri May 17, 2019 9:27 pm
Galloism wrote:The Free Joy State wrote:And I say that women are "better" parents, where?
As I said -- I am merely describing the current legal underpinning. I don't even assign gender to "someone who gives birth... they are entitled to parent".
I make no moral judgements, merely state legal facts.
But Godular wants us to stop.
Yes, the legal facts are quite sexist in point of fact - disproportionately favoring women over men.
I do wish people would stop acting like we should keep sexist legal facts on the books when we could replace them with equality.
by Galloism » Fri May 17, 2019 9:33 pm
The Free Joy State wrote:We can push for equal rights in the law, and equal protections for pregnant people regardless of gender, but if we remove the protections for pregnant people for fear of being sexist, what would that say for abortion law -- which, incidentally, is the topic.
Women have the first and final say in abortion because it is their body.
Or surrogacy. The law is the way that it is because the pregnant person must have the right to change her mind, and not be forced to give up her child -- exactly as with abortion (she must not be forced to keep it or abort). Say there was complete equality in that law: the intended parents were able to sue her if she changed her mind (either about going through with the pregnancy or -- if she decided to keep the baby -- to prevent her doing that). That would be robbing an individual of either her right to bodily autonomy or her right to a family life.
by The Free Joy State » Fri May 17, 2019 9:39 pm
Galloism wrote:The Free Joy State wrote:We can push for equal rights in the law, and equal protections for pregnant people regardless of gender, but if we remove the protections for pregnant people for fear of being sexist, what would that say for abortion law -- which, incidentally, is the topic.
I don't see the link how we need to craft what happens after birth based on what happens before birth.
Abortion is acceptable because of bodily autonomy reasons, but once birth happens, those reasons are out the window. As you pointed out here:Women have the first and final say in abortion because it is their body.
Can you explain how after birth can be related, given it no longer is in or involving the body of the mother?
Or surrogacy. The law is the way that it is because the pregnant person must have the right to change her mind, and not be forced to give up her child -- exactly as with abortion (she must not be forced to keep it or abort). Say there was complete equality in that law: the intended parents were able to sue her if she changed her mind (either about going through with the pregnancy or -- if she decided to keep the baby -- to prevent her doing that). That would be robbing an individual of either her right to bodily autonomy or her right to a family life.
Actually this isn't strictly true. A lot of states use DNA to establish parentage, so a surrogate which is using donated eggs/sperm/embryo from the birthing couple has no rights to the ensuing child.
Some states are outliers and favor the surrogate parent.
by Galloism » Fri May 17, 2019 9:44 pm
The Free Joy State wrote:Galloism wrote:
I don't see the link how we need to craft what happens after birth based on what happens before birth.
This thread is about abortion, Gallo.
Not child custody. Abortion. I was trying to get us somewhat back on-topic.Abortion is acceptable because of bodily autonomy reasons, but once birth happens, those reasons are out the window. As you pointed out here:
Can you explain how after birth can be related, given it no longer is in or involving the body of the mother?
I was explaining why complete legal equality does not work in practise.
While child custody isn't the topic here, I never said that the most appropriate parent should not seek and gai custody. But I try and avoid veering too far off topic.
Actually this isn't strictly true. A lot of states use DNA to establish parentage, so a surrogate which is using donated eggs/sperm/embryo from the birthing couple has no rights to the ensuing child.
Some states are outliers and favor the surrogate parent.
In the UK, the birthmother has automatic rights until she negates them.
by Cameroi » Fri May 17, 2019 9:47 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhiris, Australian rePublic, Barinive, Diarcesia, Eahland, GMS Greater Miami Shores 1, Ifreann, Ineva, Keltionialang, La Paz de Los Ricos, Maximum Imperium Rex, Shrillland, Soul Reapers, Tiami, Washington Resistance Army
Advertisement