Which is exactly what the misogynists don't accept, at least for women.
That last line is nonsense.
Women are not generally allowed to give up parental rights either.
That's what it is that blows my mind about women who can't accept that they are solely responsible for their own bodies, and for what happens to their bodies (absent a case of rape or forced incest).This is junior high school grade knowledge here.They want the freedom and the choice, but they don't want to make sure that they are protected against unwanted pregnancy, not to mention the other risks they are taking with unprotected sex.
Pro-choice is about a women's right to control her own body. It is not about what happens when the baby is born.
I did not take child support. I could have forced the issue, but frankly I was always the breadwinner, I saw no reason to make him destitute to pay for our child.
But have him totally relinquish future need to support. Nope.
There was a time when I needed several ankle surgeries to get back to work. I was off about a year. I had to cobra my healthcare .Had he not been a "legal" parent, I would not have had the ability to switch our son over to his health care. As it was, a unique opportunity presented itself, and I was able to keep him covered with me - but not at cobra prices.
This is not what is in the man's or woman's best interest....it is what is in the child's best interest.
And as someone stated earlier, if mom goes searching for welfare and ongoing support? Why should the state pay for a child when there is another parent to possibly help with the bills. Hell, the ability alone to place the child on a good health insurance plan (read not Medicaid) is a good thing. As a taxpayer I would say...you better be going after both parents to support this child before the state gives out my tax dollars.
But yeah, I elected not to receive support for my child, as I was always the breadwinner. But give away total future rights for my child - are you nuts?
What about social security benefits? Why the hell would I give up his rights to his social security benefit?
Condoms do not provide 100% protection against anything.
"Condoms aren't completely safe. A friend of mine was wearing one and he got hit by a bus." ~ Bob Rubin
Claiming a man has a "fundamental human liberty" to abandon him child isn't "human liberty." It is the basest form of animalism in my opinion.
There are no parental obligations to a ZEF, so an abortion does not absolve her of parental obligations.
One can't absolve oneself of obligations that don't exist
There is no fundamental human liberty to not support your child
In order for a male to get a choice to abort the baby or leave its life he needs to prior to intercourse sign leagle documents for him to be able to do that if not and if the females has a lawyer on the ready she can battle his statement by saying he did not say that before they had intercourse or she would not have agreed . and she would probably win
Yes and that choice is made when you have sex.There is, however, a fundamental human liberty to make your own reproductive choices.
Procreation is the whole reason we have sex drives and genders in the first place. Duh. That you have sex for secondary reasons does not negate the first. Pretty simple stuff, but if you still don't know what the *reproductive* systom is for then a 4th grade life-sciences or biology or sex-ed book will educate you well.You seem to be confused.
It doesn't work that way.
In general.
If something exists, evidence for it's existence can be shown.
If it doesn't, none can be provided.
Nor can evidence be provided to show something does not exist, which does not exist.
Therefore; Consent to have sex, is not consent to have a child.
This is utterly disingenuous and ignores the entire crux of the argument.
It isn't about being absolved of financial responsibility. It's about not being forced into a solemn and profound obligation against one's will. You're the one narrowing down a father's responsibilities to nothing more than financial support-- which is also a direct consequence of coercing them into providing that support in the first place.
Gezzzzzzzussss Gawd! 1361 posts...and still crying about the problem...and NOT ONE SINGLE LEGITIMATE SOLUTION that doesn't cause injury (meaning welfare compromised) to one or more of the involved parties.
How many more ways can it be said that a conditional, unilateral control over the fate of a conception is slanted and unfair?
IV. Model Statute
Given the courts' unwillingness to recognize and protect the putative father's procreative choice, the legislature must act to protect the rights of the putative father. The following model statute is applicable where the unmarried female has made the decision to forego adoption or abortion and wishes to maintain custody of the child. As a direct result of the female's decision, the putative father no longer has a choice in his financial responsibilities to the child. This statute recognizes the inequity existing between the female's ability to choose whether she will be responsible for her child, without interference from the putative father, and the putative father's inability to make the same choice.
