Child Support

[year2late]

It would just change the rhetoric really.

In an opt out situation that was abortion dependent - it would change the whole reason why opt out was possible.

 

[Removable Mind]

Again, male reproductive rights are not dependent on female reproductive rights. Now saying that, I do not think it is possible that any supreme court that won't accept abortion as legal will accept any kind of opt-out or end for child support.

Wow! You really don't get it, do you? The SC doesn't make the Opt out rules. It has every thing to do with reproductive rights being equal....or not.

I don't know why I waste my time.

 

[Henrin]

Wow! You really don't get it, do you? The SC doesn't make the Opt out rules. It has every thing to do with reproductive rights being equal....or not.

I don't know why I waste my time.

I think I got your point fine actually. From what you said Roe v. wade is stopping men from having equal rights, so the best choice for men is to eliminate Roe v. wade.

 

[Removable Mind]

I think I got your point fine actually. From what you said Roe v. wade is stopping men from having equal rights, so the best choice for men is to eliminate Roe v. wade.

Roe v Wade is a double edge sword for men's "potential" reproductive rights. From a Federal standpoint, ending R v W is officially ending women's reproductive rights as we currently know them to be - and will also be ending the "inequality" argument for men.

Overturning R v W is surrendering legal supremacy the US Supreme Court created in it's 1973 decision on the Roe v Wade case.

In other words, ending the current the law of the land, regarding women's rights covered under the 14th Amendment (primarily) will remove any Federal restraints that R v W imposes on individual States.

If Roe v Wade collapses, States can independently impose harsh abortion restrictions to the point that women's right to abort will virtually cease to exist (with probably exceptions) To ban abortion altogether in every state is possible, but a much more complicated process.

In the end, men (even though they have little to no rights post-conceptions) and women's reproductive rights will be under strict laws determined by individual states.

What does this mean to men in the end game? Significantly more legal pressure will be placed on men to pay child support. They will no longer be able to argue that since women can abort without government intervention prior to viability, then men should have the right to "opt out" prior to viability.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

The onky point being argued is she has a legal out but he does not. Unequal rights. THAT is what you keep ignoring.

The rights are the same, biology is different

I am sure if the man was pregnant he could get an abortion alas that is not currently medically possible.

Biology is the difference for 9 or so months, before and after the rights are the same for both potential/actual parents. Giving the child up for adoption I believe requires the consent of both parents, either parent can sue for custody, and who ever gets custody will generally be able to sue for child support.

So unless you are suggesting that a man should be able to drag a woman to an abortion clinic against her will, and force the woman to undergo an abortion, the difference in biology will stand

 

[Bodi]

The rights are the same, biology is different

I am sure if the man was pregnant he could get an abortion alas that is not currently medically possible.

Biology is the difference for 9 or so months, before and after the rights are the same for both potential/actual parents. Giving the child up for adoption I believe requires the consent of both parents, either parent can sue for custody, and who ever gets custody will generally be able to sue for child support.

So unless you are suggesting that a man should be able to drag a woman to an abortion clinic against her will, and force the woman to undergo an abortion, the difference in biology will stand

Actually, biology is irrelevant... the rights are different.

Before they both have the same rights but post-conception they do not. Also, the woman can not even tell the man she is pregnant and give the child up for adoption, never tell him for 18 years and hit him up for past child support that he never saved for... etc. The stakes are all stacked in the woman's favor.

 

[Removable Mind]

The rights are the same, biology is different

I am sure if the man was pregnant he could get an abortion alas that is not currently medically possible.

Biology is the difference for 9 or so months, before and after the rights are the same for both potential/actual parents. Giving the child up for adoption I believe requires the consent of both parents, either parent can sue for custody, and who ever gets custody will generally be able to sue for child support.

