Adrian Peterson's son in critical condition

[hateraid]

This is crazy:

http://deadspin.com/adrian-petersons-son-hospitalized-mothers-boyfriend-1443881283

[QUOTE]Adrian Peterson's 2-year-old son

[OldSkoolball#52]

I'll admit that I'm as guilty as everyone else of having an initial reaction of curiosity to know the details in situations like these and how he's reacting and everything about what's going on.

But it's really none of our business. I wish they wouldn't report stuff like this. Hopefully people will choose to ignore it, not gossip about it, and just hope for the best for whatever his family is going through. Hopefully the person responsible will be prosecuted to the full extent possible, which I'm sure does not go nearly as far as it would if it were up to me.

[MavsSuperFan]

pet peeve of mine, but to me that wasnt really his son. It was his biological offspring. Based on my reading of that quote it seems that peterson didnt do enough to qualify being called a father/dad to that kid.

Also I dont blame peterson. I have made it clear in various threads that I feel men should be able to choose when they become fathers as women are allowed to choose.

Edit: To be clear, Peterson is a father to his son Adrian peterson jr.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BQX49I9CcAAtgaf.jpg
Who is different from this secret child

[OldSkoolball#52]

pet peeve of mine, but to me that wasnt really his son. It was his biological offspring. Based on my reading of that quote it seems that peterson didnt do enough to qualify being called a father/dad to that kid.

Also I dont blame peterson. I have made it clear in various threads that I feel men should be able to choose when they become fathers as women are allowed to choose.

Edit: To be clear, Peterson is a father to his son Adrian peterson jr.
http://img.bleacherreport.net/img/images/photos/002/422/753/BQbHy1cCQAE61FW_crop_north.jpg?w=340&h=234&q=75
Who is different from this secret child


There should not be any "secret children". Whether you are Arnold Schwarzenegger or Adrian Peterson, if you have a child, you should be responsible for raising him.

I understand relationships do not always work out. I realize divorce is a part of modern day life. I'm not saying you have to wed one woman forever and if you ever have a child out of wedlock you are a monster. But if you have a child, you have to take responsibility for it. You have to help raise it.

This child should be living near Peterson. Even if he and the mother aren't living together. They should be within driving distance, and that should be REQUIRED.

I didn't know about any of this about AP, and to a degree its not my business, but I would definitely not buy a jersey of his knowing this. I don't think men who ignore their most important natural, biological responsibility should be adored and glorified, even in an unrelated context. And to think, this is the guy who spoke out about gay marriage not being natural. "Secret kids" are natural? #TeamJesus

[-p.tiddy-]

There should not be any "secret children". Whether you are Arnold Schwarzenegger or Adrian Peterson, if you have a child, you should be responsible for raising him.

I understand relationships do not always work out. I realize divorce is a part of modern day life. I'm not saying you have to wed one woman forever and if you ever have a child out of wedlock you are a monster. But if you have a child, you have to take responsibility for it. You have to help raise it.

This child should be living near Peterson. Even if he and the mother aren't living together. They should be within driving distance, and that should be REQUIRED.

I didn't know about any of this about AP, and to a degree its not my business, but I would definitely not buy a jersey of his knowing this. I don't think men who ignore their most important natural, biological responsibility should be adored and glorified, even in an unrelated context. And to think, this is the guy who spoke out about gay marriage not being natural. "Secret kids" are natural? #TeamJesus
In general I agree with what you are saying here but with professional athletes there are many women that approach them with the sole intent of getting pregnant by them and then leaving so they can suck out huge child support checks.

There have been instances of women taking used condoms out of trash cans so they can inject the sperm themselves later on...

It would be extremely difficult for Peterson to play the role of a father if that is what this situation was...

[MavsSuperFan]

In general I agree with what you are saying here but with professional athletes there are many women that approach them with the sole intent of getting pregnant by them and then leaving so they can suck out huge child support checks.

There have been instances of women taking used condoms out of trash cans so they can inject the sperm themselves later on...

It would be extremely difficult for Peterson to play the role of a father if that is what this situation was...
This.

And woman are allowed to get abortions and give up unwanted children for adoption. The vast majority of abortions are not medically necessary or because of rape or incest. Rather woman are voluntarily making the choice (most often because of financial reasons) to delay motherhood.

[2LeTTeRS]

pet peeve of mine, but to me that wasnt really his son. It was his biological offspring. Based on my reading of that quote it seems that peterson didnt do enough to qualify being called a father/dad to that kid.

First off, I don't think enough info was given in that article to make any conclusions about the dynamics between AP and this child. We do not know what the nature of the relationship with the mother was, when Adrian learned the child's mother was pregnant, and when/if a paternity test for the child was performed.

All we know is she has moved half-way across the nation and was in a new relationship (with a guy who ended up being a psycho).


Also I dont blame peterson. I have made it clear in various threads that I feel men should be able to choose when they become fathers as women are allowed to choose.

Second this is perhaps the dumbest comment I've ever read. If a person chooses to have consensual sex and afterwards a child is born you "chose to become a father." Period.


This.

And woman are allowed to get abortions and give up unwanted children for adoption. The vast majority of abortions are not medically necessary or because of rape or incest. Rather woman are voluntarily making the choice (most often because of financial reasons) to delay motherhood.

So what about the interests of the child and society-at large? You're advocating for a position that basically let's men off scot-free even though their actions led to the existence of the child. And seeing that most familes need 2 salaries to sustain themselves, you're asking society at large to pick up the slack for most of these families.

No thanks.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Not addressing weird ideas on what makes a man responsible of r a child, just asking: What kind of human being beats a 2 year-old to death?

[KNOW1EDGE]

What kind of sick psychopath beats up a baby?

I hope he got his point across and taught that baby a lesson.

[bdreason]

In general I agree with what you are saying here but with professional athletes there are many women that approach them with the sole intent of getting pregnant by them and then leaving so they can suck out huge child support checks.

There have been instances of women taking used condoms out of trash cans so they can inject the sperm themselves later on...

It would be extremely difficult for Peterson to play the role of a father if that is what this situation was...


So he should keep his dick in his pants or use a condom. If you get some girl pregnant, you only have yourself to blame.

[MavsSuperFan]

First off, I don't think enough info was given in that article to make any conclusions about the dynamics between AP and this child. We do not know what the nature of the relationship with the mother was, when Adrian learned the child's mother was pregnant, and when/if a paternity test for the child was performed.

All we know is she has moved half-way across the nation and was in a new relationship (with a guy who ended up being a psycho).



Second this is perhaps the dumbest comment I've ever read. If a person chooses to have consensual sex and afterwards a child is born you "chose to become a father." Period.



So what about the interests of the child and society-at large? You're advocating for a position that basically let's men off scot-free even though their actions led to the existence of the child. And seeing that most familes need 2 salaries to sustain themselves, you're asking society at large to pick up the slack for most of these families.

No thanks.

Then you support a double standard. Currently under the law woman can unilaterally choose when to become mothers. And yes the vast majority of abortions are not about the 9 month commitment of pregnancy but rather about the 18 year commitment of motherhood. The law obligates a man to the financial responsibilities of fatherhood at the decision of the woman. This is inherently unequal.

Laws should strive for equality and to eliminate double standards. Men should at the least be given 1 chance to opt out of the financial and social responsibilities of fatherhood. It would work similar to an adoption where the biological father gives up all rights and obligations to the child. Eg. He can not claim to be the father of the child, nor can he be sued for child support payments.

Now if they decide to opt in, they should never be given the option of opting out again.


If a person chooses to have consensual sex and afterwards a child is born you "chose to become a father."

not for women. and this is a double standard under the law.

[MavsSuperFan]

Not addressing weird ideas on what makes a man responsible of r a child, just asking: What kind of human being beats a 2 year-old to death?
Ya that asshole is going to get raped in prison and deserves it.

[MavsSuperFan]

So what about the interests of the child and society-at large? You're advocating for a position that basically let's men off scot-free even though their actions led to the existence of the child. And seeing that most familes need 2 salaries to sustain themselves, you're asking society at large to pick up the slack for most of these families.

No thanks.

Why was it that the woman was so irresponsible that she decided to bring a child into the world she had zero capability to take care of independently? Why do they independently and unilaterally have the right to make the decision either way? Say the man wants to have the child, and she doesnt it gets aborted (this is just as she should have the right to decided her destiny and financial future). And yet if he doesnt want a child and she does, her decision should entitle her to a portion of his income for the next 18 years? You dont see the double standard? The inequality under the law?

