- Joined
- Dec 1, 2010
- Messages
- 61,715
- Reaction score
- 32,375
- Location
- El Paso Strong
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
You are misusing the term "deadbeat dad," since the man never wanted a child, made it plain to the woman, and then because of HER choice alone is now considered by YOU to be a "father" responsible for the unwanted results of his sperm donation.
They are analogous because some men WANT to be a father and want the woman to carry to term. She gets to say NO, I don't feel like it. It's her body, and I am fine with that. I am not fine with her saying to a man who does NOT want a baby, "too bad cuz WE are having one," and then imposing on him for the rest of his life. This is bound to turn out badly.
Yes, under such circumstances there is a child involved. One who may get some "money" out of "daddy" for a few years; but who will also face all the travails of a dysfunctional family. IMO it is better for a woman who recognizes her full responsibility to raise the child alone. It's better for all involved, including society.
Then your response to my post is a non-sequitur since I was talking about a child.I said nothing about a child. What I said is that in even before birth there is still the life of the offspring, and if we are interested in making people be responsible in their lives she must carry it term. Unless of course your responsibility argument has an exception for some reason.
Then your response to my post is a non-sequitur since I was talking about a child.
No, I don't.Do you think the first stage of life is deemed as child? If so, I have no idea what that nine months was for. Must of been a horrible, horrible party or something. I don't know.
No, I don't.
Then you're being selective in your responsibility argument.
Who knows how you reach that conclusion?
One involves a woman having an abortion and not leaving a child stranded without that parent's support; where the other leaves a child stranded without the deadbeat dad's support.
So? It's still not a child. That was my point which I can't help but notice you're doing everything in your power to run away from. Oh, and lemme know when parents become obligated to financially support their unborn offspring. :roll:I don't imagine you realize that when she decides to abort that is her failing to support it.
So? It's still not a child. That was my point which I can't help but notice you're doing everything in your power to run away from. Oh, and lemme know when parents become obligated to financially support their unborn offspring. :roll:
[/B]It's also a baby before it's born:
"Child" 1 and "baby" 1 have pre-birth uses.
A fetus is a "child" 2 and a "baby" 2 is a "child", thus we can call a fetus a "baby" 3.
Legally a "child" 4 is one's natural offspring, which is what a pregnant woman carries.
So, a pregnant woman carries her "child", her "unborn child", her "unborn baby".
This makes her a "parent", specifically, a “mother”.
"Organism" = "a living being".
Human DNA = "human".
"Organism" + Human DNA = "A Human Being".
That's called slavery, one person belonging to another.
This isn't about the state, this thread is about the father and rather or not he has an inherent universal right to force a woman to stop gestating his child.
She wasn't talking about abortion, but the right to avoid being a parent. Something you clearly missed in the first sentence.
Well sure, making it so fathers don't have an obligation to support their children is clearly better for children and society. Kids getting the things they need is so over rated.
I'm not proposing anything cpwill. That's just the way it is.
Abortion is a right protected by the Constitution.
Abandoning your child is not.
Of course we would have legalized abortion since children aren't being aborted. That would be murder.
Not true
Women are required to support their children
They can't opt out, so men shouldn't be able to either
That's right. And the way it is is wrong.
No, the way it is, is because of biological factors that cannot be changed.
It's nobody's "fault" it just is. This stupid idea will cause even MORE poor people in our society, all because you want to let men shirk their responsibilities.
There is just no way you can get around the fact that sex creates children. Don't want any? Don't have sex or be VERY careful who you choose to have sex with.
Why do you want to punish the children by withholding care. The child has a RIGHT to be supported by both parents, regardless of whether or not you think the fact that women can abort a child "fair" or not.
STOP turning this into a male versus female battle. It is immature
IF you have sex with a woman and she gets pregnant, you are BOTH responsible.
On the contrary, it is the way it is because of the law. There is no biological demand that we not allow a father equal ability to divest himself from the responsibilities of parenthood as the mother has.
Quite the contrary - as I've made rather plain in the social and abortion forums, I would prefer incredibly stringent restrictions on abortion, and I would prefer to make divorces much more difficult to get. I think that the breakup of the modern family is our number 1 social disaster, and it's a social disaster with severe follow-on generational effects. Given the option, I would prefer that we keep the vast majority of people from shirking their responsibilities. But if we are going to allow women to do so on a pre-birth basis, then equal treatment of the sexes demands that we do the same for the men.
Amen and isn't it funny, however, that when people bring up that argument in the abortion debates the argument somehow considered differently because then it's the woman under discussion who is expected to either refrain from sex or select her partners carefully?
If the child has rights then its rights start with the right to life. If it does not have rights, then it has no claim on the father.
Agreed. And you should both be held to your responsibility.
Look, you can make up all the false scenarios you want. It doesn't change the facts that in our country we hold both men and women responsible for the children they create.
This has NOTHING to do with abortion, and it isn't going to change because you're sad. GROW UP! BE A MAN and accept your part in creating a life.
Pregnancy is a medical condition
No we don't. Currently we allow one gender to duck its' responsibility, and do not allow the other gender to do so. If women are allowed to decide they no longer wish to be held responsible for the child up to a certain point, men ought to be afforded the exact same opportunity.
On the contrary, it has quite a lot to do with abortion. As you put it, the child either has rights (such as the right to life and support from its parents) or it doesn't.
In the meantime, ad hominem does not make your case for you, it just makes you look foolish and desperate.
Then neither are children being abandoned under the proposal to allow men to divest themselves of parental responsibilities during pregnancy.
Oh boo-hoo. Thank you for proving my point that you are not concerned at all about the child and it's rights but only about your own.
Actually no, according to the law it has no rights until after it is born.
That is when the rights kick in because it is now a separate human entity that no longer feeds off it's mother's body.
The only ones who appear foolish and desperate are you and the other men and women who want to make this into something that it is NOT, and want to punish the innocent while doing it.
You appear to be thoroughly confused to what this thread is about. It's questioning if men who knock someone up can evade supporting their own child should the mother have the baby. So yes, despite your confusion, there really is a child being abandoned by a deadbeat dad under this pathetic scenario.Then neither are children being abandoned under the proposal to allow men to divest themselves of parental responsibilities during pregnancy.
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?