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.
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.
This is backwards. There's no correlation between the two situations. You should be saying 'women and men should have the ability to abandon responsibility to a child they have no desire to have.' Don't try and shoehorn abortion into the picture because it's irrelevant to this discussion.
[B]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.
First point, that just means any potnetial father needs to be responsible. A women shouldn't have to keep track of a man's sperm and tell him when it's been active.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
He would have to do all this before the court entered a decision terminating all parental rights.
Second, I don't think this is true. Even in cases of adoption, blood parents have been able to get their children back.
It's very simple. Women almost always have the power / final say in "what happens next" when an unexpected pregnancy arises from consensual sex. The only exceptions are women with drug dependancies or other serious problems, in which case a relative or healthcare provider or other authority MAY be able to affect the decision-making process.
For women without such problems, if she chooses to have an abortion, it's over. The man cannot stop her. If she chooses to keep the child, the man must ante up if she requires it; he cannot opt-out. If she chooses adoption, he again cannot stop her in most instances. If she chooses to abandon the child, again the man cannot stop her unless he knows ahead of time the baby is going to be abandoned (HIGHLY unlikely).
Can't you just see it? "I'm sorry Bob, I'm going to abandon this child at the local hospital because I don't think you can take care of it and I can't afford to financially. Sorry."
Yah right. Abandonments are almost always very secretive, spontaneous occurances that the woman never tells anyone about ahead of time. The shame alone usually prevents that.
It's a double-standard, [because the man rarely has a say in anything]. In some cases double-standards are actually warranted though -- that's the thing people have a tough time admitting to. With abortion, it's not warranted if the father is willing [and able] to care for the child. With abandonment, it's not warranted if the father is willing and able, but is definitely warranted if the father is willing but unable... etc. Context is everything with issues like this. There is no magic bullet. Either the courts find a way to make decisions on a case-by-case basis without all the feminazi pretext that invariably comes with unexpected pregnancies, or we will continue to fumble around like idiots. And of course the federal government has to enact legal groundwork that makes this possible...
...IOW, until the laws indicate that the man and woman are both 50% responsible (and therefore have 50% of the decision-making power for any pregnancy resulting from consensual intercourse), [this area] will remain filled with double-standards in favor of the mother. [Definitely better than double-standards in favor of the father, but still not good for a democratic society.]
The woman take care of the child alone, and recieve some financial help from the state (not the US , the french state ). France is very big on welfare, sometimes it can give good things (help people who really need it) or have a negative impact (promote lazyness and paralyse the economy).
One the child is adult (but i may be wrong with this issue, i may ask to one of my friend who is a lawyer, but i won't see him before september at best), he can ask to be recocnize by his biological father. Anyway this is a complex procedure, and i prefer to not going further, rather to say more stupidities
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.
Are you through mischaracterizing everything yet?
Find for me the post that says men want the right to kill new borns.
FInd for me the post that says abortion should be eliminated.
No one has even characterized the ability to abandon children with a number of days after birth as part of a feminist agenda or that the women were mentally unbalanced.
Straw men, straw men, straw men... keep setting them up and knocking them down because you know you don't want to get the real topic of men and reproductive rights. For you it is "tiring." Women have them and men don't.
As for whether abortions and things of that nature will continue, that is fine. What should be addressed is that men have no say with regard to what they have to do with their bodies for the next 18 years because of what a women decideds regarding a sexual encounter. If a woman doesn't want to be a mother we allow her to abort not only her parental rights, but the child. You are welcome to post why you believe men should, with no recourse be committed to 18 years of parenting and earning for that child with their body with no choice.
the premise that women only care for a child for 9 months while a man cares for it for 18 years is the stupidest thing I have ever seen.
the rest of whatever blather these fools are talking about should be judged in that light.
your sperm, your kid. deal.
It isn't that she doesn't only care for it for 9 months. (Actually 40 weeks) Rather that if she couldn't have an abortion she would be obligated to do something with her body that she didn't want for 9-10 months until she could give the child up for adoption.
The man is obligated for 18 years of support payments which he has to use his body to earn. It isn't his body, his choice. He gets none.
The man is obligated for 18 years of support payments which he has to use his body to earn. It isn't his body, his choice. He gets none.