If I make a decision do you have the obligation to help me pay for it?

Take the example of Dwight Howard.

What is he at now 5 or 6 illegitimate children? You think if he was a janitor those women wouldnt have rushed to get an abortion after the first pregnancy test?

[kNicKz]

to me that wasnt really his son. It was his biological offspring.

http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/images/GifGuide/michael_scott/Michael-What-the-office-10400786-400-226.gif

[Real Men Wear Green]

We've already had this discussion. Mavs has some strange ideas that will never be law here in America, so whatever.

[kNicKz]

We've already had this discussion. Mavs has some strange ideas that will never be law here in America, so whatever.

****ing deadbeat ...

How do you father a child and then abandon it (not saying that is what AP did, but in response to mavs).

[OldSkoolball#52]

****ing deadbeat ...

How do you father a child and then abandon it (not saying that is what AP did, but in response to mavs).


Because bro, you get one chance to opt out of you know, paying for the child you had. Its called the Pathetic Clause and it allows you to father as many kids as you want and wipe your hands clean of the responsibility each time.

This way, if you choose not to support your own child, and the woman still has it, society gets to foot even more of a burden for the lil bugger.


Great idea, Mavsfan!! You are the opposite of retarded on opposite day!!

Hooray!!!!

[OldSkoolball#52]

I get what Mavs is saying. Women have a choice in being parents after theyre pregnant, men just have to chip in no matter what if the girl decide she wants it.


Yeah, we all get what he is saying. The rest of us simply understand his solution is moronic.


Lets grant drivers licenses to the legally blind because THEY SHOULD HAVE SAY FOR IT TOO ITS NOT FAIR U GUYS IT HAS 2 be EQUALZ


:facepalm:

[MavsSuperFan]

http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/images/GifGuide/michael_scott/Michael-What-the-office-10400786-400-226.gif
being a father requires more than inseminating a woman to me.

You have to earn the right to call someone a son.
Based on that article I dont think Peterson deserves the right to call that child that was hurt his son.
This is not to say that he isnt a father to his other children.


We've already had this discussion. Mavs has some strange ideas that will never be law here in America, so whatever.
I am aware of that, I just think its a double standard. There are tons of laws in the world that will probably never change. It does not make it correct.


****ing deadbeat ...

How do you father a child and then abandon it (not saying that is what AP did, but in response to mavs).
I am not saying a male should not take care of his child, just as I am not say a female should abort a child or to give that child up for adoption. I am just saying that allowing one gender the right to decide unilaterally to end the financial and social obligations of parenthood is unequal.

further most children are born into stable relationships and this is not even an issue.


Because bro, you get one chance to opt out of you know, paying for the child you had. Its called the Pathetic Clause and it allows you to father as many kids as you want and wipe your hands clean of the responsibility each time.

This way, if you choose not to support your own child, and the woman still has it, society gets to foot even more of a burden for the lil bugger.


Great idea, Mavsfan!! You are the opposite of retarded on opposite day!!

Hooray!!!!

I dont disagree. I am not arguing that it is heroic to not take care of a child or even that it isn't pathetic, I am arguing it should be legal, because it would bring great equality to the law.


Yeah, we all get what he is saying. The rest of us simply understand his solution is moronic.


Lets grant drivers licenses to the legally blind because THEY SHOULD HAVE SAY FOR IT TOO ITS NOT FAIR U GUYS IT HAS 2 be EQUALZ


:facepalm:
Blind people have an obvious disadvantage to people who have vision.
Are you arguing women are inherently dumber than men and need more chances to make a decision about when to become a parent?

[MavsSuperFan]

Further nobody yet has substantively refuted my points about how the current situation is a double standard.
You are all engaging in ad hominem attacks and/or outraged by what I suggest.

Its like if someone argued for interracial marriage in 1870 and was countered by arguments about how it would destroy society and/or how outraged they are about it.

[niko]

He died.

[-p.tiddy-]

He died.
:(

I'm scared courts won't be able to prove the man did it...:(

[Sarcastic]

RIP.

Such a sad story. I hope the guy who did it gets anally raped and murdered in the last days of his pathetic life in jail.

[-p.tiddy-]

fellas...Peterson is a good human...stop talking about him as a father and start talking about the real criminal here

[TylerOO]

:(

I'm scared courts won't be able to prove the man did it...:(

He'll get his either way.

[DuMa]

well someone just lost an every down back in the NFL 23 years from now

[-p.tiddy-]

well someone just lost an every down back in the NFL 23 years from now
not really funny...

[bdreason]

Further nobody yet has substantively refuted my points about how the current situation is a double standard.
You are all engaging in ad hominem attacks and/or outraged by what I suggest.

Its like if someone argued for interracial marriage in 1870 and was countered by arguments about how it would destroy society and/or how outraged they are about it.


The laws aren't the same because the situations aren't the same. The women has to carry the child inside her for 9 months, then give birth. The man doesn't have to do shit.

[Balla_Status]

The laws aren't the same because the situations aren't the same. The women has to carry the child inside her for 9 months, then give birth. The man doesn't have to do shit.

Males and females are different in a lot of ways: the way we think, our physical attributes and our ambitions.

Feminists seem to forget that though and want "equal" rights in certain places where the situations just aren't equal.

But when they preach the child is "theirs" and the male has no say in the matter yet want child support when the child is born? That doesn't make sense to me. They drive the stake between male and females even more.

[kNicKz]

well someone just lost an every down back in the NFL 23 years from now
Not even close to being remotely funny....

[OldSkoolball#52]

The laws aren't the same because the situations aren't the same. The women has to carry the child inside her for 9 months, then give birth. The man doesn't have to do shit.


Exactly. The woman is in a unique situation. Pregnancy is not just a social circumstance, it is a medical one.

I honestly cant believe there is someone here claiming a man should be given an amnesty from providing for the child he was responsible for.


A man has every right to try and persuade the woman not to deliver his child. He can give it the ol college try. If she chooses to, that is the risk he took when he did the dirty, and hes on the hook for it.

Mavssuperfan you are doing a disservice to society when you turn the conversation to silly semantics about double standards for child bearing. Its a worthless argument and will never be a reality.

[MavsSuperFan]

He died.
I regret bring the other topic into this thread.

lets just discuss the poor child and the monster that killed him here.


The laws aren't the same because the situations aren't the same. The women has to carry the child inside her for 9 months, then give birth. The man doesn't have to do shit.

lets continue this discussion here.
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?p=8595260#post8595260

[OldSkoolball#52]

Two words. Prison Justice.



This is such a huge myth.


Dudes in prison are murderers and rapists themselves. You think they go around serving as the morals police and hassling people out of disgust for the crimes they committed??

They target easy targets regardless of what the person is in for. And random violence in prison isnt even as common as people think it is.

[-p.tiddy-]

This is such a huge myth.


Dudes in prison are murderers and rapists themselves. You think they go around serving as the morals police and hassling people out of disgust for the crimes they committed??

They target easy targets regardless of what the person is in for. And random violence in prison isnt even as common as people think it is.
I am betting Peterson has a large fan base in prison

[Sarcastic]

This is apparently the guy

http://media.heavy.com/media/2013/10/Josey-Patterson-6.jpg


http://media.heavy.com/media/2013/10/Joey-Patterson-Selfie-4.jpg

[-p.tiddy-]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/10/11/article-2454622-18B0059E00000578-619_634x452.jpg


he is going to die I think...he should find a way to kill himself

[niko]

This is such a huge myth.


Dudes in prison are murderers and rapists themselves. You think they go around serving as the morals police and hassling people out of disgust for the crimes they committed??

They target easy targets regardless of what the person is in for. And random violence in prison isnt even as common as people think it is.

I get the feeling you just pull random shit out of your ass all the time.

[OldSkoolball#52]

I am betting Peterson has a large fan base in prison


True this instance may be an exception, but in general dudes in prison dont go lookng to extract "extra justice on behalf of society" or nonsense like that.

[OldSkoolball#52]

I get the feeling you just pull random shit out of your ass all the time.


Funny I get the feeling your mother pulled you out of her ass 9 months after she was sodomized by an orangutang.

[ace23]

That's crazy. Dude probably snapped, didn't expect the baby to die/be seriously injured, and now he's looking at life in prison.

Got to keep those emotions in check.