101. Purpose
The legislature recognizes the best interests of the child are not always met by requiring a putative father to pay child support against his will because the putative father's intentional failure to pay support leads to deep emotional scars in the child. In order to provide the most nurturing atmosphere for the child, free from the constant rejection by the putative father through his nonpayment, the legislature enacts the following termination of putative paternal parental rights statute.
You act like the man had no choice. Do not place tab "A" into slot "B" without a condom and assurance that the woman is using birth control or better yet, have a vasectomy.
================) no no no no {:}
LOL You are very free with this constant harping on "vasectomy" thing...how about the opposite (and just as silly a "suggestion") getting your tubes tied if you are a woman and want recreational sex?
Girls, would you respect a man who knocked up a girl....had a child and refused to take responsibility?
Yeah...that is the guy to marry!!!!:thinking
You are the only one seeing things.Now you're seeing things which aren't there. He never said that, yet you imagine he does. :shrug:
Even worse for you, we were talking about a "child," not a fetus, which also speaks to post-birth.
They don't realize what you are saying. The underlined.On the contrary, I have yet to see anyone argue in favor of a post-birth abrogation of responsibility assuming he knew of the child.
Heck, it doesn't appear that they understand much.
I set it out in the beginning.
He should have a choice.
To ensure fairness he should also be given roughly the same about of time that she has to make the decision once informed.
Roughly 90 days.
Whether that be before or after the birth.
This ensures that she is not able to coerce him into taking responsibility by not informing him. Which of course has to be taken into consideration in designing such law.
Oy Vey! :dohProcreation is the whole reason we have sex drives and genders in the first place. Duh. That you have sex for secondary reasons does not negate the first. Pretty simple stuff, but if you still don't know what the *reproductive* systom is for then a 4th grade life-sciences or biology or sex-ed book will educate you well.
No it is not Jerry.Yes and that choice is made when you have sex.
Yes, this proposal is that solution.Because there is no legal solution to create an equal choice...we clearly see that having a unilateral choice by either party creates conflicting interests. If neither man or woman want to choose a solution involving abstinence or sterilization. Perhaps a legal contractual solution for sexual relationships might level the playing field.
But that would sure mess up those spontaneous wild nights of fun and frolic known as a one night stand.
:doh Wrong!Gezzzzzzzussss Gawd! 1361 posts...and still crying about the problem...and NOT ONE SINGLE LEGITIMATE SOLUTION that doesn't cause injury (meaning welfare compromised) to one or more of the involved parties.
How many more ways can it be said that a conditional, unilateral control over the fate of a conception is slanted and unfair?
Enough said. Proposal wins by default. :mrgreen:Is CONDITIONAL, UNILATERAL CONTROL to decide the fate of a conception SLANTED? YES!
Is CONDITIONAL, UNILATERAL CONTROL to decide the fate of a conception UNFAIR? YES!
No. What is actually unfair is bringing a kid into this freak world to begin with.And it's especially unfair to a kid born into Freak World where one of it's creators don't give a **** about its welfare.
And what is the best interest of the child and the state, can change with the flick of a pen or the wisp of a decision.The standing provisions that allow unilateral control to exist is built around "best interest"...period.
Yes there is. Passing this proposal into law is one.As of today there is no existing legal device to make it fair.
You thinking something isn't equitable does not mean it isn't.But this is what's most amazing about this thread:
All of the bitching in the past 1343 post...and not one single person has come up with a legal solution or legislated solution with is TRULY EQUITABLE. WHY?
Making a decision before birth as to who is responsible does not compromise anybody's welfare. It actually ensures who is responsible for the child's welfare.PUT THE **** UP OR SHUT THE **** UP! What is a solution in which no party involved is injured (meaning welfare compromised) by the decision of the other?
Yes, this proposal is that solution.
:doh Wrong!
The legitimate solution is the proposal.
It does not injure anyone.
Enough said. Proposal wins by default. :mrgreen:
No. What is actually unfair is bringing a kid into this freak world to begin with.
But this way, it is determined who is responsible for the child beforehand.
Which also means that a woman choosing to bring a child into this world would be doing so knowing she would be responsible for supporting the child if the man didn't want to. Which equates to a more informed decision as whether or not to bring a child into this world. Likely resulting in less births. Less births where the state wouldn't have to seek out someone to be responsible because she couldn't.
