NationStates Jolt Archive

So, if a man doesn't want to be a father, the woman can: have an abortion or have the child on her own.

Either way the man does little more than sign a slip of paper.

The woman then undergoes an abortion procedure and the child is killed due to the lack of responsiblity of the father.

Or, the woman goes through the physical, emotional, and financial risks and costs of childbirth and then faces raises the child alone.

Either way the child suffers at the stroke of the father's pen. It either dies or is raised without its father's support.

Either way the man is incumbered with no more than either a pen stroke or financial liability -- while the woman undergoes physical pain and risk as well as financial liability.

Some fairness.

This is the same fairness that asks a chicken and a pig to both contribute "equally" to a ham and egg sandwich.
YOu leave out the fact that the woman can abjure herself of financial responsiblity by giving up the child for adoption which you and Jacobia both fail to take into account.

The difference being in credentials which I have.
Do you have any?

Oh, yes, your credentials. Uh-huh. Can I see them, please? I'll give you my fax number in a telegram. Can you fax them over? Otherwise, you're credentials mean nothing. Here's a thought, since you appear to have 'conducted a study' that tells you the exact percentage of women that are abusing the system, you should easily be able to find others who have conducted the same study and link to it. *waits*

YOu leave out the fact that the woman can abjure herself of financial responsiblity by giving up the child for adoption which you and Jacobia both fail to take into account.
Two things you fail to point out here: 1) A child cannot be put up for adoption without the permission of both parents, unless one of the parents cannot be found after extensive search, and 2) if the child is put up for adoption, the father loses any financial responsibility for the child, so he's free of it as well. What's your beef? You don't like having your ability to turn a woman into a sperm receptacle and baby factory challenged?

Who's advocating slavery? You're right it's not up to the woman. It's up to the child. The child is what we are considering here. And yes, if a man is required to pay child support he should allowed equal custody unless this is either 1) impossible due to distance, work schedule, etc. or 2) unsafe for the child (the home life of one of the parents is not conducive to the child). In the case that the man is caring for his child he does get equal say in legal matters. He gets equal say in an adoption decision in nearly every state (and it should be EVERY state). He gets an equal say in medical decisions. He gets an equal say in all decisions. That's exactly how it's supposed to work.

And that's not just how it's 'supposed' to work, it's how it does work in most cases. Sure there are cases of abuse of the system, but the solution is not to make the situation even more ripe for abuse and making the case where the child is not only likely to lose out in the process but it is condoned by the government.

Also, you should look up the word semantics. Semantics would mean I was making an argument based on your wording rather than on the actually substance of the issue. When someone mentions the actual legal necessities of the situation, mentions the child, mentions the effect of these decisions, that's not semantics, that's the substance of the issue.
You were advocating that the woman has the power to force men, against their will, to support a child they may or may not be the fathers of. If by caring for the child, you include child support I agree. If you mean sole custody I don't. It is wrong to give only one parent sole custody over a child when the other parent is equally willing to care for it.
And even such cases where the other parent might be too far away or whatnot, there are certain cases that go beyond the pale, in which he or she must be allowed legal say. Let me explain this point with an example:
A child who is say 12, starts listening to heavy metal and gets into drugs, a lifestyle which will harm not only the child but those around him/her. He or she also starts hanging with the wrong crowd.
In another situation, the same 12 year starts listening to rap music and hanging out with the wrong people.
In both the above cases, the custodial parent (usually the mother) either doesn't care or is too busy with her career to do anything about it. Yet, when the father expresses concern and insists on a change in the situation, the mother fights him tooth and nails with the legality that, as the noncustodial parent, he has no rights in the matter at all.
Or how about the cases we occassionally hear in the news where mothers, who get court appointed custody, turn around a few years later and start pimping their own daughters for drug money?
To avoid such cases, we must allow both parents (the custodial and the financially responsible) an equal say in all moral and legal matters relating to the child. I would also venture to include medical decisions in that catagory.

YOu leave out the fact that the woman can abjure herself of financial responsiblity by giving up the child for adoption which you and Jacobia both fail to take into account.
women are no longer able to unilaterally give up a child for adoption. its been that way for a long time.

the father has to agree to give up his parental rights too. most do but some don't

a few of the more heart wrenching contested adoption cases have been about men who didnt find out about their children until welll after they had been put into adoptive homes. there parental rights were not just waived by the mother's actions.

YOu leave out the fact that the woman can abjure herself of financial responsiblity by giving up the child for adoption which you and Jacobia both fail to take into account.

With the father's consent, the exact right that men have. However, men are never told they must either put the child the up for adoption or raise it alone unless the mother dies, a woman should not be told this either. More importantly, you, again, completely leave consideration for the child completely out of the equation.