[LikeABosh]

That piece of shit better be beaten to death within a week

[gts]

That's crazy. Dude probably snapped, didn't expect the baby to die/be seriously injured, and now he's looking at life in prison.

Got to keep those emotions in check.I'm reading this isn't the first time either, he allegedly beat on a 3 year old in the past but for whatever reason no charges were filed

[Rockets(T-mac)]

Further nobody yet has substantively refuted my points about how the current situation is a double standard.
You are all engaging in ad hominem attacks and/or outraged by what I suggest.

Its like if someone argued for interracial marriage in 1870 and was countered by arguments about how it would destroy society and/or how outraged they are about it.The problem with your idea is that it will just be equally (in fact more) exploited as you claim abortions are by people who just want to get their dick wet. Your stance should be to get rid of abortions that aren't necessary (if you have consenting sex and theres no medical risk, it's not necessary), so that females don't have the double standard you are talking about.

What you suggest, would just be taken advantage of to a ridiculous level.

[Real Men Wear Green]

I am aware of that, I just think its a double standard. There are tons of laws in the world that will probably never change. It does not make it correct.
The problem being that your ideas are horrible. We're not going to see eye-to-eye and that's fine because fortunately the law will never reflect your views on this subject.

[TEXAS BATMAN]

Rapists and murderers, nobody cares about those. But you do something heinous like murder a family and rape the dog, or kill a kid, it doesn't matter what ur stature is, u become a target. Especially for a guy like AD, who was universally liked and respected by fans all over, there's going to be a price on your head. The guards won't just look the other way, they encourage it.

[MavsSuperFan]

The problem being that your ideas are horrible. We're not going to see eye-to-eye and that's fine because fortunately the law will never reflect your views on this subject.
Women are given the right to choose when it is time to become a mother. The responsible ones utilize abortion and adoption when necessary to avoid motherhood before they are financially ready. This is in their best interests.

Men are not given this right to choose. When a woman decides unilaterally to have a child, she obligates the man to pay child support. No one should be able to obligate another human being to that kind of financial commitment. I fully support the right of a woman to get an abortion or to carry the pregnancy to term. However that shouldn't entitle her to the money of the man. He should also be given a choice.

Males need the option of forfeiting their legal and financial obligations of fatherhood. In essences is its like an adoption in that men are given the right to give up an unwanted child. Women already have this right. Why do you insist on crippling men with the financial burden of a child before he is prepared for it?

Edit: do you support the concept of adoption? specifically when a female is unready to be mother and decides to forfeit the rights and obligations to the child through her unilateral decision?

Also why specifically do you feel my arguments are illogical?

[MavsSuperFan]

The problem with your idea is that it will just be equally (in fact more) exploited as you claim abortions are by people who just want to get their dick wet. Your stance should be to get rid of abortions that aren't necessary (if you have consenting sex and theres no medical risk, it's not necessary), so that females don't have the double standard you are talking about.

What you suggest, would just be taken advantage of to a ridiculous level.
I think its completely appropriate that abortion is legal. I am 100% pro choice. Women who are not ready to be mothers are going to get an abortion no matter what. legal or illegal. Limiting access to safe abortions is barbaric imo.

Abortion is often motivated by social reasons rather than medical reasons. I have know women who have aborted because they just got promoted and didn't want to go on maternity leave at a critical point in their careers, because they were in a new relationship, because they didnt want the father to have a long term role in their lives, because the pregnancy was the result of them cheating on their husband, etc.

having a child before you are emotionally, and financially ready for it is devastating. It shouldnt be forced on anyone male or female. It is choice that should be availabel to both parties.

There are many studies that show how devastating unplanned pregnancies are. Teen girls that carry a pregnancy to term are unlikely to finish a post secondary program and thus have extremely limited financial prospects. There are also tons of men that would never date a woman with a child, so their dating prospects are hurt as well. Why allow one bad decision to ruin your life?

Further studies show the baby rarely has great prospects either.

For the male, The child support payments lower his quality of life, and fatherhood limits his employment prospects and relationships with other women.

Why is it ok for a major decision like whether to become a parent or not made for a man, but not ok force women to become mothers?

[gts]

Men are not given this right to choose.
You had the right to choose before you had sex. Once you start letting your dick make decisions for you all bets are off

[MavsSuperFan]

You had the right to choose before you had sex. Once you start letting your dick make decisions for you all bets are off
hmm, what are your thoughts on adoption?

Are you ok with a female unready to be mother forfeiting her legal rights and obligations to a child she gave birth to? Are you ok with the fact that the fathers approval is unnecessary in this legal process?

Why is it not ok for a man to give his child up for adoption, if it is ok for a female to do so?

[Real Men Wear Green]

Women are given the right to choose when it is time to become a mother. The responsible ones utilize abortion and adoption when necessary to avoid motherhood before they are financially ready. This is in their best interests.

Men are not given this right to choose. When a woman decides unilaterally to have a child, she obligates the man to pay child support. No one should be able to obligate another human being to that kind of financial commitment. I fully support the right of a woman to get an abortion or to carry the pregnancy to term. However that shouldn't entitle her to the money of the man. He should also be given a choice.

Males need the option of forfeiting their legal and financial obligations of fatherhood. In essences is its like an adoption in that men are given the right to give up an unwanted child. Women already have this right. Why do you insist on crippling men with the financial burden of a child before he is prepared for it?

Edit: do you support the concept of adoption? specifically when a female is unready to be mother and decides to forfeit the rights and obligations to the child through her unilateral decision?
Just to answer your question, sure, I'm for adoption. I have no interest in getting into another debate with you over this subject. You aren't saying anything new, and I'm not going to reply with anything new, so why bother? Think what you want, it will never be law.

[Dictator]

Where was the mother at? rip

[highwhey]

I think its completely appropriate that abortion is legal. I am 100% pro choice. Women who are not ready to be mothers are going to get an abortion no matter what. legal or illegal. Limiting access to safe abortions is barbaric imo.

Abortion is often motivated by social reasons rather than medical reasons. I have know women who have aborted because they just got promoted and didn't want to go on maternity leave at a critical point in their careers, because they were in a new relationship, because they didnt want the father to have a long term role in their lives, because the pregnancy was the result of them cheating on their husband, etc.

having a child before you are emotionally, and financially ready for it is devastating. It shouldnt be forced on anyone male or female. It is choice that should be availabel to both parties.

There are many studies that show how devastating unplanned pregnancies are. Teen girls that carry a pregnancy to term are unlikely to finish a post secondary program and thus have extremely limited financial prospects. There are also tons of men that would never date a woman with a child, so their dating prospects are hurt as well. Why allow one bad decision to ruin your life?

Further studies show the baby rarely has great prospects either.

For the male, The child support payments lower his quality of life, and fatherhood limits his employment prospects and relationships with other women.

Why is it ok for a major decision like whether to become a parent or not made for a man, but not ok force women to become mothers?
Arguing with you is like arguing with a textbook. You make valid points and whatnot, but you fail to realize the real life application of your argument. Everything you say sounds good on paper, but I'm of Hispanic origin, I've observed a lot of births/pregnancies and I'm perfectly fine with allowing the woman to make the decision.

I mean no disrespect, but are you autistic by any chance?

[Dictator]

Arguing with you is like arguing with a textbook. You make valid points and whatnot, but you fail to realize the real life application of your argument. Everything you say sounds good on paper, but I'm of Hispanic origin, I've observed a lot of births/pregnancies and I'm perfectly fine with allowing the woman to make the decision.

I mean no disrespect, but are you autistic by any chance?


:lol :oldlol: :roll: :lol :oldlol: :roll: :lol :lol

[HomieWeMajor]

R.I.P to the little fella

[CelticBaller]

This is apparently the guy

http://media.heavy.com/media/2013/10/Josey-Patterson-6.jpg


http://media.heavy.com/media/2013/10/Joey-Patterson-Selfie-4.jpg
fking scumbag

[Rockets(T-mac)]

I think its completely appropriate that abortion is legal. I am 100% pro choice. Women who are not ready to be mothers are going to get an abortion no matter what. legal or illegal. Limiting access to safe abortions is barbaric imo.

Abortion is often motivated by social reasons rather than medical reasons. I have know women who have aborted because they just got promoted and didn't want to go on maternity leave at a critical point in their careers, because they were in a new relationship, because they didnt want the father to have a long term role in their lives, because the pregnancy was the result of them cheating on their husband, etc.

having a child before you are emotionally, and financially ready for it is devastating. It shouldnt be forced on anyone male or female. It is choice that should be availabel to both parties.

