Ultimate sense of entitlement

[V]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Ok, I'll bite. How is having children a right? I can't think of any laws that say a person must be able to reproduce. Granted, I can't think of any that say they aren't allowed, either (unless we are in China, iirc).

IANAL, but a privilege would imply the state can take that privilege away if the privilege was abused. I cannot conceive of a situation in our current social construct that could lead the legal removal of our ability to procreate.

[Coys1882]

I think that birth control should be implemented at the onset of puberty and forced until you've proven that you at least have a concept of what being a parent means.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Ok, I'll bite. How is having children a right? I can't think of any laws that say a person must be able to reproduce. Granted, I can't think of any that say they aren't allowed, either (unless we are in China, iirc).

It could just be my mindset, though. I don't see myself as having a right to have a child. I look at everything required of a parent and realize I don't want that responsibility.

I've long thought that prospective parents should be (granted, somewhat lightly) screened and licensed to have kids if they want them.

It is a right in that the state has no ability to tell you you can't have one. Like you said, this isn't China.

[WhiteTiger]

Hm, you are both right.

I guess it's more a perspective thing than an actual right/privilege one.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by V

IANAL, but a privilege would imply the state can take that privilege away if the privilege was abused. I cannot conceive of a situation in our current social construct that could lead the legal removal of our ability to procreate.

In fact, generally speaking, states can prohibit anything they want (provided they have the strength to enforce it.) Of course, in Canada, the state has quite prudently limited itself and what it can do by promoting the rule of law and enacting the Charter. But its also worth keeping in mind that even in Canada the government can infringe (and does so frequently) on Charter-protected rights so long as it meets the justification test (in s. 1).

ETA: Otherwise you are right of course: bearing children would be protected by s. 7 of the Charter and it is difficult to imagine many circumstances in which the government would be justified infringing that right.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You're about the last person I want speaking on my behalf.

That's okay.

If you noticed I used the word "men" ....therefore I was not speaking on your behalf.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Of course he doesn't.

I'm quite curious which feminist-lobbied government legislation he finds so offensive? All of that silly human rights legislation which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender and harassment at the workplace?

Have you ever been to a divorce court?

Don't get me wrong, feminism started out with great intentions, what with getting women the vote etc.....to the point now where a woman can secretly cheat on her man and bear the child of another while the laws make the ####olded one pay for it's upbringing....not what I call "fair" or "taking responsibility".

Consider the following scenario;
A father could be sitting in his own home, not agreeing to a divorce, not unfaithful to his marriage vows, and not abusive, and the next thing he knows, the court has taken his house, his children, and a lot of his money, and then forced him to pay his wife’s legal fees, alimony etc. And he can be threatened with jail time if he resists....thanks no-fault divorce!

In other words, feminism has made it easy to break up families, punishes men, and has made women less responsible for their bad decisions.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

I sincerely believe that you do not have the first clue about what feminism is about.

Well that was an easy one-liner.

Enlighten me.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Consider the following scenario;
A mother could be sitting in her own home, not agreeing to a divorce, not unfaithful to her marriage vows, and not abusive, and the next thing she knows, the court has taken her house, her children, and a lot of her money, and then forced her to pay her husband’s legal fees, alimony etc. And she can be threatened with jail time if she resists....thanks no-fault divorce!

Fixed

The good old days, right Mikey??

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Have you ever been to a divorce court?

I sure have (well, Family Chambers).

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Don't get me wrong, feminism started out with great intentions, what with getting women the vote etc.....to the point now where a woman can secretly cheat on her man and bear the child of another while the laws make the ####olded one pay for it's upbringing....not what I call "fair" or "taking responsibility".

I don't practice family law, but I don't believe that this is true. If a paternity test proves that a man is not the biological father, and if that non-biological father did not knowingly place himself in the position of father (i.e., raise the child as his own even though he knew it was not his), I don't believe that legislation imposes any family maintenance obligations on him.

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Consider the following scenario;
A father could be sitting in his own home, not agreeing to a divorce, not unfaithful to his marriage vows, and not abusive, and the next thing he knows, the court has taken his house, his children, and a lot of his money, and then forced him to pay his wife’s legal fees, alimony etc. And he can be threatened with jail time if he resists....thanks no-fault divorce!

In other words, feminism has made it easy to break up families, punishes men, and has made women less responsible for their bad decisions.

I agree that this is likely a sad and frustrating experience. Absolutely.

However, is it more sad and frustrating than a person, most typically a woman, who is forced to stay in a marriage that she does not want to stay in (for whatever reason) because she was at home raising children and does not have the employable skills or financial resources to leave and support herself (and potentially her children)? Its a difficult question to answer I suppose. But the government clearly decided that it is better for Canadian society to "break up" unhappy families than it is to keep unhappy families together by trapping (usually) women in marriage. I doubt that this was the product of "feminist lobbying", but even if it was, it probably lead to the right (albeit imperfect) solution.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

That's okay.

If you noticed I used the word "men" ....therefore I was not speaking on your behalf.

If you consider ignorant misogyny to be a part of masculine virtue then I would honestly hope the courts do keep your kids away from you. There are more than enough ######bags in the world who objectify and disrespect women.