Now consider this logic. There is debate over whether the unborn child is considered a life or not. Well it's fairly obvious that to some the child is "not" a life if they wish to abort. However, should someone else cause the Death of that unborn Fetus then things change and that Fetus is now counted as a life.
This is why Liberal views of laws is dangerous. Anything beyond the base rights of each gender is immaterial. Every possible right extended to Women needs to be also extended to Men.
You know. There's a reason why the Equal Rights amendment failed back in the 70s. Upon introspection you will see that there are many Laws that are biased towards a particular Gender and making a Constitutional Amemdment would have been just the loophole needed for many of both Genders.
How long will we continue to extol the virtues of a Democracy when we can't even master it ourselves.
Is it so difficult for women to remember a little pill or to say no?
Likewise who would get a vasectomy at such an early age?!? Would you have 17-18 year olds getting them?
Nick
It should not be. Only a bastard woman "forgets" the pill, or a bastard man supposes that she MUST be on a pill as she is a) a female and b) says she is on the pill. I personally hate the idea of the pill so I don't use it - but I'm very clear about it.
I don't care at what age anyone disables his/her reproductional possibilities, it's up to personal choises.
How about asking a written document before having sex where she declares she will not became pregnant because of the sex you have with her, and if she breaks the deal, YOU will get her to court and ask 1'000'000 $ for the damage caused to you and your sufferings?
I think "G" is stuck in the "prevention" mode, while the topic is really about a "contingencies" issue. In a "perfect" world, prevention would be 100% effective. However, we should all know that the world is not perfect. Thus we have contingencies. Right now the contingencies are imbalanced, as has already been stated. Both sexes should have equal rights to "opt-out" of parental responsibility within a certain time period. No one is "forcing" a woman to have an abortion. She can keep it or whatever she pleases. However, she should acknowledge the biological father's wishes to either abort or not abort, support or not support. If it is "abort" or "not support", that is the "opt-out" agreement. She can keep the baby if she really wants it. There will simply be no expectation of support from "him".
In my esteem, guys, if you don't want to make babies either wear a jimmy hat, use spermicide, have the girl use a diaphram and pray, all at the same time, or abstain, damnit folks you know what the consequenses could be, own up to it. Also in my esteem, this applies to the ladies as well. Abortion as birth control is bad, a pregnancy is not about a single body, it's a symbiosis, it is another life forming in there, and both mother and father should be responsible. Take some resposibility, both guys and gals. As for abortion is special cases, I'll advocate it and hope that the government doesn't outlaw it. I am genuinely troubled by the abortion issue as well by the death penalty. I would not vote to outlaw abortions outside of special cases, because I know just b/c it is illegal does not mean it will not happen, it just means it happens in an unsavory enviroment with the possibility of young women getting killed due to improper procedure and bad conditions. We need to educate people better. Alas, my dreams and ideals far outstrip our reality.
The crux of this issue is not who is the best parent but who should be able to absolve themselves of being a Parent. Women have that right. Men don't. End of story.
I'll ask again, how so? I haven't heard a clear argument about this yet.
I'll ask again, how so? I haven't heard a clear argument about this yet.
Bunge,
Many states have passed abandonment laws where women can drop off their infant children to hospitals, firestations, etc. with no questions asked. This was done because women would throw them in dumpsters and things of that nature.
Men can't do what? Take the child from the mother and leave it at a firestation?
I can see the gripe re:child support, but as usual you're taking a semi-valid point and surrounding it with a pile of shit making it difficult to get to.
Many states have passed abandonment laws where women can drop off their infant children to hospitals, firestations, etc. with no questions asked.
As far as I know, they can't do this if the father wants custody. A mother can't abandon a child when the father wants it. So the analogy seems a bit false.
Men can't do what? Take the child from the mother and leave it at a firestation?
I can see the gripe re:child support, but as usual you're taking a semi-valid point and surrounding it with a pile of shit making it difficult to get to.
*cue reactionary spew*
As hmurchison mentioned...
Quote:
The crux of this issue is not who is the best parent but who should be able to absolve themselves of being a Parent. Women have that right. Men don't. End of story.