Don't women sometimes have to pay support when the tables are turned? That is, a rich mom and a poor dad?
And the man has the choice before conception, after that, it's in the woman's body and he shouldn't have a say until the child is out of body. Then, like I've been saying, as long as the man has been responsible and knows he has a kid, he can legally prevent adoptions and abandonments.
the premise that women only care for a child for 9 months while a man cares for it for 18 years is the stupidest thing I have ever seen.
that is the most stupidest thing i have ever seen.
women do NOT care [at all] for the kid after it's born, when all the practical work from changing diapers to educating it to giving it money is all done by the dad alone. oh wait. this didn't happen to me when i was kid. maybe because i'm not american?
Ya ever wonder how many babies get tossed in dumpsters and never found? I do.
It happens sometimes ... I remember seeing like in average 5 cases a year in italy - all of them go to first page in newspaper if nothing more interesting happens.
The most weird case of last year was a woman (somewhere south of rome) that had given birth to TWINS and then dumped them to trash. Her husband had not noticed AT ALL that she had been pregnant. And then they say that only the americans are fat ... \
First point, that just means any potnetial father needs to be responsible. A women shouldn't have to keep track of a man's sperm and tell him when it's been active.
Second, I don't think this is true. Even in cases of adoption, blood parents have been able to get their children back.
Sure she does. Especially if preventative measures have been taken. How else is he supposed to know? You wouldn't know if you car had been in an accident unless the person who had borrowed it told you. How would you expect to know what your sperm has done unless the person in possession of it (for lack of a better term) tells you?
Second I didn't say it would be impossible, just very hard. Most abandonment laws make a lot of assumptions and I assure you there have been questions regarding father's rights with regard to those assumptions. Basically the state has said that they don't mind a few people's rights being trod on as long as they end up with fewer babies dying in trash dumpsters and things of that nature.
In most states the act that establishes paternity is the mother naming the man on the birth certificate. It is possible if the wrong man has been named, to go back and establish paternal rights. However it takes literally over a year and even then it just starts you at step zero of paternity. You then have to fight the court for visitation, you immediately owe all back child support, etc. This personally happened to my brother, so I have seen the process in action.
For men paternity must be established, for the women it is a little easier since the child comes out of their body. Sort of makes it a bit harder to dispute.
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.
I think the man should be granted the possibility to have the fetus transplanted to HIS body, like in the film where arnold schwarzenegger was pregnant... ... and maybe the pregnant guys would look as unattractive and desperate than the pregnant women so i think i'd leave a guy with THAT kind of stomach ...
This is backwards. There's no correlation between the two situations. You should be saying 'women and men should have the ability to abandon responsibility to a child they have no desire to have.' Don't try and shoehorn abortion into the picture because it's irrelevant to this discussion.
Ummm it's VERY relevant to the situation. Once pregnacy has occured the Man has no say. If he wants the child it's not his say if he doesn't want the child it's not his say. All he becomes is a Paycheck.
Quote:
And the man has the choice before conception, after that, it's in the woman's body and he shouldn't have a say until the child is out of body. Then, like I've been saying, as long as the man has been responsible and knows he has a kid, he can legally prevent adoptions and abandonments
So does the Woman Bunge. It's a "joint" effort. Legally preventing Adoptions is not the issue. The issue is I have a child coming. I do not want ANY part in that childs life emotionally or financially. This is the issue. Men cannot opt out. If you want your child that's a whole seperate issue.
I really don't see why this is difficult for some. If you look at things rather unemotionally you will see that this imbalance exists and most rebuttals are steeped in "Old World ideals" and the "Responsibility of Man". No other Animal in the Animal Kingdom deals with reproduction in such a silly way.
Sure she does. Especially if preventative measures have been taken. How else is he supposed to know? You wouldn't know if you car had been in an accident unless the person who had borrowed it told you. How would you expect to know what your sperm has done unless the person in possession of it (for lack of a better term) tells you?
That's a bad analogy. It's not as if someone takes a man's sperm and artifically inseminates a women like they can borrow a car. How is he supposed to know? He's got to keep track of the women he porks. Pain in the ass, isn't it? But we should because of AIDS and other diseases anyway.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Second I didn't say it would be impossible, just very hard.