Oh, yes, your credentials. Uh-huh. Can I see them, please? I'll give you my fax number in a telegram. Can you fax them over? Otherwise, you're credentials mean nothing. Here's a thought, since you appear to have 'conducted a study' that tells you the exact percentage of women that are abusing the system, you should easily be able to find others who have conducted the same study and link to it. *waits*
Your the only person insisting on a scientifically rigid "study". Which I have not and will not do. Peope are not microbes to be dissected by careless scientists who have their noses in the air and think they are better than everyone else.
I take my information from two places: people I know personnally and from people I met and talked to on the campaign trail. I will not have them dissected or psychoanalyzed in of your "studies" just to prove a point.
Over 300 women that I know are using child support payments to go clubbing on. Becuase the area I was campaigning for is relatively small, and the fact that some of those 300 do live in areas outside the district, there is only one possible conclusion: the majority of women committ child support fraud.
Unless you want to argue that that's the way it is inside the district but the women outside are just flukes to the nation at large.

I don't like and I don't accept the idea of reducing people to mere objects for study and I find very offensive.

Two things you fail to point out here: 1) A child cannot be put up for adoption without the permission of both parents, unless one of the parents cannot be found after extensive search, and 2) if the child is put up for adoption, the father loses any financial responsibility for the child, so he's free of it as well. What's your beef? You don't like having your ability to turn a woman into a sperm receptacle and baby factory challenged?
I did not respond to your first post cause you seemed to be talking about a different subject.

1. Ideally this is true. But in reality, this not true in all situations.
2. I have no beef with this as long both parties are treated equally.

Your the only person insisting on a scientifically rigid "study". Which I have not and will not do. Peope are not microbes to be dissected by careless scientists who have their noses in the air and think they are better than everyone else.
I take my information from two places: people I know personnally and from people I met and talked to on the campaign trail. I will not have them dissected or psychoanalyzed in of your "studies" just to prove a point.
Over 300 women that I know are using child support payments to go clubbing on. Becuase the area I was campaigning for is relatively small, and the fact that some of those 300 do live in areas outside the district, there is only one possible conclusion: the majority of women committ child support fraud.
Unless you want to argue that that's the way it is inside the district but the women outside are just flukes to the nation at large.

I don't like and I don't accept the idea of reducing people to mere objects for study and I find very offensive.
I find it offensive that you use bullshit anecdotal "evidence" to make a claim for a larger group of people. First of all, I doubt your characterization of these women you claim to have met is accurate, and secondly, you can't take anecdotal evidence from a small area and extend it to make assumptions about a larger universe of people--unless you're an idiot.

women are no longer able to unilaterally give up a child for adoption. its been that way for a long time.

the father has to agree to give up his parental rights too. most do but some don't

a few of the more heart wrenching contested adoption cases have been about men who didnt find out about their children until welll after they had been put into adoptive homes. there parental rights were not just waived by the mother's actions.
Those should be dealt with on a case by case basis. Was the guy lost overseas? If so, he ought to retain his parental rights dependent on the will of the child if the child is at least 5.
Was he gone from the scene due to doing drugs or some other horrible immoral crime? Then he by defacto already gave up his rights by committing the felony. But if was something beyond his control, then his rights as a parent cannot be dissolved. And if later, he shows up and the child wants to to with him, it the duty of the state to allow it.
In such cases, the deciding factor should always be "what does the child want".

As much as it shows I have to much time on my hand I have read every post on this thread. From what Im seeing it isnt the rights of the child that are being discussed or debated its the rights of the Woman to choose to become a mother or not and if she does forcing the male in the situation to pay for her choice for the rest of his life or at least a big chunk of it. Agreed PArenthood isn't slavery as long as both partners want to be parents. But SHould either party be Forced to become a parent if they arent ready or can't financially provide for the child? People... both male and female have been doing this for hundreds of years by "Finding a way" or "Making ends meet". So its not really an issue of wheather they can or not its an issue of if they "want" to or not. I am a father, have 3 great kids which I wouldnt trade anything in the world for, not all by the same female, I made the choice when I got my divorce that I would support them and provide for them and take part in there lives. In issues of divorce if anything males are screwed from the get go anyway, your lucky if you can get any parental rights and if you do its normally help over your head by the exspouse in the name of the child for financial gain on the exspouse's end untill your financial responsibility ends anyway. The issue here isnt wheather parents chooseing to go there separate ways should both support the child, I think this is a given by all debaters here, its wheather in situations of pregnancy where there is no prior commitment the male should be able to say" Well, I am all for your right to motherhood and all that but Im not ready to be a father, so you have the choice to have the child or not but I should have the choice to support it or not support it". Honestly, I think this is a good idea. It may prevent alot of situations where unwanted and later on uncared for children are born and releave a bit of pressure from not only young people that made a mistake but from the social welfare dept as well. If the Child support enforcement divisions (Or what ever they are called now) dont have dad to chase for the rest of his life for child support that gets floated around and used by the state before it goes to the mom it may convince them to say "You know, Maybe you shouldnt have just had this child in the first place." . Don't get me wrong I do not believe in abortion as a means of birth control under any situation, I believe both partners should have to think about what they are doing before that midnight passionate game of hide the weasel ever happens. But the reality of things is it does happen and once it does what do you do? Force both partners to take responsibility for there mistake by haveing to care for an unwanted child for the next 18 years who is probably going to be looked down on and regretted the entire time? Force the male into a financial burden for the next 18-20 years because the female wanted to be a Mother? If she wants to be a mother then she should also want to be a provider for the child, not just depend on the state to make sure she ahs an income for the next 20 years. Pretty sweet deal, 9 months of burden for a 20 year retirement plan...Im sure this is going to be picked apart and flamed by most of you, and truth to be told there are alot of holes in it. But if we are going to be fair and just then lets be fair and just to both parties. NOw, I don't believe either party should be able to force thru court decision the abortion of the child, I do believe that should be left in the females realm of decision, but I do believe the male should have the ability to bow out during the first trimester if he doesnt believe he would make a good father ro provider for the child. Ok there you go, Tear it up.

