The point is this opt out period goes on during the time when BOTH PARTIES can do so.
Incorrect. A woman doesn't have and wouldn't have an opt-out choice like trumptman is asking for men.
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
If you don't think that abortion is a method of opting out for caring for a child, you are a <expletive deleted>.
If you think the sole reason for an abortion is a method of opting out for caring for a child, you are less intelligent and more <expletive> than a <expletive deleted>.
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
Second, a male opting out during the time when a woman can abort still does not mean she is forced to have an abortion.
Don't attribute this line of reasoning to me.
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
It is just one option of many which are available to the woman. There still is adoption and abandonment.
Adoption and abandonment are available to men as well so this argument is false.
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
The point is that the official papers must be signed three weeks before the latest date possible to abort the child in the second trimester. This gives the woman plenty of time to evaluate her options.
This doesn't interest me in the least. It's not relevant to the discussion. Is an opt-out, whenever it's given, equivalent to an abortion? No.
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
Of course, the woman doesn't even have to tell the man she is pregnant, wait seven years, then tell the courts and the man has to pay back-child support. Yes, you heard me correctly. This kind of shit goes on every day.
Yeah, it's a big old scary world out there. Sorry. Keep track of your sperm and you don't need to worry.
Why did she take the birth to completion, if she didn't want the child in the first place?
Ask trumptman. He's brought up examples of men who have asked a women to do this instead of an abortion. Go ahead, ask him, even if it confuses the argument you are trying to make.
Bunge, you appear to have serious comprehension problems with both logic and the concept of time. This thread was interesting, but it does become boring reading your same questions over and over ... that have already been answered by several people.
Have fun "keeping track of your sperm", I'm going back to reading rumors.
Bunge, you appear to have serious comprehension problems with both logic and the concept of time. This thread was interesting, but it does become boring reading your same questions over and over ... that have already been answered by several people.
Give this opt-out right to both sexes. That's not what this thread wants though. No one is willing to change the argument to reflect this equality. As it stands you want to create a law based on gender that gives males a right that a woman doesn't have. Abortion is biological, not gender based. Opt-out is gender based. Give both genders the same right. No one, other than 'someone', is willing to do it though.
This law is not equal. It could be, but that's not what trumptman wants. Come on trumptman, do YOU promote true equality? Not someone, but YOU? No, you don't.
P.S. Quit brining up the 'concept of time' thing, it only makes several of you look ignorant. I've never brought it up, someone else did. You're attributing someone else's argument to me because you think it's a flaw in the argument. It's not a flaw in my argument because it's not the basis of my argument so don't bother bringing it up with me unless you wish to continue to look like you have reading comprehension problems.
Give this opt-out right to both sexes. That's not what this thread wants though. No one is willing to change the argument to reflect this equality. As it stands you want to create a law based on gender that gives males a right that a woman doesn't have. Abortion is biological, not gender based. Opt-out is gender based. Give both genders the same right. No one, other than 'someone', is willing to do it though.
This law is not equal. It could be, but that's not what trumptman wants. Come on trumptman, do YOU promote true equality? Not someone, but YOU? No, you don't.
P.S. Quit brining up the 'concept of time' thing, it only makes several of you look ignorant. I've never brought it up, someone else did. You're attributing someone else's argument to me because you think it's a flaw in the argument. It's not a flaw in my argument because it's not the basis of my argument so don't bother bringing it up with me unless you wish to continue to look like you have reading comprehension problems.
I mentioned the someone just to show that I am not the only supporting this idea nor the only one contributing data or ideas.
If it wasn't clear I will make it so. I support exactly what "someone" proposed. If a woman wanted to carry the child to term and while opting out of parental rights she may do so. Likewise the man should be able to keep the child on his own, or be free to give it up for adoption, just as the woman would do.
I really don't see what would be so terrible about this. I imagine it would be a rather rare scenario because as "others" have mentioned, most women who don't want to parent wouldn't carry the child to term.
The only thing I would add, and I could see this being a bit controversial, is that we have spoken often of a timeline regarding the man and opting out of his parental rights. The most common time frame mentioned was one month after learning of his impending fatherhood.
I would hold the woman to this same timeline and make it irrevocable just as with the man. Since a woman is carrying the child she could obviously still opt out via abortion after that timeframe, but if for some odd reason she wishes to opt out of her responsibility, yet carry the child to term, she should have to indicate this within one month after being told she is pregnant.