I'm working from the perspective that if a man has been responsible enough to know that a kid of his has been born, then he's covered by the law. If he doesn't know he's knocked someone up, then he's already abandoned the child.
This isn't just a post birth deal either. People have to start paying for lots of things before a child is born. Health care, time off work, eating more because you're feeding two, ect. If the father's not doing that, he's abandoned the child. That's my current opinion anyway.
Don't women sometimes have to pay support when the tables are turned? That is, a rich mom and a poor dad?
And the man has the choice before conception, after that, it's in the woman's body and he shouldn't have a say until the child is out of body. Then, like I've been saying, as long as the man has been responsible and knows he has a kid, he can legally prevent adoptions and abandonments.
It is possible, in addition the father would have to somehow also get majority custody against a mother who wants majority custody as well. It is possible but when we look at custodial statistics it is rare enough to almost be called non-existant.
The man does have a choice before conception, that is true. However what if the birth control fails? What if he has made every good effort to show he did not wish to be a father at this time?
As for preventing adoptions and abandonments, the issue is terminating parental rights. You do bring up good questions though and since you bring them up, could you be nice and answer them. If a mother wishes to give up a child for adoption, can the father prevent her and force her to retain her maternal rights? I understand that he can assert his rights to keep the child. However can he prevent her from giving up hers?
That is the crux (crux counting contest, you know you wanna) of the issue. Women can give up their parenting obligation via abortion, abandonment, and adoption. Can men? What I am getting at again is establishing paternity. As far as I know, most women do not have to name the father to give a child up for adoption.
Women can give up their parenting obligation via abortion, abandonment, and adoption. Can men?
Why are pro-lifers so keen to see pregnant women left financially unsupported by the father of the unborn child?
That's what you're asking for isn't it? The right for a man to 'legally abort' a kid (unborn or later) if you sign a bit of paper and leave the woman to look after it herself. To punish her for having more 'rights' than men.
How this is supposed to lead to less abortions I don't know. Unless of course it's a totally spurious argument made only so that you can say "well if you can't give men these rights then you should take them away from the woman", all in the name of equality of course.
That's what you're asking for isn't it? The right for a man to 'legally abort' a kid (unborn or later) if you sign a bit of paper and leave the woman to look after it herself. To punish her for having more 'rights' than m
Yes. That's exactly what I'm asking for. That "punishment" pales in comparison to a Man who wants his child only to have that child sucked out in pieces and discarded. Who "hurts" more?
Don't make it sound so bad. Women can replace Men damn near anytime they choose to. The Child will be taken care of regardless. Most of the Men paying Support are paying into a Household that has two Financial Sources.
Quote:
How this is supposed to lead to less abortions I don't know. Unless of course it's a totally spurious argument made only so that you can say "well if you can't give men these rights then you should take them away from the woman", all in the name of equality of course.
I don't give a rip about preventing Abortions. That's irrelevant. What I'm concerned with, and others should be as well, is a blatant imbalance between the Genders and reproduction right. Some of you Bleeding Heart Liberals seem to enjoy creating a Mass Pity Party for one Gender and totally ignore the other.
Why are pro-lifers so keen to see pregnant women left financially unsupported by the father of the unborn child?
That's what you're asking for isn't it? The right for a man to 'legally abort' a kid (unborn or later) if you sign a bit of paper and leave the woman to look after it herself. To punish her for having more 'rights' than men.
How this is supposed to lead to less abortions I don't know. Unless of course it's a totally spurious argument made only so that you can say "well if you can't give men these rights then you should take them away from the woman", all in the name of equality of course.
Stupider, what are you a broken record. Who said anything about preventing abortions?
Why is it so hard for you to focus on the title of the thread and the topic of discussion? Why must everything be some sort of underhanded, flipping, spinning attempt at hurting someone?!?
As for the man signing the piece of paper. It should be his right. If a woman doesn't want a child, she doesn't have one. He's not abandoning her. She still has her choice to make just as he does.
Likewise no one has advocated having the choice forever. The article mentioned a timeframe of one month from notification of impending fatherhood. If he decided later he didn't want to be a father, that would be his own problem. Men should just have more choices than, well the condom had a leak welcome to 18 years of hell.