There are many studies that show how devastating unplanned pregnancies are. Teen girls that carry a pregnancy to term are unlikely to finish a post secondary program and thus have extremely limited financial prospects. There are also tons of men that would never date a woman with a child, so their dating prospects are hurt as well. Why allow one bad decision to ruin your life?

Further studies show the baby rarely has great prospects either.

For the male, The child support payments lower his quality of life, and fatherhood limits his employment prospects and relationships with other women.

Why is it ok for a major decision like whether to become a parent or not made for a man, but not ok force women to become mothers?You keep talking about the right to choose, the choice was made when you decided to have sex, for both the male and female. No matter what you do when you have sex there is a chance of pregnancy. Don't want that responsibility/risk? Don't have sex. If you decide to and you get/get a girl pregnant, well both parties are responsible for what happened and have to deal with it.

And btw teen abortions can also be very traumatizing to a girl, abortions in general are traumatizing.

The point you didn't seem to acknowledge is how badly your idea of a law like this would be abused by males. You don't think there would be a huge number of males that get a girl pregnant then be like "naw I aint ready for the responsibility" and end up having no consequence for what they did? You think this law would improve the lives of people involved in unplanned pregnancies? improve the lives of the kids?

[Noob Saibot]

my condolences go out to Adrian Peterson and his family. but the killer of this young boy deserves a MILLION Fatalities! :mad:

[MavsSuperFan]

Arguing with you is like arguing with a textbook. You make valid points and whatnot, but you fail to realize the real life application of your argument. Everything you say sounds good on paper, but I'm of Hispanic origin, I've observed a lot of births/pregnancies and I'm perfectly fine with allowing the woman to make the decision.

I mean no disrespect, but are you autistic by any chance?
:lol Nope at least never been diagnosed. people can disagree with you and not have development problems. Quite an arrogant prospective you have. Also ad hominem debating tactics indicate at minimum the inability to articulate your point.


You make valid points and whatnot, but you fail to realize the real life application of your argument.

i understand them, I just have a different view than you do. I dont consider a teen girl getting an abortion a tragedy. Also from our previous debate, I dont consider a teen girl having sex a tragedy either. and feel that providing access to birth control to teens is appropriate. I dont consider a fetus = to a human life.

I come from a different background than you. I come from a white family that is only nominally christian, and actually quite liberal and progressive.

I respect your hispanic (and im going to guess catholic) upbringing. Your views on most issues would be significantly more conservative than my own.

I am going to guess that you have the same reservations as rockets(tmac), because you have not voiced your dissent specifically.


You keep talking about the right to choose, the choice was made when you decided to have sex, for both the male and female. No matter what you do when you have sex there is a chance of pregnancy. Don't want that responsibility/risk? Don't have sex. If you decide to and you get/get a girl pregnant, well both parties are responsible for what happened and have to deal with it.

And btw teen abortions can also be very traumatizing to a girl, abortions in general are traumatizing.

The point you didn't seem to acknowledge is how badly your idea of a law like this would be abused by males. You don't think there would be a huge number of males that get a girl pregnant then be like "naw I aint ready for the responsibility" and end up having no consequence for what they did? You think this law would improve the lives of people involved in unplanned pregnancies? improve the lives of the kids?


No matter what you do when you have sex there is a chance of pregnancy. Don't want that responsibility/risk? Don't have sex.
little bit off topic but this is functionally untrue, when properly used birth control will make it almost impossible to conceive. The failure of birth control is 99% of the time related to misuse. Its like being afraid of being struck by lighting.


If you decide to and you get/get a girl pregnant, well both parties are responsible for what happened and have to deal with it.
Absolutely, when have I stated that a male should be able to abandon a child he has agreed to make?


And btw teen abortions can also be very traumatizing to a girl, abortions in general are traumatizing.
most of that is due to societal stigma, but lets move off the abortion point.

How do you feel about adoption? Hypothetically lets say an 17 year old girl decides she is incapable of providing a good life for her or her child. She utilizes safe haven laws and abandons her baby at a sanctioned location (eg. an orphanage). She has effectively unilaterally made the decision not be a mother. All I am saying is there is no provision in the law that gives a male the same right.


The point you didn't seem to acknowledge is how badly your idea of a law like this would be abused by males. You don't think there would be a huge number of males that get a girl pregnant then be like "naw I aint ready for the responsibility" and end up having no consequence for what they did?

There would be abuse of the law. I am not here to say the law is moral. Laws dont have to be moral (because everybody's morals are different, eg. some consider interracial relationships immoral), they have to be equal and blind to factors outside of a person's control such as gender. Although imo you are overestimating this problem most men would not abuse this law. Most men (including myself) want to someday find the right woman that is compatible enough with him to make a good wife, and have children. I know a ton of married dudes that would be ecstatic to find out they are going to be a father. My sister and her husband have been going through hell trying to conceive. I don't believe all men are so irresponsible that they would forego birth control. Responsible people wait until the are financially and emotionally ready to be a parent. In the long term its the kindest thing you can do for your child.

Also just for the record just because I feel something should be legal does not mean i think it is right. Eg. It should be legal to sell a piece of junk. It still is morally wrong. It should be legal to buy a house from an old lady at below market values, when you know that you are ripping her off and she doesnt. It still makes you a scumbag. Legality is not the same as morality. I think all drugs should be legal. obviously that doesnt mean I would support meth use. I just dont see the point in criminalization.

[boozehound]

pet peeve of mine, but to me that wasnt really his son. It was his biological offspring. Based on my reading of that quote it seems that peterson didnt do enough to qualify being called a father/dad to that kid.

Also I dont blame peterson. I have made it clear in various threads that I feel men should be able to choose when they become fathers as women are allowed to choose.

Edit: To be clear, Peterson is a father to his son Adrian peterson jr.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BQX49I9CcAAtgaf.jpg
Who is different from this secret child
First of all, this is dumb. If you have a biological child, then they are your son/daughter.

But, from the point of view of the child, AP was no father to him. It sounds like they didnt even have contact his entire life. No one should be giving AP condolences for the death of a child he abandoned. The mother? Sure. But AP is basically a deadbeat dad in this situation. and now hes getting the sympathy of the world for the tragic death of a kid he hardly knew.

[OldSkoolball#52]

:
First of all, this is dumb. If you have a biological child, then they are your son/daughter.

But, from the point of view of the child, AP was no father to him. It sounds like they didnt even have contact his entire life. No one should be giving AP condolences for the death of a child he abandoned. The mother? Sure. But AP is basically a deadbeat dad in this situation. and now hes getting the sympathy of the world for the tragic death of a kid he hardly knew.


Yep, agreed with this. Disappointing too bc Peterson didnt seem like the kind of dude who would be that shady. Especially given that hes a supposed christian and his own father missed some of his childhood, or maybe it was early adulthood, serving a prison term.

Either way it appears hes a "Dwight Howard" Christian. Smh..

[MavsSuperFan]

First of all, this is dumb. If you have a biological child, then they are your son/daughter.

But, from the point of view of the child, AP was no father to him. It sounds like they didnt even have contact his entire life. No one should be giving AP condolences for the death of a child he abandoned. The mother? Sure. But AP is basically a deadbeat dad in this situation. and now hes getting the sympathy of the world for the tragic death of a kid he hardly knew.
I must have expressed my thoughts poorly in that post.

I basically meant what you said. Peterson was not a father to this child, based on the reporting. he denied and ignored the child. The words father and son have a deeper meaning to me than just some dude pumping semen into a womb and the child that is born 9 months later.

You have to earn being a father. AP wasnt a father to this particular child. I dont understand why he is getting condolences.

[MJ(Mean John)]

I must have expressed my thoughts poorly in that post.

I basically meant what you said. Peterson was not a father to this child, based on the reporting. he denied and ignored the child. The words father and son have a deeper meaning to me than just some dude pumping semen into a womb and the child that is born 9 months later.

You have to earn being a father. AP wasnt a father to this particular child. I dont understand why he is getting condolences.


Lol. My boy.

MavsSuperFan- let's be honest here. Did you knock a chick up and are paying child support?

[MJ(Mean John)]

Sounds like the guy who beat up AP's son was in a relationship with the mother. Says the mom had another kid, a 3 year old who he assaulted last year.

And then he threatened to kill her. She said he would get violent.
Wtf was she doing if she knew that ?

[MavsSuperFan]

Lol. My boy.