So with regard to your definition of true equality. Yes I do. I just don't like to repeat what others have already said. Some folks find it demeaning and boring. Sorry if you took it as a avoidance and I hope I answered your questions/assertions.
So with regard to your definition of true equality. Yes I do. I just don't like to repeat what others have already said. Some folks find it demeaning and boring. Sorry if you took it as a avoidance and I hope I answered your questions/assertions.
Well if you're going to come out and mention that someone else supports it, you as the thread starter probably should make your claim as well.
If we're giving opt-out rights to both parents, then we're giving equal rights. I'm sure we would have to decide the right timeframe, first two tri-mesters might not be enough. We also have to determine a paternity test, or at least the ability to reserve the right to opt-out until after a paternity test could be given. Other details come into play I'm sure.
Do I think it's a good idea? No, but equal bad is better than inequitable bad.
Well if you're going to come out and mention that someone else supports it, you as the thread starter probably should make your claim as well.
If we're giving opt-out rights to both parents, then we're giving equal rights. I'm sure we would have to decide the right timeframe, first two tri-mesters might not be enough. We also have to determine a paternity test, or at least the ability to reserve the right to opt-out until after a paternity test could be given. Other details come into play I'm sure.
Do I think it's a good idea? No, but equal bad is better than inequitable bad.
You are welcome to propose what you believe to be equitable good.
Just don't be surprised if I refer to you as "someone."
No, I mean adoption. Isn't that an opt-out for a woman who doesn't want to take care of/raise a kid?
Just jumping back in the thread, so I missed some of the arguments, but your question provoked another in my mind.
First, answering only for myself, I maintain that since a women has the right to choose, she cannot impose the responsibilities of her decision onto the father without his consent (implied under the marriage contract and defaulted in cases of rape, of course). As for adoption, obviously the women can decide to give the child up for adoption.
The interesting question is whether the biological father should be allowed to adopt the child if he did not first agree to pay child support or make arrangements with the mother to adopt.
Also, even if the father wants to keep the child, there's still abortion, which is another opt-out of the responsibilities of raising a child.
This stuff has already been discussed.
If the mother doesn't inform the father, there's nothing anyone can do. If she doesn't know or doesn't say, and he doesn't know, then maybe you get screwed. That's why I say keep track of your sperm because the courts can't do it for you. An opt-out doesn't help you in this instance anyway. More evidence that the one sided opt-out request is really just vengeance.
You're dragging the discussion back to abortion. Abortion and opt-out aren't equivalent. They're not similar enough to discuss together. And above all, an abortion is not 'another opt-out of the responsibilities of raising a child', it's a hell of a lot more than that. I think you have to be ignorant of the subject to dilute it to such a degree.
If the mother doesn't inform the father, there's nothing anyone can do. If she doesn't know or doesn't say, and he doesn't know, then maybe you get screwed. That's why I say keep track of your sperm because the courts can't do it for you. An opt-out doesn't help you in this instance anyway. More evidence that the one sided opt-out request is really just vengeance.
You're dragging the discussion back to abortion. Abortion and opt-out aren't equivalent. They're not similar enough to discuss together. And above all, an abortion is not 'another opt-out of the responsibilities of raising a child', it's a hell of a lot more than that. I think you have to be ignorant of the subject to dilute it to such a degree.
chugga chugga chugga chugga CHOO CHOO!!!!
chugga chugga chugga chugga CHOO CHOO!!!!
ALL ABOARD THE LOGIC TRAIN MAKING IT'S FINAL STOP IN THIS THREAD!
Abortion is the choice of the woman.
Abortion kills the fetus.
No fetus means no eventual baby to raise.
Another word for choice is option.
Hence a woman can OPT OUT OF RAISING A CHILD via ABORTION.
*train pulls out of the station and you see it disappear slowly over the horizon*
Hence a woman can OPT OUT OF RAISING A CHILD via ABORTION.
She's aborting a fetus, nothing more. A man is opting out of raising the child that would come from the fetus. I'm surprised you can't see the difference.
Are you suggesting that you would equally support the ability for a woman to follow through with a birth only to abondon the child to the father making him 100% responsible while not giving the same option to the man?