In a truly enlightened society, we will move on to equal rights and not just a small group of women attempting to criminalize as many aspects of male sexuality as possible nor any small group criminalizing sex period.
A woman shouldn't have to risk health/jail for an abortion.
A man or woman shouldn't have to risk jail for having a homosexual act.
A man shouldn't have to risk jail for not wanting to be a father.
Anything hard to understand there... and just in case it wasn't clear the first couple times. This isn't about restricting abortion.
That's a bad analogy. It's not as if someone takes a man's sperm and artifically inseminates a women like they can borrow a car. How is he supposed to know? He's got to keep track of the women he porks. Pain in the ass, isn't it? But we should because of AIDS and other diseases anyway.
I'm working from the perspective that if a man has been responsible enough to know that a kid of his has been born, then he's covered by the law. If he doesn't know he's knocked someone up, then he's already abandoned the child.
This isn't just a post birth deal either. People have to start paying for lots of things before a child is born. Health care, time off work, eating more because you're feeding two, ect. If the father's not doing that, he's abandoned the child. That's my current opinion anyway.
Actually the article mentioned there were instances where men had been ruled against when a used condom, used during.. an oral act, had been kept by the woman and used to artificially inseminate herself. The man was till liable.
As for keeping track, as long as it is about equality sure. Would you require women to name the father before an abortion procedure, adoption procedure or abandonment could occur?
Your second paragraph makes the most sense. Most of these women giving children up for adoption, or abandonment have likely been abandoned by the fathers. That or they have done something horrible (multiple partners, cheating, etc.) that they don't wish to admit to and just can't/don't name the father claiming his abandonment. I think that is why most laws really don't push regarding a father's rights. They assume abandonment of them.
As for the prenatal care, you are correct there are costs. However what if the father doesn't want the child. Should he be liable for more than half the cost of the abortion? Should his obligation be for half the pregnancy costs and then the child responsibility on his part lasts no longer than hers? How would that go?
Comments
Originally posted by Powerdoc
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.
How does that work out socially?
Originally posted by hmurchison
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.
This is backwards. There's no correlation between the two situations. You should be saying 'women and men should have the ability to abandon responsibility to a child they have no desire to have.' Don't try and shoehorn abortion into the picture because it's irrelevant to this discussion.
[B]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.
First point, that just means any potnetial father needs to be responsible. A women shouldn't have to keep track of a man's sperm and tell him when it's been active.
Originally posted by trumptman
He would have to do all this before the court entered a decision terminating all parental rights.
Second, I don't think this is true. Even in cases of adoption, blood parents have been able to get their children back.
For women without such problems, if she chooses to have an abortion, it's over. The man cannot stop her. If she chooses to keep the child, the man must ante up if she requires it; he cannot opt-out. If she chooses adoption, he again cannot stop her in most instances. If she chooses to abandon the child, again the man cannot stop her unless he knows ahead of time the baby is going to be abandoned (HIGHLY unlikely).
Can't you just see it? "I'm sorry Bob, I'm going to abandon this child at the local hospital because I don't think you can take care of it and I can't afford to financially. Sorry."
Yah right. Abandonments are almost always very secretive, spontaneous occurances that the woman never tells anyone about ahead of time. The shame alone usually prevents that.
It's a double-standard, [because the man rarely has a say in anything]. In some cases double-standards are actually warranted though -- that's the thing people have a tough time admitting to. With abortion, it's not warranted if the father is willing [and able] to care for the child. With abandonment, it's not warranted if the father is willing and able, but is definitely warranted if the father is willing but unable... etc. Context is everything with issues like this. There is no magic bullet. Either the courts find a way to make decisions on a case-by-case basis without all the feminazi pretext that invariably comes with unexpected pregnancies, or we will continue to fumble around like idiots. And of course the federal government has to enact legal groundwork that makes this possible...
...IOW, until the laws indicate that the man and woman are both 50% responsible (and therefore have 50% of the decision-making power for any pregnancy resulting from consensual intercourse), [this area] will remain filled with double-standards in favor of the mother. [Definitely better than double-standards in favor of the father, but still not good for a democratic society.]