MavsSuperFan- let's be honest here. Did you knock a chick up and are paying child support?
:rolleyes:
are you guys really so apathetic that you are incapable of understanding how someone could hold/advocate for a position that doesn't directly benefit them?

[MJ(Mean John)]

:rolleyes:
are you guys really so apathetic that you are incapable of understanding how someone could hold/advocate for a position that doesn't directly benefit them?


No you fa.ggot. It was a question.
And it's not that I am Incapable of being in that position BECAUSE I AM IN THAT POSITION!
Dumbass. I pay child support.

[BRabbiT]

[QUOTE]
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1483488.1381585837!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/peterson13n-5-web.jpg

The 27-year-old Patterson was indicted last year on several counts of simple assault involving an ex-girlfriend and her 3-year-old son, according to the Sioux Falls Argus Leader.

He was later charged for violating a no-contact order.

Patterson has a history of violence against women and children.

Patterson was charged with aggravated assault and aggravated battery of an infant Friday morning before authorities learned that the two-year-old boy died in a South Dakota hospital.

His bond was set at $750,000 cash, and South Dakota State

[senelcoolidge]

Funny I get the feeling your mother pulled you out of her ass 9 months after she was sodomized by an orangutang.

Off topic but that made me laugh. You brought joy to my day.

[hateraid]

Edit: To be clear, Peterson is a father to his son Adrian peterson jr.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BQX49I9CcAAtgaf.jpg
Who is different from this secret child

Who is the boy in this pic? It's circulating on FB that this is the boy who died

[oh the horror]

MavsSuperfan is making valid points an simply discussing them. Why some of you are getting upset and calling names seems a bit ridiculous to me.


You don't have to agree but you can mellow the f*ck out about it.

[IGOTGAME]

First of all, this is dumb. If you have a biological child, then they are your son/daughter.

But, from the point of view of the child, AP was no father to him. It sounds like they didnt even have contact his entire life. No one should be giving AP condolences for the death of a child he abandoned. The mother? Sure. But AP is basically a deadbeat dad in this situation. and now hes getting the sympathy of the world for the tragic death of a kid he hardly knew.
I've lost all respect for AP due to how he has handled this situation.

[MavsSuperFan]

No you fa.ggot. It was a question.
And it's not that I am Incapable of being in that position BECAUSE I AM IN THAT POSITION!
Dumbass. I pay child support.
I never said you were incapable of fathering a child out of wedlock. I am asking if you have the ability to hold/advocate for a position that doesn't directly benefit you. Are you empathic or apathetic.

Your assumption that I must be in the situation of paying child support to hold my positions about male parental rights and the inequalities in our legal system about this subject, lead me to question your level of empathy.

Edit: oh and yes, by asking a question you must have made an assumption before hand.

[MavsSuperFan]

Who is the boy in this pic? It's circulating on FB that this is the boy who died
No that is his other son.

Adrian peterson Jr. That is the son he recognizes and takes care of.
Unless the articles I have been reading are totally wrong, Peterson didnt have a relationship to the child that died. Peterson denied it was his child.

[2LeTTeRS]

First of all, this is dumb. If you have a biological child, then they are your son/daughter.

But, from the point of view of the child, AP was no father to him. It sounds like they didnt even have contact his entire life. No one should be giving AP condolences for the death of a child he abandoned. The mother? Sure. But AP is basically a deadbeat dad in this situation. and now hes getting the sympathy of the world for the tragic death of a kid he hardly knew.

based off what we know its irresponsible to say the kid was "abandoned." That suggests he knew the kids was his and purposely chose to stay out of his life. Knowing that he had sex with the child's mother and knowing the kid is his are 2 completely different things.

From the facts paternity was only recently established and child support had not been sought by the mother. If anything seems that she moved on, moving to a different state and finding a new man that she had enough feelings for to movie in with. That's not enough info for me to label AP a deadbeat.

[MJ(Mean John)]

I never said you were incapable of fathering a child out of wedlock. I am asking if you have the ability to hold/advocate for a position that doesn't directly benefit you. Are you empathic or apathetic.

Your assumption that I must be in the situation of paying child support to hold my positions about male parental rights and the inequalities in our legal system about this subject, lead me to question your level of empathy.

Edit: oh and yes, by asking a question you must have made an assumption before hand.


Never did I assume that you were in that situation. I simply asked.
And of course I can hold/advocate for a position that isn't mine. I pay child support. Do I think the amount is fair? No.

I completely understand where you're coming from, where why should a man (like me) be financially responsible for child he didn't chose to father (my situation) but the mom chose to not have an abortion and have the child.(my son)

My thing is, even if the condom broke, I could never MAKE her get an abortion, the same way I could never prevent her from getting an abortion. It is her choice, and rightfully so. Think about it for a second. She has to carry the kid and then give north OR has to go and have an abortion that can potentially be life scaring.

She has the child(my kid).

So why the F should I be financially responsible, for a child that I didn't "decide" to have? When it was just my sperm that came from my sexual act, when I knew the risks?

I ask you now, you thought "of a position other than your own" in regards to the man. And how it's not fair that he has to pay child support, blah blah.

Have you put yourself in the position of the child?
How fair is it for the child to have 1 parent in the first place. To grow up with a single mom is one thing, to grow up with a single moms income is another.

It's not fair to the child no matter what the father or mother decided to do. That child did not ask to be born, or made- but he's in this world and the whole "child support" might not be fair, to the man in essence, however what type of man would be okay with HIS OFFSPRING being in this world and he not being a part of his life and not supporting him financially?




This means that even though I didn't tell Baby momma to have the baby and AT THE TIME wanted an abortion, the child was born, and he is my son.


The mother and I are not together, but I still get my son 3 days a week and pay child. I'm doing it for the child, my son. Because I can't be a man, a person, that has my OWN child in this world without seeing him/ supporting him. I love my son. And I have thought in a position that wasn't mine, I have thought for his position. And being a 23 year old dad isn't so bad, my son will be 2 in December and couldn't be happier.
And that's empathy for you.

[AngelEyes]

Son

[MavsSuperFan]

based off what we know its irresponsible to say the kid was "abandoned." That suggests he knew the kids was his and purposely chose to stay out of his life. Knowing that he had sex with the child's mother and knowing the kid is his are 2 completely different things.

From the facts paternity was only recently established and child support had not been sought by the mother. If anything seems that she moved on, moving to a different state and finding a new man that she had enough feelings for to movie in with. That's not enough info for me to label AP a deadbeat.
With as much money as peterson makes, yes it does make him a deadbeat for not helping to support the child. I think peterson knew that was his kid, he just wanted to avoid the responsibility.

Personally I think he should be legally allowed to do so (because women are allowed to give up an unwanted child through adoption without the father's consent, as long as he is not on the birth certificate), but I consider it immoral that Peterson has chosen not to help out.

Its just ridiculous how people are acting like Peterson suffered this huge loss. This was a child he tried his best to keep out of his life.

[MavsSuperFan]

Never did I assume that you were in that situation. I simply asked.
And of course I can hold/advocate for a position that isn't mine. I pay child support. Do I think the amount is fair? No.

I completely understand where you're coming from, where why should a man (like me) be financially responsible for child he didn't chose to father (my situation) but the mom chose to not have an abortion and have the child.(my son)

My thing is, even if the condom broke, I could never MAKE her get an abortion, the same way I could never prevent her from getting an abortion. It is her choice, and rightfully so. Think about it for a second. She has to carry the kid and then give north OR has to go and have an abortion that can potentially be life scaring.

She has the child(my kid).

So why the F should I be financially responsible, for a child that I didn't "decide" to have? When it was just my sperm that came from my sexual act, when I knew the risks?

I ask you now, you thought "of a position other than your own" in regards to the man. And how it's not fair that he has to pay child support, blah blah.

Have you put yourself in the position of the child?
How fair is it for the child to have 1 parent in the first place. To grow up with a single mom is one thing, to grow up with a single moms income is another.

It's not fair to the child no matter what the father or mother decided to do. That child did not ask to be born, or made- but he's in this world and the whole "child support" might not be fair, to the man in essence, however what type of man would be okay with HIS OFFSPRING being in this world and he not being a part of his life and not supporting him financially?




This means that even though I didn't tell Baby momma to have the baby and AT THE TIME wanted an abortion, the child was born, and he is my son.


