lizzie
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2009
- Messages
- 28,580
- Reaction score
- 31,554
- Location
- between two worlds
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I'm just arguing that the mean have responsibilities also.
I wanted to give a couple of people a chance to respond before I put my two cents in. For my own part, I don't believe a man should dictate to a woman how to deal with her own body. I agree with Lizzie, the responsibility for her own body is uniquely the woman's. However, I believe that a unilateral choice should have unilateral consequences. Therefore, if the male does not wish to have a child and he makes his decision plain, he should be allowed to legally opt-out of all further responsibility (and thus all future parental rights) at some point in the process.
It has to be a set amount of time to make the decision from the time he is informed of the pregnancy.
Otherwise you would just have women who wouldn't inform the guy until after the time limit had passed.
The woman's choice is just that, her choice. She bears the burden of carrying the child and in the case that she doesn't feel the need to terminate the pregnancy, for whatever reason, the equal participant in creating that child should not be able to simply stroll away without a lick of responsibility. I don't think many who support your position fully realize the implications of allowing such a thing to happen.
Wouldn't it be more fair if he was given roughly the same about of time she theoretically had also?Give him 30 days from the day that he is informed that he got someone pregnant to make his decision and inform the court/mother of his decision.
And what others will point out is the distinct potential for sharp upticks in single parent households, dire poverty and generally careless behavior as a result of allowing men to simply stroll away without a consequence to be found.Nobody is going to say that the woman should be forced to abort. What some of us are saying is that the man should have a legal avenue to absolve himself of obligation, should a woman decide to carry to term against a man's wishes.
If she wants to do that with the full knowledge that the child is hers and hers alone, so be it. Otherwise, you force not only an economic burden on a man.. but a moral hazard insofar that she could keep this baby for the purposes of "trapping" a man against his will.
Yes. A firm backdrop. He gets 90 days firm from the point he is notified to make his choice.That's on her then. She has the burden of providing opportunity. If she denies it to the man, she is in turn deprived of it herself.
Obviously this would bring up grey areas, but if you set up a firm backdrop, you'd have less pregnant women trying to game the system. We get that enough with welfare.
And what others will point out is the distinct potential for sharp upticks in single parent households, dire poverty and generally careless behavior as a result of allowing men to simply stroll away without a consequence to be found.
What you're proposing is a moral hazard and an economic burden. There's a variety of reasons as to why many women choose to carry to term, even in less than optimal circumstances. If you help to knock over the first domino, you necessarily share the burden for the remainder that fall afterwards.
Yes. A firm backdrop. He gets 90 days firm from the point he is notified to make his choice.
Even if she has already given birth.
I wanted to give a couple of people a chance to respond before I put my two cents in.
For my own part, I don't believe a man should dictate to a woman how to deal with her own body. I agree with Lizzie, the responsibility for her own body is uniquely the woman's.
However, I believe that a unilateral choice should have unilateral consequences. Therefore, if the male does not wish to have a child and he makes his decision plain, he should be allowed to legally opt-out of all further responsibility (and thus all future parental rights) at some point in the process.
I sense a bit of a back story to your view. In another thread you think a woman should be prepared to deal with a pregnancy every time she spreads her thighs so I'd say a guy can't just opt out. He knew there might be a baby created if he hops on board.
But I have to wonder just how much of a real issue this is. I know several 'sperm donors' who signed away their parental rights and avoided child support payments (not sure that works with the State if the mommy is on the public dole)
Does anyone know how many one night stands, tricked boyfriends, are slaves to a mommy dearest....
No. Such Law would make it even more likely that women without support would not be giving birth as much.And what others will point out is the distinct potential for sharp upticks in single parent households, dire poverty and generally careless behavior as a result of allowing men to simply stroll away without a consequence to be found.
What you're proposing is a moral hazard and an economic burden. There's a variety of reasons as to why many women choose to carry to term, even in less than optimal circumstances. If you help to knock over the first domino, you necessarily share the burden for the remainder that fall afterwards.
The point is that she should not be able to force consequences on a man that she herself can decide not to have.of allowing men to simply stroll away without a consequence to be found.
Also, a man should only be allowed to "opt out" of financial and parental responsibilities if his partner mutually accepts. The idea that he is somehow less obligated to provide for the child's well being is absurd.
Sorry, in another thread I what??!!
Anyone can sign away their affirmative parental rights, in fact that's one method whereby parent's can put a child up for adoption.
I'm not familiar with all state laws, but I would be surprised if there were laws currently allowing a male to avoid child support if the mother retains parental rights over a shared child.
I wanted to give a couple of people a chance to respond before I put my two cents in.
For my own part, I don't believe a man should dictate to a woman how to deal with her own body. I agree with Lizzie, the responsibility for her own body is uniquely the woman's.
However, I believe that a unilateral choice should have unilateral consequences. Therefore, if the male does not wish to have a child and he makes his decision plain, he should be allowed to legally opt-out of all further responsibility (and thus all future parental rights) at some point in the process.
Yes. A firm backdrop. He gets 90 days firm from the point he is notified to make his choice.
Even if she has already given birth.
If a man makes his "decision plan" and "does not wish to have a child," he needs to put a damned sock on it. If he's going to lay there and complain . . . whine that he doesn't feel as good . . . believe!!! a woman who says she's protected . . . tell a woman he's not capable of fathering a child . . . He gets exactly what he's earned: 18 years of child support payments and help with college.
Well I'm guessing that if the baby is born within 90 days, she either a) took her sweet ass time to tell him, or b) is miscarrying.
He's earned 18 years of hell because his birth control method fails? Birth control is not 100%.
You know I love you Mags but that is just harsh and illogical. Why can't she just abort?
If a man makes his "decision plan" and "does not wish to have a child," he needs to put a damned sock on it. If he's going to lay there and complain . . . whine that he doesn't feel as good . . . believe!!! a woman who says she's protected . . . tell a woman he's not capable of fathering a child . . . He gets exactly what he's earned: 18 years of child support payments and help with college.
The point is that he should get a set amount of time after being notified. When ever that may be.
From the point she finds out, or 5 years later when she finally tell him.
If she gets roughly 90 days to decide, why shouldn't he. This is about fairness isn't it?
This set amount of time eliminates any discrepancies caused by her not telling him in a timely manner.
It would be the law at the time and she would know it.
Sorry, in another thread I what??!! Anyone can sign away their affirmative parental rights, in fact that's one method whereby parent's can put a child up for adoption. I'm not familiar with all state laws, but I would be surprised if there were laws currently allowing a male to avoid child support if the mother retains parental rights over a shared child.
I was almost with you up until the underlined part. I'm confused there....so if a woman lies in order to get pregnant you're saying that's a perfectly acceptable method of force-starting a family?? You do realize that using a condom is not 100% certain, right? Beyond that, as Lizzie point's out, the WOMAN is in charge of her body and can REQUIRE a man to put protection on right?
This should be especially true of any woman who is Pro-Life! She should NEVER allow a male to engage in sexual activity unless she is fully protected by both his "sock" and her contraceptives. IMO No one should expect a moment of passion to become a lifetime of hatred and recrimination.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?