So unless you are suggesting that a man should be able to drag a woman to an abortion clinic against her will, and force the woman to undergo an abortion, the difference in biology will stand

Well, the inequalities that Bodh is talking about are based on women having the "LEGAL OPTION" to abort if she so chooses to do so IF it's prior to viability of the fetus without disclosing that she's has or will abort to any person unless she chooses otherwise.. Men don't have the legal option to financially abort prior to the viability of an unwanted fetus.

Men have virtually no post-conception rights, which also include the right to be told that a woman has co-conceived by a specific man, that she wants to have an abortion, which requires no permission by the co-conceiver, and there are Safe Haven laws that exists that if a woman chooses to surrender the child to specific authorities she can do so without any legal red tape...or even requires the bio dad to consent.

So to sum it up, women can exercise a legal option to abort - or exercise her moral choice not to abort, in which case she can file for child support. In other words, again...once a conception occurs - men virtually have no reproductive rights. The state will force a man to pay child support for an unwanted child - because the state is obligated to the taxpayers to attempt to recover any tax dollars spent on children's welfare and/or upkeep.

If a man has custody of a child, then the same support laws applies to women. Support laws don't define gender in Statutes.

 

[Henrin]

Roe v Wade is a double edge sword for men's "potential" reproductive rights. From a Federal standpoint, ending R v W is officially ending women's reproductive rights as we currently know them to be - and will also be ending the "inequality" argument for men.

Overturning R v W is surrendering legal supremacy the US Supreme Court created in it's 1973 decision on the Roe v Wade case.

In other words, ending the current the law of the land, regarding women's rights covered under the 14th Amendment (primarily) will remove any Federal restraints that R v W imposes on individual States.

If Roe v Wade collapses, States can independently impose harsh abortion restrictions to the point that women's right to abort will virtually cease to exist (with probably exceptions) To ban abortion altogether in every state is possible, but a much more complicated process.

In the end, men (even though they have little to no rights post-conceptions) and women's reproductive rights will be under strict laws determined by individual states.

What does this mean to men in the end game? Significantly more legal pressure will be placed on men to pay child support. They will no longer be able to argue that since women can abort without government intervention prior to viability, then men should have the right to "opt out" prior to viability.

Again, I see nothing here to suggest I got your statement wrong. You made it clear that Roe v. Wade made it impossible for men to have equal rights, so with that in mind it is obvious that the solution for men is to fight to overturn the decision. The only other solution to the problem is to move towards demanding for an opt-in that makes men's involvement dependent on written agreement.

 

[Removable Mind]

Again, I see nothing here to suggest I got your statement wrong. You made it clear that Roe v. Wade made it impossible for men to have equal rights, so with that in mind it is obvious that the solution for men is to fight to overturn the decision. The only other solution to the problem is to move towards demanding for an opt-in that makes men's involvement dependent on written agreement.

Well, for eons I've argued that a way to reduce reproductive liabilities between sex partners would be States allowing contractual agreements to be used. Currently, I don't know which states, if any, honors such a contract, but I can see that approach being a less stringent of a legal challenge to get states to accept these contracts before they would automatically allow Opt Out rights.

Contracts would be a viable method for long-term relationships. One night stands would pose a different challenge.

The overturning of R v W won't achieve an Opting Out option for men. In fact, there would most likely be a substantial spike in birth rates of unwanted children. That, in turn, would assuredly increase support suits.

The legal mechanisms that emanates from R v W versus the States' role in serving as child support enforcers aren't technically related.

How Roe v Wade impacts men:

1) Women aren't obligated to inform her co-conceiver that a conception has occurred.

2) A woman isn't required to obtain permission or even disclose to her co-co-conceiver that she intends to have an abortion.

3) A woman can surrender a child to a Safe Haven organization without permission from her co-conceived.

4) Women can give birth without notifying her co-conceived.

5) A woman can't be forced to gestate and give birth on behalf of her co-conceived in order to possibly surrender the child to the man.

6) A lot of states don't require the biological father's name be listed on a birth certificate immediately after birth. But either parent can request a court order for a paternity test and then one or the other parents can sue for custody, which will also force the court to seek support.