Edited for additional thoughts / clarifications.
Originally posted by groverat
[BHow does that work out socially? [/B]
The woman take care of the child alone, and recieve some financial help from the state (not the US , the french state
One the child is adult (but i may be wrong with this issue, i may ask to one of my friend who is a lawyer, but i won't see him before september at best), he can ask to be recocnize by his biological father. Anyway this is a complex procedure, and i prefer to not going further, rather to say more stupidities
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
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.
Are you through mischaracterizing everything yet?
Find for me the post that says men want the right to kill new borns.
FInd for me the post that says abortion should be eliminated.
No one has even characterized the ability to abandon children with a number of days after birth as part of a feminist agenda or that the women were mentally unbalanced.
Straw men, straw men, straw men... keep setting them up and knocking them down because you know you don't want to get the real topic of men and reproductive rights. For you it is "tiring." Women have them and men don't.
As for whether abortions and things of that nature will continue, that is fine. What should be addressed is that men have no say with regard to what they have to do with their bodies for the next 18 years because of what a women decideds regarding a sexual encounter. If a woman doesn't want to be a mother we allow her to abort not only her parental rights, but the child. You are welcome to post why you believe men should, with no recourse be committed to 18 years of parenting and earning for that child with their body with no choice.
Nick
Originally posted by I, Fred
the premise that women only care for a child for 9 months while a man cares for it for 18 years is the stupidest thing I have ever seen.
the rest of whatever blather these fools are talking about should be judged in that light.
your sperm, your kid. deal.
It isn't that she doesn't only care for it for 9 months. (Actually 40 weeks) Rather that if she couldn't have an abortion she would be obligated to do something with her body that she didn't want for 9-10 months until she could give the child up for adoption.
The man is obligated for 18 years of support payments which he has to use his body to earn. It isn't his body, his choice. He gets none.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
The man is obligated for 18 years of support payments which he has to use his body to earn. It isn't his body, his choice. He gets none.
Don't women sometimes have to pay support when the tables are turned? That is, a rich mom and a poor dad?
And the man has the choice before conception, after that, it's in the woman's body and he shouldn't have a say until the child is out of body. Then, like I've been saying, as long as the man has been responsible and knows he has a kid, he can legally prevent adoptions and abandonments.
Originally posted by I, Fred
the premise that women only care for a child for 9 months while a man cares for it for 18 years is the stupidest thing I have ever seen.
that is the most stupidest thing i have ever seen.
women do NOT care [at all] for the kid after it's born, when all the practical work from changing diapers to educating it to giving it money is all done by the dad alone. oh wait. this didn't happen to me when i was kid. maybe because i'm not american?
Originally posted by Scott
Ya ever wonder how many babies get tossed in dumpsters and never found? I do.
It happens sometimes ... I remember seeing like in average 5 cases a year in italy - all of them go to first page in newspaper if nothing more interesting happens.
The most weird case of last year was a woman (somewhere south of rome) that had given birth to TWINS and then dumped them to trash. Her husband had not noticed AT ALL that she had been pregnant.
Originally posted by bunge
First point, that just means any potnetial father needs to be responsible. A women shouldn't have to keep track of a man's sperm and tell him when it's been active.
Second, I don't think this is true. Even in cases of adoption, blood parents have been able to get their children back.
Sure she does. Especially if preventative measures have been taken. How else is he supposed to know? You wouldn't know if you car had been in an accident unless the person who had borrowed it told you. How would you expect to know what your sperm has done unless the person in possession of it (for lack of a better term) tells you?
Second I didn't say it would be impossible, just very hard. Most abandonment laws make a lot of assumptions and I assure you there have been questions regarding father's rights with regard to those assumptions. Basically the state has said that they don't mind a few people's rights being trod on as long as they end up with fewer babies dying in trash dumpsters and things of that nature.
In most states the act that establishes paternity is the mother naming the man on the birth certificate. It is possible if the wrong man has been named, to go back and establish paternal rights. However it takes literally over a year and even then it just starts you at step zero of paternity. You then have to fight the court for visitation, you immediately owe all back child support, etc. This personally happened to my brother, so I have seen the process in action.