The mother and I are not together, but I still get my son 3 days a week and pay child. I'm doing it for the child, my son. Because I can't be a man, a person, that has my OWN child in this world without seeing him/ supporting him. I love my son. And I have thought in a position that wasn't mine, I have thought for his position. And being a 23 year old dad isn't so bad, my son will be 2 in December and couldn't be happier.
And that's empathy for you.

Of course I agree that the child would be worse off without a father's child support. I have never said I think people who dont pay child support are heroic or even that they arent assholes. If our parental laws were more fair fewer women would decided to bring their pregnancy to term. Eg. Dwight Howard's childrens mothers might have thought twice about bring the child to term if they doubted they would have access to his money. Perhaps even been more diligent with birth control.

My points is that if your child's mother had decided to give up the child after it was born through an adoption or by leaving the baby at a safe haven zone, your potential desire to keep the child would not have mattered, as I assume you did not sign the birth certificate.

And yet the woman if she decides its to her benefit to keep the child is automatically entitled to a portion of your income.

http://www.wikihow.com/Drop-Off-an-Unwanted-Baby

It lists the steps of how woman can unilaterally decided to prevent parenthood.
The laws are incredibly unequal.
A summary
1 Women have the right to choose to become parents after conception. Agree? (they can choose to abort)

2. Women have the right to choose to be come parents after the child is born. Agree? (they can give it up through adoption)

3. Men do not have the right to choose to become parents after conception. Agree?

4. Laws should not discriminate on the grounds of something an individual cannot control, such as gender. Agree?

5. Giving one gender a choice the other does not have is discrimination. Agree?

if you agree with all five points, how would you solve this inequality?


The mother and I are not together, but I still get my son 3 days a week and pay child. I'm doing it for the child, my son. Because I can't be a man, a person, that has my OWN child in this world without seeing him/ supporting him. I love my son. And I have thought in a position that wasn't mine, I have thought for his position. And being a 23 year old dad isn't so bad, my son will be 2 in December and couldn't be happier.
And that's empathy for you.
Thats being a good dad. what every single adult male I know has been to their child. This is what I mean when I say that everybody here is overestimating the amount of men that would choose to abandon their child. I know fathers that fight hard to get extra days with their children. their ex wives try to limit access to the kids because of vindictiveness and try to alienate the kids from their fathers.

by definition its not empathy, its responsibility and compassion sure, but not empathy.


1. Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives. See Synonyms at pity

[KNOW1EDGE]

where why should a man (like me) be financially responsible for child he didn't chose to father (my situation) but the mom chose to not have an abortion and have the child.(my son)

When you put your d in her v and came you made a choice to be a father.

Ultimately she has the option to take that away from you.

But why do men act like they have no choice? -You have tho choice to not stick your ***** in there.

[MJ(Mean John)]

When you put your d in her v and came you made a choice to be a father.

Ultimately she has the option to take that away from you.

But why do men act like they have no choice? -You have tho choice to not stick your ***** in there.


1. I speaking generally, addressing his point.

2. I a condom; it broke. Asked her to get the plan b pill, wouldn't go,

Not sure what you're referring to man.

[MJ(Mean John)]

1. I speaking generally, addressing his point.

2. I a condom; it broke. Asked her to get the plan b pill, wouldn't go,

Not sure what you're referring to man.


I made a decision to be a father when I laid her? And the condom broke?
Riiight. Could have happened to anyone Man. It was just me and I'm not blaming anyone. Again, didn't decide to have kids, it just happened.
Oh well. Again, I was making a point, I wasn't saying that's how I felt.

[niko]

1. I speaking generally, addressing his point.

2. I a condom; it broke. Asked her to get the plan b pill, wouldn't go,

Not sure what you're referring to man.
If you have sex the woman might get pregnant. Using contraception makes it safer, doesn't mean if she gets pregnant it's not your fault.

[MJ(Mean John)]

If you have sex the woman might get pregnant. Using contraception makes it safer, doesn't mean if she gets pregnant it's not your fault.


When did I say it wasn't my fault?

I didn't make the decision to have a kid,
I did not choose to have sex for the intentions of having a kid. I did it for enjoyment purposes. A child was born, boom. I'm not complaining or arguing against or for it. Was just explains that it is a child's right to child support.

Never said it was my fault or not my fault.

Don't confuse me with other peoples posts man. You guys are trippin.

[niko]

When did I say it wasn't my fault?

I didn't make the decision to have a kid,
I did not choose to have sex for the intentions of having a kid. I did it for enjoyment purposes. A child was born, boom. I'm not complaining or arguing against or for it. Was just explains that it is a child's right to child support.

Never said it was my fault or not my fault.

Don't confuse me with other peoples posts man. You guys are trippin.
Sorry, but you should read your own posts. It sounds like you are saying you are not responsible. A few times...

[2LeTTeRS]

Sorry I'm so late replying been watching my little guy all weekend. Here's my response to you though MavsSuperFan:


Then you support a double standard. Currently under the law woman can unilaterally choose when to become mothers. And yes the vast majority of abortions are not about the 9 month commitment of pregnancy but rather about the 18 year commitment of motherhood. The law obligates a man to the financial responsibilities of fatherhood at the decision of the woman. This is inherently unequal.

Laws should strive for equality and to eliminate double standards.

I think you are a little misguided on how strongly a state should look to prevent unequal treatment. I agree that it is a goal to treat all people equal, but I do not think it should be the overarching mission of a country's government.

Speaking for our the United States the 6 purposes of our government were spelled out in the preamble of the Constitution as:

1) Form a more perfect union [establish the rules needed for a society to live and work together (traffic laws, contract law, etc.)]
2) Establish justice, [punish people who commit crimes]
3) Insure domestic tranquility, [protect the fabric of society as agreed upon by the voice of the people or their representatives (pornagraphy laws, marriage laws, drug laws, etc.)]
4) Provide for the common defense, [protect you from outside aggression or harm (robbery, assault, etc.)]
5) Promote the general welfare [maintain social order]
6) Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves [ensure that justice has been served]

I view these responsibilities as much stronger than promoting equal treatment, and the courts do too. In regards to claimed gender discrimination, 150 years of precedent has led us to the modern view where the government is allowed to treat men and women differently if the law or policy is in support of an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest.

The law which allows women alone to have say in the decision abortion and forces men to provide support for any child conceived irregardless of whether they wanted to abort the child. I'd say we both agree that promoting general welfare is an important government interest so the question is are the laws as currently constructed substantially related to that interest

I'd say they are. The woman is the person who will go through the discomfort of pregnancy and the pain of child-birth (which we must not forget can life-threatening). Forcing her to get the consent of the father could delay the decision until the abortion is not legally possible and in turn be harmful or fatal.

With that in mind I see no problem with the laws as is.


Men should at the least be given 1 chance to opt out of the financial and social responsibilities of fatherhood. It would work similar to an adoption where the biological father gives up all rights and obligations to the child. Eg. He can not claim to be the father of the child, nor can he be sued for child support payments.

Now if they decide to opt in, they should never be given the option of opting out again.



not for women. and this is a double standard under the law.

No they shouldn't and who cares if that means I'm in support a double standard. I'm much more concerned with 2 innocent parties here: 1) the child and 2) society-at-large.

I'm sorry but actions have consequences, and the fact that the woman has an "opt out" card does not mean that men should be guaratneed one after being an active participant in the sexual act that resulted in the child being born.

[MavsSuperFan]

Sorry I'm so late replying been watching my little guy all weekend. Here's my response to you though MavsSuperFan:



I think you are a little misguided on how strongly a state should look to prevent unequal treatment. I agree that it is a goal to treat all people equal, but I do not think it should be the overarching mission of a country's government.

Speaking for our the United States the 6 purposes of our government were spelled out in the preamble of the Constitution as:

1) Form a more perfect union [establish the rules needed for a society to live and work together (traffic laws, contract law, etc.)]
2) Establish justice, [punish people who commit crimes]
3) Insure domestic tranquility, [protect the fabric of society as agreed upon by the voice of the people or their representatives (pornagraphy laws, marriage laws, drug laws, etc.)]
4) Provide for the common defense, [protect you from outside aggression or harm (robbery, assault, etc.)]
5) Promote the general welfare [maintain social order]
6) Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves [ensure that justice has been served]

I view these responsibilities as much stronger than promoting equal treatment, and the courts do too. In regards to claimed gender discrimination, 150 years of precedent has led us to the modern view where the government is allowed to treat men and women differently if the law or policy is in support of an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest.

