Who is us? LMAO, YOU keep posting that lie and cant back it up and with anything that makes it factual.Thanks again for showing that you really only want women to 'pay the consequence' that suits some men's agendas.
LMAO sounds like every failed anti-equality pro-discrimination argument ever
The BS is yours in this case."(I)nfertility, infection, and even death" are possible consequences of both maintaining a pregnancy and abortion, but the choices themselves are not consequences. Abortion is never a consequence, but an action that can have consequences. Same with pregnancy. Getting pregnant is a consequence. Choosing to remain pregnant is an action that can have consequences. And I am not suggesting that consequences only come from one's own decisions or choices. One can be pregnant and not know and still will have to deal with all the possible consequences of being pregnant. Likewise, one can suffer the consequences of another's actions, such as a broken jaw when another punches them without provocation. I will make one exception, but that is more based upon technicality. A miscarriage is in truth and medically called an abortion, a natural abortion. That type of abortion is indeed a possible consequence of being pregnant. However, I doubt that is ever what you meant in all the times that you have claimed an abortion as a consequence.Of course it's a consequence, it's an expensive, painful procedure with the potential for infertility, infection, and even death. It's just happens to be a 'consequence' you resent like hell. And that some men resent like hell that they cant demand women accept
Thanks again for showing that you really only want women to 'pay the consequence' that suits some men's agendas.
So spare us the BS.
A precedent need only show that it is possible for a man and woman to sign a contract preconception that voids the man's responsibility post conception
Actually no she does not. Again, if she had that right to opt out of being a parent, she could do that for any of her genetic offspring post conception, pre-birth, regardless of where they were gestating. The fact that she she cannot if that genetic offspring is being gestated in a surrogate woman shows that the right is not one of divesting themselves of parental responsibilities. And I can all but guarantee you that if we ever got to the point of artificial womb technology, she would not be allowed, short of adoption, be allowed to divest herself of her parental responsibilities. The key factor would be that the ZEF is not in her body. Do not mistake the result of exercising a right as the right itself.
The precedent would also have to show that it happen within the bounds of physical intercourse, as opposed to outside it. You cannot ignore all other factors when making the claim of precedent. Can you show me in law where such a contract has been recognized by the law in any state? Now I will say that we both could probably come up with many cases where it effectively happened because the law never got involved; i.e. since the woman never went to the state for aid, it was never brought up to show that the state did not recognize the contract. But that doesn't show that the contract was valid. A crime not reported is still a crime (parallel, not direct comparison).
It has happened in California and other states. It is referred to as traditional surrogacy rather than gestational surrogacy. It has happened only because there is no law preventing it and some judges have upheld the contracts.
Already gave you that link and showed that California requires the sperm to go through a physician in order for the transfer of parental rights to be valid. Post 1287 to be exact.
www.creativefamilyconnections.com
Very good, and my link showed that it is only considered such if the sperm goes through a physician or sperm donor clinic. Show me the California law that provides for physical intercourse as the medium by which the sperm may be donated, and parental responsibilities transferred. Furthermore, surrogacy is the woman, not the man. Traditional vs gestational surrogacy describes whether the woman is genetically related to the offspring or not. So that also holds no precedence on a case for a man abdicating his parental responsibilities.TRADITIONAL SURROGACY IN CALIFORNIA
Traditional Surrogacy is permitted in California because no statute or published case law prohibits it. The Intended Parent may file a parentage order (pre or post-birth), but it would be at the discretion of the court whether and when to grant it.
California Surrogacy Laws: A Comprehensive Guide | CFC
Is gestational surrogacy legal in California? Learn if you can become an intended parent & legal conditions for heterosexual, same-sex & single parents.
Agreed. I just woke up and about to head out for a walk. 4:30 am. Nobody out for another hour at least. Love it.
Tough noogies for them. Women are not broodmares for the barren.
The problem is not enough people want to adopt children. There is an age barrier and the older the child gets, the hgarder it is to find a parent to adopt them. There are more than enough people who want to adopt infant babies though, so they can raise them from infancy.
The asshole who sired me promised the douche he impregnated that he would marry. In her 8th month, he ran off and married a woman who gave birth to his daughter 3 weeks after I was born. Anyone can promise the world, but renege when the time comes.
There is a difference between what the douche's responsibilities are and whether he lives up to them. The fact that he run out on his responsibilities doesn't negate the fact that he had them. We aren't talking about whether rights and responsibilities get enforced, just whether they exist, are equal between men and women and what they actually are.
You have failed to do so every single time you've attempted this. Dont lie.
I'm not interested in your feelings here. They have nothing to do with the law. You have not yet told me why men dont act in their own best interests and CHOOSE not to have sex with a woman. And then you also wont explain why he shouldn't be held accountable for choosing to take that risk. Please answer these questions. I know that you wont...because then you cant keep blaming the women.
Sperm donors, gestational surrogacy, traditional surrogacy Lol
Yes they are in this case, because she only has 4 options, all are painful and can kill or do major health damage, and she HAS to pick one...and she doesnt even have a choice if she miscarries or dies.
Kind of funny that what is best for the child never seems to come up in these discussions, isn't it? Rather, only who should 'win' the battle between two people who no longer (or never did) care for each other.And then show me how you believe your opt-out as law would ever supersede the child's rights. If you want to change the law, it's the child's rights you need to go after, to weaken. That will be popular!