For men paternity must be established, for the women it is a little easier since the child comes out of their body.
Nick
Originally posted by CosmoNut
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.
I think the man should be granted the possibility to have the fetus transplanted to HIS body, like in the film where arnold schwarzenegger was pregnant... ... and maybe the pregnant guys would look as unattractive and desperate than the pregnant women so i think i'd leave a guy with THAT kind of stomach ...
This is backwards. There's no correlation between the two situations. You should be saying 'women and men should have the ability to abandon responsibility to a child they have no desire to have.' Don't try and shoehorn abortion into the picture because it's irrelevant to this discussion.
Ummm it's VERY relevant to the situation. Once pregnacy has occured the Man has no say. If he wants the child it's not his say if he doesn't want the child it's not his say. All he becomes is a Paycheck.
And the man has the choice before conception, after that, it's in the woman's body and he shouldn't have a say until the child is out of body. Then, like I've been saying, as long as the man has been responsible and knows he has a kid, he can legally prevent adoptions and abandonments
So does the Woman Bunge. It's a "joint" effort. Legally preventing Adoptions is not the issue. The issue is I have a child coming. I do not want ANY part in that childs life emotionally or financially. This is the issue. Men cannot opt out. If you want your child that's a whole seperate issue.
I really don't see why this is difficult for some. If you look at things rather unemotionally you will see that this imbalance exists and most rebuttals are steeped in "Old World ideals" and the "Responsibility of Man". No other Animal in the Animal Kingdom deals with reproduction in such a silly way.
Originally posted by trumptman
Sure she does. Especially if preventative measures have been taken. How else is he supposed to know? You wouldn't know if you car had been in an accident unless the person who had borrowed it told you. How would you expect to know what your sperm has done unless the person in possession of it (for lack of a better term) tells you?
That's a bad analogy. It's not as if someone takes a man's sperm and artifically inseminates a women like they can borrow a car. How is he supposed to know? He's got to keep track of the women he porks. Pain in the ass, isn't it? But we should because of AIDS and other diseases anyway.
Originally posted by trumptman
Second I didn't say it would be impossible, just very hard.
I'm working from the perspective that if a man has been responsible enough to know that a kid of his has been born, then he's covered by the law. If he doesn't know he's knocked someone up, then he's already abandoned the child.
This isn't just a post birth deal either. People have to start paying for lots of things before a child is born. Health care, time off work, eating more because you're feeding two, ect. If the father's not doing that, he's abandoned the child. That's my current opinion anyway.
Originally posted by Giaguara
If you as a man want no kids, is it so difficult to use a condom? Or do a vasectomy? Or not have sex with any women of potential reproduction age?
the same could be said for women.
If you dont want to get pregnant, then dont go out and **ck around!
People today need to think before they scr*w!
Originally posted by bunge
Don't women sometimes have to pay support when the tables are turned? That is, a rich mom and a poor dad?
And the man has the choice before conception, after that, it's in the woman's body and he shouldn't have a say until the child is out of body. Then, like I've been saying, as long as the man has been responsible and knows he has a kid, he can legally prevent adoptions and abandonments.
It is possible, in addition the father would have to somehow also get majority custody against a mother who wants majority custody as well. It is possible but when we look at custodial statistics it is rare enough to almost be called non-existant.
The man does have a choice before conception, that is true. However what if the birth control fails? What if he has made every good effort to show he did not wish to be a father at this time?
As for preventing adoptions and abandonments, the issue is terminating parental rights. You do bring up good questions though and since you bring them up, could you be nice and answer them.
That is the crux (crux counting contest, you know you wanna) of the issue. Women can give up their parenting obligation via abortion, abandonment, and adoption. Can men? What I am getting at again is establishing paternity. As far as I know, most women do not have to name the father to give a child up for adoption.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Women can give up their parenting obligation via abortion, abandonment, and adoption. Can men?
Why are pro-lifers so keen to see pregnant women left financially unsupported by the father of the unborn child?
That's what you're asking for isn't it? The right for a man to 'legally abort' a kid (unborn or later) if you sign a bit of paper and leave the woman to look after it herself. To punish her for having more 'rights' than men.