She's aborting a fetus, nothing more. A man is opting out of raising the child that would come from the fetus. I'm surprised you can't see the difference.
Yes. She's aborting a fetus. By aborting a fetus what does the woman avoid?
Audience?
RAISING A CHILD!
*DING DING DING*
Quote:
Are you suggesting that you would equally support the ability for a woman to follow through with a birth only to abondon the child to the father making him 100% responsible while not giving the same option to the man?
*attempts to unravel this super knot tied with illogic rope*
She's aborting a fetus, nothing more. A man is opting out of raising the child that would come from the fetus. I'm surprised you can't see the difference.
I told myself I wasn't going to bother, but I can't resist; you have perfectly illustrated your problem with time:
When the women is making a decision about her fetus, you say her decision is about her fetus. "She's aborting a fetus, nothing more."
When the man is making a decision AT THE SAME POINT IN TIME (the opt out), then all of a sudden it is not a fetus anymore (the present), but already a child (from the future), according to your argument. "A man is opting out of raising the child that would come from the fetus."
Do you see how this is a problem?
And thank you for your concern, but my reading comprehension skills are more than adequate.
Yes. She's aborting a fetus. By aborting a fetus what does the woman avoid?
Accidental death during birth?
Logic eludes your side of the argument. The opt-out vs. abortion is a one way gate. Many possibilities on one side, one possibility on the other side.
You can't pick one of a multitude of possibilities and use that as a blanket example to base your laws on. That's what you're trying to do. It's simple logic.
Comments
Originally posted by BR
The point is this opt out period goes on during the time when BOTH PARTIES can do so.
Incorrect. A woman doesn't have and wouldn't have an opt-out choice like trumptman is asking for men.
Originally posted by BR
If you don't think that abortion is a method of opting out for caring for a child, you are a <expletive deleted>.
If you think the sole reason for an abortion is a method of opting out for caring for a child, you are less intelligent and more <expletive> than a <expletive deleted>.
Originally posted by BR
Second, a male opting out during the time when a woman can abort still does not mean she is forced to have an abortion.
Don't attribute this line of reasoning to me.
Originally posted by BR
It is just one option of many which are available to the woman. There still is adoption and abandonment.
Adoption and abandonment are available to men as well so this argument is false.
Originally posted by BR
The point is that the official papers must be signed three weeks before the latest date possible to abort the child in the second trimester. This gives the woman plenty of time to evaluate her options.
This doesn't interest me in the least. It's not relevant to the discussion. Is an opt-out, whenever it's given, equivalent to an abortion? No.
Originally posted by BR
Of course, the woman doesn't even have to tell the man she is pregnant, wait seven years, then tell the courts and the man has to pay back-child support. Yes, you heard me correctly. This kind of shit goes on every day.
Yeah, it's a big old scary world out there. Sorry. Keep track of your sperm and you don't need to worry.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Why did she take the birth to completion, if she didn't want the child in the first place?
Ask trumptman. He's brought up examples of men who have asked a women to do this instead of an abortion. Go ahead, ask him, even if it confuses the argument you are trying to make.
Originally posted by trumptman
Someone clearly said that as long as the father could choose to put it up for adoption, uncontested, as the mother could then sure.
Anyone besides 'someone' willing to chime in?
Originally posted by bunge
Anyone besides 'someone' willing to chime in?
Bunge, you appear to have serious comprehension problems with both logic and the concept of time. This thread was interesting, but it does become boring reading your same questions over and over ... that have already been answered by several people.
Have fun "keeping track of your sperm", I'm going back to reading rumors.
Originally posted by james808
Bunge, you appear to have serious comprehension problems with both logic and the concept of time. This thread was interesting, but it does become boring reading your same questions over and over ... that have already been answered by several people.
Give this opt-out right to both sexes. That's not what this thread wants though. No one is willing to change the argument to reflect this equality. As it stands you want to create a law based on gender that gives males a right that a woman doesn't have. Abortion is biological, not gender based. Opt-out is gender based. Give both genders the same right. No one, other than 'someone', is willing to do it though.
This law is not equal. It could be, but that's not what trumptman wants. Come on trumptman, do YOU promote true equality? Not someone, but YOU? No, you don't.