The law which allows women alone to have say in the decision abortion and forces men to provide support for any child conceived irregardless of whether they wanted to abort the child. I'd say we both agree that promoting general welfare is an important government interest so the question is are the laws as currently constructed substantially related to that interest

I'd say they are. The woman is the person who will go through the discomfort of pregnancy and the pain of child-birth (which we must not forget can life-threatening). Forcing her to get the consent of the father could delay the decision until the abortion is not legally possible and in turn be harmful or fatal.

With that in mind I see no problem with the laws as is.



No they shouldn't and who cares if that means I'm in support a double standard. I'm much more concerned with 2 innocent parties here: 1) the child and 2) society-at-large.

I'm sorry but actions have consequences, and the fact that the woman has an "opt out" card does not mean that men should be guaratneed one after being an active participant in the sexual act that resulted in the child being born.

How do you feel about adoption laws that allow a woman the unilateral choice to give a child up to adoptive parents? Eg. a woman who gets pregnant, delivers the child, then can unilaterally decided to give the child up for adoption. As long as the male and female are not married and he didnt sign the birth certificate, no state prevents the woman from arranging an adoption, where all of her legal rights and responsibilities to the child are severed.

Some states even have "baby moses laws" or safe haven laws that allow a young mother to drop off an unwanted child at designated locations. Eg. Hospitals, police stations, etc. (seriously google it these laws exist, they can just straight up abandon an unwanted child)

Why is women have such freedom to abandon children? Well the argument is when women are unprepared for motherhood, statistically speaking a child ruins their lives. Eg. inability to complete higher education, a drain on financial resources, poor dating prospects, lower employment prospects, etc. Further the child is not served growing up in this environment. Society judged it was better to try place these unwanted babies with adoptive parents.

Why doesn't the same argument apply to males?

Just to summarize my key points.

1 Women have the right to choose to become parents after conception. Agree? (they can choose to abort)

2. Women have the right to choose to be come parents after the child is born. Agree? (they can give it up through adoption)

3. Men do not have the right to choose to become parents after conception. Agree?

4. Laws should not discriminate on the grounds of something an individual cannot control, such as gender. Agree?

5. Giving one gender a choice the other does not have is discrimination. Agree?

But if you have decided that you accept this double standard than fair enough.

But I strongly disagree that equality under the law wasnt one of the founding principles of America. "All men are created equal". Granted the founding fathers only considered white males in this statement.

[2LeTTeRS]

How do you feel about adoption laws that allow a woman the unilateral choice to give a child up to adoptive parents? Eg. a woman who gets pregnant, delivers the child, then can unilaterally decided to give the child up for adoption. As long as the male and female are not married and he didnt sign the birth certificate, no state prevents the woman from arranging an adoption, where all of her legal rights and responsibilities to the child are severed.

Some states even have "baby moses laws" or safe haven laws that allow a young mother to drop off an unwanted child at designated locations. Eg. Hospitals, police stations, etc. (seriously google it these laws exist, they can just straight up abandon an unwanted child)

Why is women have such freedom to abandon children? Well the argument is when women are unprepared for motherhood, statistically speaking a child ruins their lives. Eg. inability to complete higher education, a drain on financial resources, poor dating prospects, lower employment prospects, etc. Further the child is not served growing up in this environment. Society judged it was better to try place these unwanted babies with adoptive parents.

Why doesn't the same argument apply to males?

The bolded portion there is important. The modern view (which I support) is to obtain consent from both parents prior to adoption, but how can you ask for the father to have rights for the child when he has not legally acknowledged him?


Just to summarize my key points.

1 Women have the right to choose to become parents after conception. Agree? (they can choose to abort)

2. Women have the right to choose to be come parents after the child is born. Agree? (they can give it up through adoption)

3. Men do not have the right to choose to become parents after conception. Agree?

4. Laws should not discriminate on the grounds of something an individual cannot control, such as gender. Agree?

5. Giving one gender a choice the other does not have is discrimination. Agree?

But if you have decided that you accept this double standard than fair enough.

Yeah man I have decided to accept the double standard. I believe that laws should aim to treat all peoeple equally; but must not ignore differentiating factors in peoeple that they serve. Here there is a fundamental difference in the position of hte mother and the father becuase the mother carries the child and puts her life in danger during birth.

1. Agree.
2. Agree; but not uniliaterally. If the man legally acknowledges his child then he must extinguish his rights to the child prior to adoption as well.
3. Agree.
4. Neither agree nor disagree. Depends on the interest being advanced (ex - A person can't choose how old they are, but I think we all agree that 12 year olds aren't mature enough to drink).
5. Agree. As stated in the previous point discrimination is not always negative. We have laws that willfully discriminate against , homosexuals (not allowed to marry), disabled people (don't allow visually impaired to drive, etc.) and many other classes because the greater good is protected. Not sure how this is any different.


But I strongly disagree that equality under the law wasnt one of the founding principles of America. "All men are created equal". Granted the founding fathers only considered white males in this statement.

The statement "all men are created equal" was a part of the Declaration of Independence; but I think our forefathers purposely decided to not include that statement in the Constitution for the exact reason you stated there.

[-p.tiddy-]

Just did a quick browse of the debate in here, but just thought I would remind people that Peterson didn't know it was his son until very recently and was scheduled to visit him for the first time BEFORE this strange attack happened...in case that wasn't mentioned

No one should be upset at AD in here...be upset at the killer

[2LeTTeRS]

With as much money as peterson makes, yes it does make him a deadbeat for not helping to support the child. I think peterson knew that was his kid, he just wanted to avoid the responsibility. [/B]

Personally I think he should be legally allowed to do so (because women are allowed to give up an unwanted child through adoption without the father's consent, as long as he is not on the birth certificate), but I consider it immoral that Peterson has chosen not to help out.

Its just ridiculous how people are acting like Peterson suffered this huge loss. This was a child he tried his best to keep out of his life.

Just saw this post; but -p. tiddy- basically already everything I would have said. There is a process in this country to establishing paternity and getting child support and looks like that process was not pursued here.

Not sure if you guys have seen this article; but seems AP was only recently contacted and told about the child; and if you believe the article his response was that of a stand-up guy >>> http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/12/report-adrian-petersons-son-dies-met-him-1st-time-in-hospital.


EDEN PRAIRIE, Minn. (CBSDC/AP) — Adrian Peterson had just met his two-year-old son – who died Friday of injuries suffered in an alleged child abuse case – for the first time, upon rushing to the hospital to be by his side, TMZ is reporting.

According to the report, Peterson only recently learned he was the father of the boy and met him for the first time in the Sioux Falls, S.D. hospital while the boy was in critical condition on Thursday.

TMZ says the boy’s mother first contacted Peterson two to three months ago, after a paternity test failed to genetically link the boy to an ex. Upon learning he may be the father, Peterson reportedly didn’t ask questions; just asked how he could help the situation.

He mourned the death of his young son Friday, while words of support poured in from all corners of the sports world.

Authorities said a 2-year-old boy died Friday of injuries suffered in an alleged child abuse case in South Dakota, and a person with knowledge of the situation told The Associated Press the boy was Peterson’s son.

If you believe that how can you be mad at AP? What you know and when you know it matters; and if AP did not know this child existed how can we label him a dead-beat?

[MavsSuperFan]

The bolded portion there is important. The modern view (which I support) is to obtain consent from both parents prior to adoption, but how can you ask for the father to have rights for the child when he has not legally acknowledged him?



Yeah man I have decided to accept the double standard. I believe that laws should aim to treat all peoeple equally; but must not ignore differentiating factors in peoeple that they serve. Here there is a fundamental difference in the position of hte mother and the father becuase the mother carries the child and puts her life in danger during birth.

1. Agree.
2. Agree; but not uniliaterally. If the man legally acknowledges his child then he must extinguish his rights to the child prior to adoption as well.
3. Agree.
4. Neither agree nor disagree. Depends on the interest being advanced (ex - A person can't choose how old they are, but I think we all agree that 12 year olds aren't mature enough to drink).
5. Agree. As stated in the previous point discrimination is not always negative. We have laws that willfully discriminate against , homosexuals (not allowed to marry), disabled people (don't allow visually impaired to drive, etc.) and many other classes because the greater good is protected. Not sure how this is any different.



The statement "all men are created equal" was a part of the Declaration of Independence; but I think our forefathers purposely decided to not include that statement in the Constitution for the exact reason you stated there.