Women can absolve themselves even after the child is born. That was the point that Bunge was doubting. (at least as I understood it)
You are welcome to clear away the "shit." The article mentioned that men, within a month of learning of their impending fatherhood could decide to renounce their paternal rights. It isn't a lifelong choice or something they could decide to do in the midst of divorce with children from the marriage, etc.
Many states have passed abandonment laws where women can drop off their infant children to hospitals, firestations, etc. with no questions asked. This was done because women would throw them in dumpsters and things of that nature.
Men can't.
Nick
Women would not throw their infants in dumpsters etc. They would and will be charged for murder if they do that. Even if the kid was the less vivible, ugliest and last last thing on the universe they'd care about.
If you just don't break the laws in many many states, you practically have no chances to make any women pregnant - even your wife.
It's against the law to make love to a virgin, whatever the circumstances, anywhere in the state of Washington. According to the wording of the legislation, it's a major crime even to marry and then spend the night with a virgin bride in that city.
Connecticut still retains an old law forbidding any kind of "private sexual behavior between consenting adults." This odd law makes absolutely no distinction between married and single couples.
Arizona - It is illegal for unmarried persons to have sex. The penalty is three years in prison.
Connecticut - "Private sexual behavior between consenting adults" is still illegal.
Michigan - Sex between unmarried consenting adults is punishable by a fine up to $5000 and/or up to five years in prison.
Rhode Island - It is illegal for unmarried persons to have sex. The fine is $10.
Texas - Sex between unmarried consenting adults is punishable by a $500 fine.
Nevada - sex without a condom is considered illegal.
Sodomy laws still: (forbids any non-reproductive, non-commericial sex between adults in private)
Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah, Virgina and Puerto Rico.
(Utah -sex with an animal?unless performed for profit?is not considered sodomy and therefore is legal. )
Georgia -a man was sentenced to five years in prison for engaging in oral sex. With his wife. With her consent. In their home.
Single guys and gals caught in the act of sex in Michigan can be fined as much as $5,000, and they could be sentenced to as many as five years in prison. Single adults in Texas who are apprehended while having sex are charged with a misdemeanor and given a $500 fine.
Rhode Island prohibits unmarried people from partaking of bedroom activities under any circumstances. However, if caught, the lovers are both fined $10.
Unmarried adults in Arizona who decide to fool around a little are committing a serious felony. Anyone single, man or woman, caught having sex can be sent to the penitentiary for three full years.
As far as I know, they can't do this if the father wants custody. A mother can't abandon a child when the father wants it. So the analogy seems a bit false.
If the mother has abandoned the child she didn't have to name the father. Hospitals only require mothers to name the fathers to get benefits. If the father's name isn't on the birth certificate, he would have to find the abandoned child and attempt to establish paternity. He would have to do all this before the court entered a decision terminating all parental rights.
Likewise I didn't claim it was a perfect solution. It is just an example of how women can terminate their rights even after birth. If you wanted to say that men, when notified during the pregnancy would have one month to terminate their parental rights, I doubt I would argue against that.
Women would not throw their infants in dumpsters etc. They would and will be charged for murder if they do that.
Women would do that, and it was these needless deaths that prompted the amnesty for handing in new-born children.
It wasn't, as some in this thread would have you believe, some femi-nazi plot to give extra rights to women, and so if you really want men to have these 'rights' too then all you have to do is start a campaign to encourage mentally unbalanced men to kill their new-born children.
Likewise, the pragmatic among us accept that sex will continue to happen and unwanted children will continue to be born, and further that many of these unwanted children will be aborted wehther it is legal or not. This will result in many deaths and other unpleasantness.
To change this we need better sex education, better availability of effective contraception and better financial, emotional and moral support for women who find themselves pregnant in difficult circumstances.
In conclusion, if you want to ban abortion then just come out and say so. This bollocks about male/female equality is just tiring.
Okay, with all this discussion, we still haven't tackled the main point:
If a pregnant woman is dead-set on aborting her unborn baby, what legal rights does the father have if he wants to keep it? None, and that's not right.
And that benefits a child in which way? Being a Sperm Donor doesn't make you a Father. It's simple ..forget the cute slogans and look at the bedrock of this issue. Women should not be allowed to have Abortions if Men have no say so in being comdemned to financially and/or emotionally support a child they have no desire to have.