P.S. Quit brining up the 'concept of time' thing, it only makes several of you look ignorant. I've never brought it up, someone else did. You're attributing someone else's argument to me because you think it's a flaw in the argument. It's not a flaw in my argument because it's not the basis of my argument so don't bother bringing it up with me unless you wish to continue to look like you have reading comprehension problems.
Originally posted by bunge
Give this opt-out right to both sexes. That's not what this thread wants though. No one is willing to change the argument to reflect this equality. As it stands you want to create a law based on gender that gives males a right that a woman doesn't have. Abortion is biological, not gender based. Opt-out is gender based. Give both genders the same right. No one, other than 'someone', is willing to do it though.
This law is not equal. It could be, but that's not what trumptman wants. Come on trumptman, do YOU promote true equality? Not someone, but YOU? No, you don't.
P.S. Quit brining up the 'concept of time' thing, it only makes several of you look ignorant. I've never brought it up, someone else did. You're attributing someone else's argument to me because you think it's a flaw in the argument. It's not a flaw in my argument because it's not the basis of my argument so don't bother bringing it up with me unless you wish to continue to look like you have reading comprehension problems.
I mentioned the someone just to show that I am not the only supporting this idea nor the only one contributing data or ideas.
If it wasn't clear I will make it so. I support exactly what "someone" proposed. If a woman wanted to carry the child to term and while opting out of parental rights she may do so. Likewise the man should be able to keep the child on his own, or be free to give it up for adoption, just as the woman would do.
I really don't see what would be so terrible about this. I imagine it would be a rather rare scenario because as "others"
The only thing I would add, and I could see this being a bit controversial, is that we have spoken often of a timeline regarding the man and opting out of his parental rights. The most common time frame mentioned was one month after learning of his impending fatherhood.
I would hold the woman to this same timeline and make it irrevocable just as with the man. Since a woman is carrying the child she could obviously still opt out via abortion after that timeframe, but if for some odd reason she wishes to opt out of her responsibility, yet carry the child to term, she should have to indicate this within one month after being told she is pregnant.
So with regard to your definition of true equality. Yes I do. I just don't like to repeat what others have already said. Some folks find it demeaning and boring. Sorry if you took it as a avoidance and I hope I answered your questions/assertions.
Nick
Opt-out is gender based.
What would you call adoption?
Originally posted by trumptman
So with regard to your definition of true equality. Yes I do. I just don't like to repeat what others have already said. Some folks find it demeaning and boring. Sorry if you took it as a avoidance and I hope I answered your questions/assertions.
Well if you're going to come out and mention that someone else supports it, you as the thread starter probably should make your claim as well.
If we're giving opt-out rights to both parents, then we're giving equal rights. I'm sure we would have to decide the right timeframe, first two tri-mesters might not be enough. We also have to determine a paternity test, or at least the ability to reserve the right to opt-out until after a paternity test could be given. Other details come into play I'm sure.
Do I think it's a good idea? No, but equal bad is better than inequitable bad.
Originally posted by Longhorn
What would you call adoption?
Did you mean abortion?
Originally posted by bunge
Well if you're going to come out and mention that someone else supports it, you as the thread starter probably should make your claim as well.
If we're giving opt-out rights to both parents, then we're giving equal rights. I'm sure we would have to decide the right timeframe, first two tri-mesters might not be enough. We also have to determine a paternity test, or at least the ability to reserve the right to opt-out until after a paternity test could be given. Other details come into play I'm sure.
Do I think it's a good idea? No, but equal bad is better than inequitable bad.
You are welcome to propose what you believe to be equitable good.
Just don't be surprised if I refer to you as "someone."
Nick
Originally posted by Longhorn
No, I mean adoption. Isn't that an opt-out for a woman who doesn't want to take care of/raise a kid?
Just jumping back in the thread, so I missed some of the arguments, but your question provoked another in my mind.
First, answering only for myself, I maintain that since a women has the right to choose, she cannot impose the responsibilities of her decision onto the father without his consent (implied under the marriage contract and defaulted in cases of rape, of course). As for adoption, obviously the women can decide to give the child up for adoption.
The interesting question is whether the biological father should be allowed to adopt the child if he did not first agree to pay child support or make arrangements with the mother to adopt.
Originally posted by Longhorn
No, I mean adoption. Isn't that an opt-out for a woman who doesn't want to take care of/raise a kid?