Individual States created their on specific custody and child support laws.

As I understand it...(and laws will vary from state to state), but....

A possible parental right for men is the right to consent or object to the adoption of ones child. Generally, adoption requires the consent of both parents, provided they meet certain requirements.

To gain parental rights, including the right to object to adoption, biological fathers unmarried to the mother must not only establish paternity, but also demonstrate a commitment to parenting the child. Then a hearing will be held to determine custody rights and child support requirements.

Bottom line....

No matter if Roe v Wade is overturned - men won't be seeing the right to opt out any time soon.

 

[Bodi]

Why the hell are you telling this to me? I don't support getting rid of abortions. The man should simply be able to perform his own "abortion" by removing his responsibility of the child, just like a women does when she gets an abortion.

This would equal out rights.

 

[Bodi]

A man opting out of parenting is no different than a woman giving her child up for adoption.

 

[year2late]

A man opting out of parenting is no different than a woman giving her child up for adoption.

In order to give a child up for adoption, there is at least an effort to figure out who the father is.

If the father says no, the child will not be adopted out. And the father can take custody. And get child support.

 

[Henrin]

In order to give a child up for adoption, there is at least an effort to figure out who the father is.

If the father says no, the child will not be adopted out. And the father can take custody. And get child support.

No, many times no effort is made to find the father. What is even worse is that men only have so long to challenge an adoption, so he might never be able to get his kid back.

Read more here about how men's rights are ****ed in the US on the matter:

Parental Rights: Unmarried Fathers and Adoption - FindLaw

You should also google Safe Haven laws.

Isn't it fun how DNA is good enough to nail the man down for 18 years against his will, but not good enough to nail him down 18 years when he consents? Yeah, I'm laughing about it, really I am.

Oh, and the time limit (not even based on when he found out) and the prove you're good enough stuff is just great. What did the woman have to prove? Oh right, that she can have sex and give birth. Funny.

 

[Bodi]

In order to give a child up for adoption, there is at least an effort to figure out who the father is.

If the father says no, the child will not be adopted out. And the father can take custody. And get child support.

Incorrect...

 

[Socrates1]

Men need to be able to opt out of Child Support if they do not want to be a father (legally). The woman can use her legal Constitutiinal right to birth control if she does not want to or can not support the child on her own. (Of course there are some exceptions)

Discuss.

Child support is for the CHILD and if that child happens to be yours then you have a responsibility to support the child . If you refuse to wear protection it's not the child's fault . :roll:

 

[Bodi]

Child support is for the CHILD and if that child happens to be yours then you have a responsibility to support the child . If you refuse to wear protection it's not the child's fault . :roll:

Men deserve post conception rights.

If she cant support the child on her own she aborts. No child to support. No child support. Get it?

 

[Socrates1]

Men deserve post conception rights.

If she cant support the child on her own she aborts. No child to support. No child support. Get it?

NO !!! I don't get it ! :roll:

 

[Bodi]

NO !!! I don't get it ! :roll:

What can I help you with so that you will understand?

 

[Removable Mind]

NO !!! I don't get it ! :roll:

Your argument is about prevention responsibilities of men...to avoid an unwanted pregnancy (Pre-pregnancy circumstances). And that by somehow failing to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, the woman "chooses via a moral choice" not to abort "because that is a legal option", then after birth, the man should be forced to pay child support.

Bodhi is telling you that women don't have the same obligation...by virtue of the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, without question, within the boundaries of the current Constitutional decisions around several S.C. decisions, but more specifically the decision in Roe v Wade, and I'd have to add Planned Parenthood v Casey, because it states that the government can't impose "undue burdens" used to prevent a woman from having an abortion.

Consequently, women have "Post Conception Rights to Terminate an Unwanted Pregnancy". Men do not have "Post Conception Rights" in relationship to most any legal element of reproduction. Examples: Men don't have the right to know a conception has occurred. Men don't have the right to prevent an abortion.

