Adrian Peterson's son in critical condition

[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.