I don't give a rip about the other rather extranneous issues. Frankly I'm pretty tired of seeing shitty parents of both Genders.
I do believe it is a Womans body and our Gov has some tough choices to make. Either disallow Abortions in %95 of all cases or allow them and also allow potential Fathers to Op Out. This issue really isn't that tough. Every inequality that our Gov allows to exist potentially weakens faith in our Gov and way of life. This doesn't have to happen.
In France , fathers (if not married) are not obliged to recocnize a new born as their child. If they do not recocnize them, they are not obliged to support them.
Comments
This is why Liberal views of laws is dangerous. Anything beyond the base rights of each gender is immaterial. Every possible right extended to Women needs to be also extended to Men.
You know. There's a reason why the Equal Rights amendment failed back in the 70s. Upon introspection you will see that there are many Laws that are biased towards a particular Gender and making a Constitutional Amemdment would have been just the loophole needed for many of both Genders.
How long will we continue to extol the virtues of a Democracy when we can't even master it ourselves.
Originally posted by trumptman
Is it so difficult for women to remember a little pill or to say no?
Likewise who would get a vasectomy at such an early age?!? Would you have 17-18 year olds getting them?
Nick
It should not be. Only a bastard woman "forgets" the pill, or a bastard man supposes that she MUST be on a pill as she is a) a female and b) says she is on the pill. I personally hate the idea of the pill so I don't use it - but I'm very clear about it.
I don't care at what age anyone disables his/her reproductional possibilities, it's up to personal choises.
How about asking a written document before having sex where she declares she will not became pregnant because of the sex you have with her, and if she breaks the deal, YOU will get her to court and ask 1'000'000 $ for the damage caused to you and your sufferings?
They start talking.
They go back to her place.
They start kissing.
They move to the bedroom.
They rip each others clothes off.
And then...
"Excuse me, could you read this and sign at the "x" please?"
Right.
Originally posted by hmurchison
The crux of this issue is not who is the best parent but who should be able to absolve themselves of being a Parent. Women have that right. Men don't. End of story.
I'll ask again, how so? I haven't heard a clear argument about this yet.
Originally posted by bunge
I'll ask again, how so? I haven't heard a clear argument about this yet.
Bunge,
Many states have passed abandonment laws where women can drop off their infant children to hospitals, firestations, etc. with no questions asked. This was done because women would throw them in dumpsters and things of that nature.
Men can't.
Nick
I can see the gripe re:child support, but as usual you're taking a semi-valid point and surrounding it with a pile of shit making it difficult to get to.
*cue reactionary spew*
Originally posted by trumptman
Many states have passed abandonment laws where women can drop off their infant children to hospitals, firestations, etc. with no questions asked.
As far as I know, they can't do this if the father wants custody. A mother can't abandon a child when the father wants it. So the analogy seems a bit false.
Originally posted by groverat
Men can't do what? Take the child from the mother and leave it at a firestation?
I can see the gripe re:child support, but as usual you're taking a semi-valid point and surrounding it with a pile of shit making it difficult to get to.
*cue reactionary spew*
As hmurchison mentioned...
The crux of this issue is not who is the best parent but who should be able to absolve themselves of being a Parent. Women have that right. Men don't. End of story.
Women can absolve themselves even after the child is born. That was the point that Bunge was doubting. (at least as I understood it)
You are welcome to clear away the "shit." The article mentioned that men, within a month of learning of their impending fatherhood could decide to renounce their paternal rights. It isn't a lifelong choice or something they could decide to do in the midst of divorce with children from the marriage, etc.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Bunge,
Many states have passed abandonment laws where women can drop off their infant children to hospitals, firestations, etc. with no questions asked. This was done because women would throw them in dumpsters and things of that nature.
Men can't.
Nick
Women would not throw their infants in dumpsters etc. They would and will be charged for murder if they do that. Even if the kid was the less vivible, ugliest and last last thing on the universe they'd care about.
Originally posted by trumptman
Women can absolve themselves even after the child is born.
If a women absolves herself of parenting rights, can't a man put the child up for adoption?
If a women absolves herself of parenting rights, can a man take the child to a firehouse and drop it off?