This help?

Now if Roe v Wade collapses, then I have to assume any latter related decisions might also have to be revisited. However, I'm not sure about that. But my point is that if the automatic right for women to choose to abort (prior to viability) is overturned, then Bodh's argument will be in peril.

 

[Bodi]

Your argument is about prevention responsibilities of men...to avoid an unwanted pregnancy (Pre-pregnancy circumstances). And that by somehow failing to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, the woman "chooses via a moral choice" not to abort "because that is a legal option", then after birth, the man should be forced to pay child support.

Bodhi is telling you that women don't have the same obligation...by virtue of the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, without question, within the boundaries of the current Constitutional decisions around several S.C. decisions, but more specifically the decision in Roe v Wade, and I'd have to add Planned Parenthood v Casey, because it states that the government can't impose "undue burdens" used to prevent a woman from having an abortion.

Consequently, women have "Post Conception Rights to Terminate an Unwanted Pregnancy". Men do not have "Post Conception Rights" in relationship to most any legal element of reproduction. Examples: Men don't have the right to know a conception has occurred. Men don't have the right to prevent an abortion.

This help?

Now if Roe v Wade collapses, then I have to assume any latter related decisions might also have to be revisited. However, I'm not sure about that. But my point is that if the automatic right for women to choose to abort (prior to viability) is overturned, then Bodh's argument will be in peril.

You have always been very patient and I appreciate that quality...

 

[Celebrity]

So you're saying that because there isnt biological equality there can not be equal protection under the law? Kind of hypocritical.

The word you were looking for was 'cynical.' She is a cynical female chauvinist.

 

[Celebrity]

Bad answer.

Actually this is a good answer to your post. This is an issue about men and women as two disjoint sets of people, and any attempt by you to mire the discussion in terms of "co-conception" is a mistake. If it serves the discussion to talk about conception, then so be it. Where rights are concerned, either legal persons men or women shall be treated indiscriminately. That is not to say that the two groups each have an equal number of rights, however blind justice is.

 

[Celebrity]

Judges can't pull an arbitrary rate out of their ass. If judges engage in that conduct they need to be removed from the bench.

Wrong.

ar·bi·trate
/ˈärbəˌtrāt/
verb
(of an independent person or body) reach an authoritative judgment or settlement.

Online Etymology Dictionary

(impute)

 

[Socrates1]

What can I help you with so that you will understand?

It is YOU that needs understanding . Try being a responsible parent ! :roll: An innocent child need NOT be ignored because of YOUR MISTAKES ! Does that help you ?

 

[Socrates1]

Your argument is about prevention responsibilities of men...to avoid an unwanted pregnancy (Pre-pregnancy circumstances). And that by somehow failing to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, the woman "chooses via a moral choice" not to abort "because that is a legal option", then after birth, the man should be forced to pay child support.

Bodhi is telling you that women don't have the same obligation...by virtue of the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, without question, within the boundaries of the current Constitutional decisions around several S.C. decisions, but more specifically the decision in Roe v Wade, and I'd have to add Planned Parenthood v Casey, because it states that the government can't impose "undue burdens" used to prevent a woman from having an abortion.

Consequently, women have "Post Conception Rights to Terminate an Unwanted Pregnancy". Men do not have "Post Conception Rights" in relationship to most any legal element of reproduction. Examples: Men don't have the right to know a conception has occurred. Men don't have the right to prevent an abortion.

This help?

Now if Roe v Wade collapses, then I have to assume any latter related decisions might also have to be revisited. However, I'm not sure about that. But my point is that if the automatic right for women to choose to abort (prior to viability) is overturned, then Bodh's argument will be in peril.

And no one can force a women to have a medical procedure .The bottom line is DON'T have sex with just anybody and use protection always or do the adult responsible thing afterwards support that innocent child . The LAW does NOT back you up and for a very good reason , YOU had choices and YOU make them , so it's time to man UP !