Not if the father wants the child. A mother can only put a child up for adoption if the father agrees.
Also, even if the father wants to keep the child, there's still abortion, which is another opt-out of the responsibilities of raising a child.
Originally posted by Longhorn
Unless of course she doesn't inform the father.
Also, even if the father wants to keep the child, there's still abortion, which is another opt-out of the responsibilities of raising a child.
This stuff has already been discussed.
If the mother doesn't inform the father, there's nothing anyone can do. If she doesn't know or doesn't say, and he doesn't know, then maybe you get screwed. That's why I say keep track of your sperm because the courts can't do it for you. An opt-out doesn't help you in this instance anyway. More evidence that the one sided opt-out request is really just vengeance.
You're dragging the discussion back to abortion. Abortion and opt-out aren't equivalent. They're not similar enough to discuss together. And above all, an abortion is not 'another opt-out of the responsibilities of raising a child', it's a hell of a lot more than that. I think you have to be ignorant of the subject to dilute it to such a degree.
Originally posted by bunge
This stuff has already been discussed.
If the mother doesn't inform the father, there's nothing anyone can do. If she doesn't know or doesn't say, and he doesn't know, then maybe you get screwed. That's why I say keep track of your sperm because the courts can't do it for you. An opt-out doesn't help you in this instance anyway. More evidence that the one sided opt-out request is really just vengeance.
You're dragging the discussion back to abortion. Abortion and opt-out aren't equivalent. They're not similar enough to discuss together. And above all, an abortion is not 'another opt-out of the responsibilities of raising a child', it's a hell of a lot more than that. I think you have to be ignorant of the subject to dilute it to such a degree.
chugga chugga chugga chugga CHOO CHOO!!!!
chugga chugga chugga chugga CHOO CHOO!!!!
ALL ABOARD THE LOGIC TRAIN MAKING IT'S FINAL STOP IN THIS THREAD!
Abortion is the choice of the woman.
Abortion kills the fetus.
No fetus means no eventual baby to raise.
Another word for choice is option.
Hence a woman can OPT OUT OF RAISING A CHILD via ABORTION.
*train pulls out of the station and you see it disappear slowly over the horizon*
I sure hope you didn't miss it this last time.
Originally posted by BR
Abortion is the choice of the woman.
Abortion kills the fetus.
No fetus means no eventual baby to raise.
Another word for choice is option.
Hence a woman can OPT OUT OF RAISING A CHILD via ABORTION.
She's aborting a fetus, nothing more. A man is opting out of raising the child that would come from the fetus. I'm surprised you can't see the difference.
Are you suggesting that you would equally support the ability for a woman to follow through with a birth only to abondon the child to the father making him 100% responsible while not giving the same option to the man?
Originally posted by bunge
She's aborting a fetus, nothing more. A man is opting out of raising the child that would come from the fetus. I'm surprised you can't see the difference.
Yes. She's aborting a fetus. By aborting a fetus what does the woman avoid?
Audience?
RAISING A CHILD!
*DING DING DING*
Are you suggesting that you would equally support the ability for a woman to follow through with a birth only to abondon the child to the father making him 100% responsible while not giving the same option to the man?
*attempts to unravel this super knot tied with illogic rope*
*fails*
Originally posted by bunge
She's aborting a fetus, nothing more. A man is opting out of raising the child that would come from the fetus. I'm surprised you can't see the difference.
I told myself I wasn't going to bother, but I can't resist; you have perfectly illustrated your problem with time:
When the women is making a decision about her fetus, you say her decision is about her fetus. "She's aborting a fetus, nothing more."
When the man is making a decision AT THE SAME POINT IN TIME (the opt out), then all of a sudden it is not a fetus anymore (the present), but already a child (from the future), according to your argument. "A man is opting out of raising the child that would come from the fetus."
Do you see how this is a problem?
And thank you for your concern, but my reading comprehension skills are more than adequate.
?Someone
Originally posted by BR
Yes. She's aborting a fetus. By aborting a fetus what does the woman avoid?
Accidental death during birth?
Logic eludes your side of the argument. The opt-out vs. abortion is a one way gate. Many possibilities on one side, one possibility on the other side.
You can't pick one of a multitude of possibilities and use that as a blanket example to base your laws on. That's what you're trying to do. It's simple logic.