The statement "all men are created equal" was a part of the Declaration of Independence; but I think our forefathers purposely decided to not include that statement in the Constitution for the exact reason you stated there.

1. the declaration of independce is a foundational document that outlines teh visions of the founders (the principles of the country).
2. read the 14th amendment

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Many of the writing of the founding fathers supported the idea of white men (who they considered people) being equal under the law.


The bolded portion there is important. The modern view (which I support) is to obtain consent from both parents prior to adoption, but how can you ask for the father to have rights for the child when he has not legally acknowledged him?
If you are not married to a women she can deny you the right to sign the birth certificate.

Even if you openly voice you disent to her, it doesnt matter, she can unilaterally give up the child through the process of adoption. You really have no legal recourse unless you were married to her at the time of the birth.

There was a case a while back where a lady give birth to her boyfriends baby. She gave it up to adoptive parents, he was against it from the start. He went to take the baby back, and served time for kidnapping.

Edit: this is another case I found.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/29/terry-achane-adoption_n_2574394.html
A soldier deployed out of state on duty
his then wife (now ex) give their daughter up for adoption.
He gets back and fights for 2 years to get his daughter back.
He is lucky he was married to her at the time.

Women do not need a man's consent to give their child up for adoption.

2nd edit: further a woman can simply take a baby to a safe have/baby Moses law designated location and legally abandon the baby no questions asked as long as she is the mother. If you are married to her, or were allowed to sign the birth certificate you will get the baby back, but if you just her boyfriend and want the baby tough luck.

[MavsSuperFan]

Just saw this post; but -p. tiddy- basically already everything I would have said. There is a process in this country to establishing paternity and getting child support and looks like that process was not pursued here.

Not sure if you guys have seen this article; but seems AP was only recently contacted and told about the child; and if you believe the article his response was that of a stand-up guy >>> http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/12/report-adrian-petersons-son-dies-met-him-1st-time-in-hospital.



If you believe that how can you be mad at AP? What you know and when you know it matters; and if AP did not know this child existed how can we label him a dead-beat?
Alright if that is the case I withdraw my comments on this particular topic, and Peterson did the right thing. I have been reading articles where it just said he denied the child.

[2LeTTeRS]

The statement "all men are created equal" was a part of the Declaration of Independence; but I think our forefathers purposely decided to not include that statement in the Constitution for the exact reason you stated there.

1. the declaration of independce is a foundational document that outlines teh visions of the founders (the principles of the country).
2. read the 14th amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

I'm not sure what your arguing here. Yes some amongst them did believe that rights should apply to everyone; but there obviously wasn't a consensus amongst them which is why most rights were only extended to white male land-owners when the Constitution was first drafted.

The American people were not granted Equal Protection under the Laws until the 14th Amendment was ratified about 70-80 years after the Constitution was drafted.

I've alread given my thoughts on how that principle was not violated earlier, although I did not call it out by name but I've already spoke about that in this thread. As I stated earlier >>>


In regards to claimed gender discrimination, 150 years of precedent has led us to the modern view where the government is allowed to treat men and women differently if the law or policy is in support of an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest.

The law which allows women alone to have say in the decision abortion and forces men to provide support for any child conceived irregardless of whether they wanted to abort the child. I'd say we both agree that promoting general welfare is an important government interest so the question is are the laws as currently constructed substantially related to that interest

I'd say they are. The woman is the person who will go through the discomfort of pregnancy and the pain of child-birth (which we must not forget can life-threatening). Forcing her to get the consent of the father could delay the decision until the abortion is not legally possible and in turn be harmful or fatal.

With that in mind I see no problem with the laws as is.

[2LeTTeRS]

Even if you openly voice you disent to her, it doesnt matter, she can unilaterally give up the child through the process of adoption. You really have no legal recourse unless you were married to her at the time of the birth.

If you are not married to a women she can deny you the right to sign the birth certificate.

There was a case a while back where a lady give birth to her boyfriends baby. She gave it up to adoptive parents, he was against it from the start. He went to take the baby back, and served time for kidnapping.

We don't allow vigilante-ism in this country -- there is a process one must follow. Also that is a bit misleading If you are not placed on the birth certificate you can petition the courts for paternity and if they prove you are the father you are given rights to that child.

Its not always easy and sometimes its expensive, but trust me fathers are given a good bit of protection by the courts here if they pursue it.

[2LeTTeRS]

Looks like the man who originally thought the kid was his has weighed in on AP and the media circus surrounding the situation >>>>


So tired of this poor Adrian Peterson sh*t. Let me blow all your minds. The boy who died was my son. Yes A.P. he was the biological father but I raised him and he carried my name. Tyrese Robert Ruffin. I don’t blame AP for not really caring cuz him and I both found out recently who the biological father was. AP met my son for the first time yest when my son was already in coma. I was here today when we pulled the plug, not him. He was happily practicing and has no problem playing on Sunday. So yea this isn’t all out yet but I’m sick of the poor AP sh*t. He didn’t know or even meet my son. Sorry for the outburst but put yourself in my place.

[MavsSuperFan]

I'm not sure what your arguing here. Yes some amongst them did believe that rights should apply to everyone; but there obviously wasn't a consensus amongst them which is why most rights were only extended to white male land-owners when the Constitution was first drafted.

The American people were not granted Equal Protection under the Laws until the 14th Amendment was ratified about 70-80 years after the Constitution was drafted.

I've alread given my thoughts on how that principle was not violated earlier, although I did not call it out by name but I've already spoke about that in this thread. As I stated earlier >>>
All I was saying was equality under the law is now in 2013 a fundamental idea in America.
Also none of them thought rights should apply to everyone. What they meant by everyone was universal white male franchise/equality.


I think you are a little misguided on how strongly a state should look to prevent unequal treatment.
I completely disagree with that is all I was saying. Equality under the law is of the utmost importance. Any double standards need to be justified.
Full white male franchise was achieve in most states relatively quickly.


We don't allow vigilante-ism in this country -- there is a process one must follow. Also that is a bit misleading If you are not placed on the birth certificate you can petition the courts for paternity and if they prove you are the father you are given rights to that child.

Its not always easy and sometimes its expensive, but trust me fathers are given a good bit of protection by the courts here if they pursue it.

Assuming the mother doesnt give up the child to adoptive parents before you case makes it through the court. Or doesn't drop off the unwanted child at a designated safe sanctuary under "baby Moses laws".

http://www.wikihow.com/Drop-Off-an-Unwanted-Baby


Its not always easy and sometimes its expensive, but trust me fathers are given a good bit of protection by the courts here if they pursue it.

Nothing in comparison to women.

[-p.tiddy-]

Looks like the man who originally thought the kid was his has weighed in on AP and the media circus surrounding the situation >>>>

that's the media for you...

but if AD wasn't the father no one would even know this happened...so at least this sicko is exposed

[MJ(Mean John)]

Sorry, but you should read your own posts. It sounds like you are saying you are not responsible. A few times...

I was trying to "sound like" MavsSuperFan.

I was using his logic.

[MavsSuperFan]

I was trying to "sound like" MavsSuperFan.

I was using his logic.
Of course you should take care of your kid. I have never argued you shouldnt. i am arguing the law shouldnt enforce it, because it doesnt when it comes to women.

Abortion, adoption, baby moses laws, etc.

To illustarte the difference between morality and legality take the following examples
Eg 1. Cheating on your spouse is morally wrong and makes you a liar/selfish asshole. That said, No reasonable person would want to criminally punish a person for cheating on their spouse.

Eg 2. Buying a house from an old lady at significantly below market values, because she is ignorant of how much housing prices in her area have increased is immoral. But its clearly not illegal.

Once again, because everyone in this thread seems to be missing my point.
1. people (men and women) that dont take care of their kids are irresponsible and selfish.

2. The law allows any women the right to give up a child she does not want via adoption, or to prevent its birth through an abortion. The woman can easily set up the situation where she can unilaterally decided to give up a child to adoptive parents without the consent of the biological father.

3. After conception men have zero ability to choose whether or not they will be obligated to the financial obligations of child support. This choice is entirely with in the power of the mother.

4. The law is unequal and if you buy the arguments that allow a woman to give up a child via adoption or the arguments that justify "baby moses laws"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe-haven_law

Then why dont those same arguments of the economic burdens of unplanned parenthood apply to males?

Note: at no point am I arguing a male is heroic, or even moral, for giving up a child. Just as women who abandon children at designated safe haven zones are not heroic, maybe even immoral. Legality doesnt not equal morality.