Which is actually in the interest of the State and the child.
And what is the best interest of the child and the state, can change with the flick of a pen or the wisp of a decision.
And having it established prior to birth as to whom is responsible, seems like it is in the best interest of both.
Yes there is. Passing this proposal into law is one.
You thinking something isn't equitable does not mean it isn't.
As we can see, there are folks that believe it is.
Making a decision before birth as to who is responsible does not compromise anybody's welfare. It actually ensures who is responsible for the child's welfare.
Hi RM. Hows things today?
Since you wish to see something along the lines of a "Model Statute" here is a link to a dissertation provided by Melanie G. McCulley. It' starts off like this:
The rest (along with some good reading on the merits) can be found here: http://maleabortion.com/
Perhaps that will help.
Depends.
I've known more than one guy who got "oopsed." Condoms vandalized, lying about birth control, etc.
Can I respect walking in that scenario? Yup, sure can. The woman in this situation is a manipulative piece of a crap. And if she's so determined to have a kid with an unwilling partner who did everything they could, she can go it on her own.
To be completely fair, I've also known men who did the same thing. Disgusting.
In other situations? I wouldn't say I'm in a place to judge. Again, it depends.
Did he tell her he would? Then no, I don't respect him. He's a liar.
Did he say up front, or before hand, that he wouldn't? Well... it's hard to fault him, honestly. I don't know if I respect him, but I don't disrespect him either. The woman has so many choices, but he has so few. There's really nothing he can do to prevent that birth from happening once the mistake has already occurred, while the woman could. It just doesn't feel right to fault him for exercising the only choice he has, if he is also being up-front about it at a point where she still has choices. Just can't fault him.
Can I disrespect an honest man who simply doesn't want his entire life derailed forever for something he had no choice in? Can't say that I can, based on that alone.
I am always curious about the "vandalized" condom stories. If the condom breaks when it is put on - don't penetrate. It is really that simple. If you are relying on condoms she bought? Why? You don't buy her birth control. why do you let her buy your condoms? I always laugh at the "she poked holes in my condom" stories. First of all, if you actually noticed it, you would not have put the damn thing on or let her put it on for you. It is almost like men who claim this story take condoms out of the trash an inspect them with a microsope.
I have been in situations where we have had condom failure and since I was using birth control there was a bit of whining.:lol::lol: Believe me, there was a push to carry on :lamo
So pardon me if my experience with men and condoms .
Frankly, sex outside of committed relationships can be dicey at best. So men and women need to accept the realities of their behavior. The reality is that men cannot control the physical body of a women (especially with medical issues!!!!!)Since a child needs to be supported if the baby is not to be adopted, then both the mother and father need to expect to support the baby to the best of their ability. That is in the child's best interest and certainly in the states and taxpayers best interest. If the mom is able to support the child well on her own and choses not to ask for further support....it will only become a legal issue if the woman cannot support the child. Damn straight as a taxpayer I wouldn't let the "but she let me off the hook" bull**** if the only other option was government aid!!!!!!Just the child going on his health insurance would be a huge help to the state (and taxpayer)-and it would certainly be a help to the child if he was not on Medicaid if a major health issue presented itself.
Wtf?This is the proposal? Abstinence or Sterilization?
Wrong, as this proposal is and can be viable and legal.Ex...you're talk at the problem...not offering a viable legal or legislative solution...period. In other words...you haven't brought anything new to this thread.
No it doesn't, as we are talking about the time after conception when she gets to choose. A choice which may burden the male. Which is what is unfair, and the proposal eliminates that unfairness.A genuine, workable solution would have to created around "prior to sex"...not after conception...which is obviously before birth.
Yes, we know you stated a ridiculous suggestion.I stated in another post that the only solution that I see possible is that there is a sexual relationship contract that is legally binding, accepted by our judicial system in which prior to beginning of a sexual relationship...therein is the agreed conditions which define the consequence of an unintended conception. But even this solution doesn't guarantee noninjury to one of more parties, but does remove the battle over consequences from a legal standpoint. A court would have to apply the law according to the contract.
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?