How this is supposed to lead to less abortions I don't know. Unless of course it's a totally spurious argument made only so that you can say "well if you can't give men these rights then you should take them away from the woman", all in the name of equality of course.
That's what you're asking for isn't it? The right for a man to 'legally abort' a kid (unborn or later) if you sign a bit of paper and leave the woman to look after it herself. To punish her for having more 'rights' than m
Yes. That's exactly what I'm asking for. That "punishment" pales in comparison to a Man who wants his child only to have that child sucked out in pieces and discarded. Who "hurts" more?
Don't make it sound so bad. Women can replace Men damn near anytime they choose to. The Child will be taken care of regardless. Most of the Men paying Support are paying into a Household that has two Financial Sources.
How this is supposed to lead to less abortions I don't know. Unless of course it's a totally spurious argument made only so that you can say "well if you can't give men these rights then you should take them away from the woman", all in the name of equality of course.
I don't give a rip about preventing Abortions. That's irrelevant. What I'm concerned with, and others should be as well, is a blatant imbalance between the Genders and reproduction right. Some of you Bleeding Heart Liberals seem to enjoy creating a Mass Pity Party for one Gender and totally ignore the other.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Why are pro-lifers so keen to see pregnant women left financially unsupported by the father of the unborn child?
That's what you're asking for isn't it? The right for a man to 'legally abort' a kid (unborn or later) if you sign a bit of paper and leave the woman to look after it herself. To punish her for having more 'rights' than men.
How this is supposed to lead to less abortions I don't know. Unless of course it's a totally spurious argument made only so that you can say "well if you can't give men these rights then you should take them away from the woman", all in the name of equality of course.
Stupider, what are you a broken record. Who said anything about preventing abortions?
Why is it so hard for you to focus on the title of the thread and the topic of discussion? Why must everything be some sort of underhanded, flipping, spinning attempt at hurting someone?!?
As for the man signing the piece of paper. It should be his right. If a woman doesn't want a child, she doesn't have one. He's not abandoning her. She still has her choice to make just as he does.
Likewise no one has advocated having the choice forever. The article mentioned a timeframe of one month from notification of impending fatherhood. If he decided later he didn't want to be a father, that would be his own problem. Men should just have more choices than, well the condom had a leak welcome to 18 years of hell.
In a truly enlightened society, we will move on to equal rights and not just a small group of women attempting to criminalize as many aspects of male sexuality as possible nor any small group criminalizing sex period.
A woman shouldn't have to risk health/jail for an abortion.
A man or woman shouldn't have to risk jail for having a homosexual act.
A man shouldn't have to risk jail for not wanting to be a father.
Anything hard to understand there... and just in case it wasn't clear the first couple times. This isn't about restricting abortion.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
That's a bad analogy. It's not as if someone takes a man's sperm and artifically inseminates a women like they can borrow a car. How is he supposed to know? He's got to keep track of the women he porks. Pain in the ass, isn't it? But we should because of AIDS and other diseases anyway.
I'm working from the perspective that if a man has been responsible enough to know that a kid of his has been born, then he's covered by the law. If he doesn't know he's knocked someone up, then he's already abandoned the child.
This isn't just a post birth deal either. People have to start paying for lots of things before a child is born. Health care, time off work, eating more because you're feeding two, ect. If the father's not doing that, he's abandoned the child. That's my current opinion anyway.
Actually the article mentioned there were instances where men had been ruled against when a used condom, used during.. an oral act, had been kept by the woman and used to artificially inseminate herself. The man was till liable.
As for keeping track, as long as it is about equality sure. Would you require women to name the father before an abortion procedure, adoption procedure or abandonment could occur?
Your second paragraph makes the most sense. Most of these women giving children up for adoption, or abandonment have likely been abandoned by the fathers. That or they have done something horrible (multiple partners, cheating, etc.) that they don't wish to admit to and just can't/don't name the father claiming his abandonment. I think that is why most laws really don't push regarding a father's rights. They assume abandonment of them.
As for the prenatal care, you are correct there are costs. However what if the father doesn't want the child. Should he be liable for more than half the cost of the abortion? Should his obligation be for half the pregnancy costs and then the child responsibility on his part lasts no longer than hers? How would that go?
Nick