You're ignoring my main point. That a women can 'abandon' a child only if the father will as well.
It's against the law to make love to a virgin, whatever the circumstances, anywhere in the state of Washington. According to the wording of the legislation, it's a major crime even to marry and then spend the night with a virgin bride in that city.
Connecticut still retains an old law forbidding any kind of "private sexual behavior between consenting adults." This odd law makes absolutely no distinction between married and single couples.
Arizona - It is illegal for unmarried persons to have sex. The penalty is three years in prison.
Connecticut - "Private sexual behavior between consenting adults" is still illegal.
Michigan - Sex between unmarried consenting adults is punishable by a fine up to $5000 and/or up to five years in prison.
Rhode Island - It is illegal for unmarried persons to have sex. The fine is $10.
Texas - Sex between unmarried consenting adults is punishable by a $500 fine.
Nevada - sex without a condom is considered illegal.
Sodomy laws still: (forbids any non-reproductive, non-commericial sex between adults in private)
Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah, Virgina and Puerto Rico.
(Utah -sex with an animal?unless performed for profit?is not considered sodomy and therefore is legal. )
Georgia -a man was sentenced to five years in prison for engaging in oral sex. With his wife. With her consent. In their home.
Single guys and gals caught in the act of sex in Michigan can be fined as much as $5,000, and they could be sentenced to as many as five years in prison. Single adults in Texas who are apprehended while having sex are charged with a misdemeanor and given a $500 fine.
Rhode Island prohibits unmarried people from partaking of bedroom activities under any circumstances. However, if caught, the lovers are both fined $10.
Unmarried adults in Arizona who decide to fool around a little are committing a serious felony. Anyone single, man or woman, caught having sex can be sent to the penitentiary for three full years.
Originally posted by bunge
As far as I know, they can't do this if the father wants custody. A mother can't abandon a child when the father wants it. So the analogy seems a bit false.
If the mother has abandoned the child she didn't have to name the father. Hospitals only require mothers to name the fathers to get benefits. If the father's name isn't on the birth certificate, he would have to find the abandoned child and attempt to establish paternity. He would have to do all this before the court entered a decision terminating all parental rights.
Likewise I didn't claim it was a perfect solution. It is just an example of how women can terminate their rights even after birth. If you wanted to say that men, when notified during the pregnancy would have one month to terminate their parental rights, I doubt I would argue against that.
Nick
Originally posted by Giaguara
Women would not throw their infants in dumpsters etc. They would and will be charged for murder if they do that.
Women would do that, and it was these needless deaths that prompted the amnesty for handing in new-born children.
It wasn't, as some in this thread would have you believe, some femi-nazi plot to give extra rights to women, and so if you really want men to have these 'rights' too then all you have to do is start a campaign to encourage mentally unbalanced men to kill their new-born children.
Likewise, the pragmatic among us accept that sex will continue to happen and unwanted children will continue to be born, and further that many of these unwanted children will be aborted wehther it is legal or not. This will result in many deaths and other unpleasantness.
To change this we need better sex education, better availability of effective contraception and better financial, emotional and moral support for women who find themselves pregnant in difficult circumstances.
In conclusion, if you want to ban abortion then just come out and say so. This bollocks about male/female equality is just tiring.
the rest of whatever blather these fools are talking about should be judged in that light.
your sperm, your kid. deal.
If a pregnant woman is dead-set on aborting her unborn baby, what legal rights does the father have if he wants to keep it? None, and that's not right.
your sperm, your kid. deal.
And that benefits a child in which way? Being a Sperm Donor doesn't make you a Father. It's simple ..forget the cute slogans and look at the bedrock of this issue. Women should not be allowed to have Abortions if Men have no say so in being comdemned to financially and/or emotionally support a child they have no desire to have.
I don't give a rip about the other rather extranneous issues. Frankly I'm pretty tired of seeing shitty parents of both Genders.
I do believe it is a Womans body and our Gov has some tough choices to make. Either disallow Abortions in %95 of all cases or allow them and also allow potential Fathers to Op Out. This issue really isn't that tough. Every inequality that our Gov allows to exist potentially weakens faith in our Gov and way of life. This doesn't have to happen.