You were advocating that the woman has the power to force men, against their will, to support a child they may or may not be the fathers of.

No, I'm not. Men have the ability to request paternity tests and I recommend they do so. I think women who fraudulantly tell men they are the father of a child they are not should be prosecuted. You are making assumptions that DO NOT have anything to do with this discussion. If a man is not the father of the child, he has no responsibility to the child whatsoever and already has a way to dissolve himself of responsibility in the event a woman tries to press it on him. Thus we are only talking about cases where a man is the father.

I am advocating that if a child exists a man that IS the father of it has a responsibility to the CHILD, not to the mother of the child. The mother has the same responsibility. Again, it's called parenthood and there are ways to avoid it where no child comes into being. Potential parents are free to practice these 'ways' to prevent a child from coming into being. However, once a child exists the role of the people who created them is to ensure that child is cared for. It's quite simple.


If by caring for the child, you include child support I agree. If you mean sole custody I don't. It is wrong to give only one parent sole custody over a child when the other parent is equally willing to care for it.

I agreed with that already. Why are you altering the argument to a point that has NOTHING to do with a 'paper abortion'? We're not talking about cases where a man wishes for custody. We are talking about cases where a man does not want custody or to care for his child.

And even such cases where the other parent might be too far away or whatnot, there are certain cases that go beyond the pale, in which he or she must be allowed legal say. Let me explain this point with an example:
A child who is say 12, starts listening to heavy metal and gets into drugs, a lifestyle which will harm not only the child but those around him/her. He or she also starts hanging with the wrong crowd.
In another situation, the same 12 year starts listening to rap music and hanging out with the wrong people.
In both the above cases, the custodial parent (usually the mother) either doesn't care or is too busy with her career to do anything about it. Yet, when the father expresses concern and insists on a change in the situation, the mother fights him tooth and nails with the legality that, as the noncustodial parent, he has no rights in the matter at all.

If a father wants a say in the raising of the child, he should take part in raising the child. Same goes for the mother. You are giving obscure examples. In cases like this, if the father can show this is actually happening he has lots of legal channels for changing custody and addressing the situation. You are crying for a changing in child custody laws and you won't hear me arguing. Again, a 'paper abortion' has nothing to do with this.

Or how about the cases we occassionally hear in the news where mothers, who get court appointed custody, turn around a few years later and start pimping their own daughters for drug money?

Yes, there are tons of these cases. Uh-huh. Would you like to actually address cases that are commonplace or would you like to keep giving really obscure and unusual examples of how evil a mother can be. Yes, occasionally, mothers even kill their children. That's hardly representative of the usual situation where a man and woman aren't married and have children.

To avoid such cases, we must allow both parents (the custodial and the financially responsible) an equal say in all moral and legal matters relating to the child. I would also venture to include medical decisions in that catagory.
Such cases? Let me guess, you're have done a study and 85% of women who have sole custody of their children are pimping them out, right? Ridiculous. There are an equal number of cases where parents live together and both have custody of the child and these types of abuses or worse occur. These are reasons for child services to look out for these abuses and really have nothing to do with custodial law.

A better reason why men and women should have equal say in the legal and moral matters of a child, along with an equal part in raising the child, is because it's in the best interest of the child, it's the healthiest situation.

Your ridiculous examples are unnecessary. It's like arguing against freedom of religion because some people use it to brainwash their children into believe women are inferior to men and such things - using unusual cases merely gives a reason to deal with the unusual cases not to change the laws for those that aren't abusing it.

Amusingly, a minute you were arguing to give sole custody of the child to the mother and now you're arguing why it's not in best interest of the child to do so. Good job at staying on point.

With the father's consent, the exact right that men have. However, men are never told they must either put the child the up for adoption or raise it alone unless the mother dies, a woman should not be told this either. More importantly, you, again, completely leave consideration for the child completely out of the equation.
In a case where the father refuses to put a child up for adoption, he by defacto agrees to become soley responsible for said child.
It's about equality. They should both be told it if it is necessary.
You keep saying "consideration for the child" over and over.
The same herring argument has been repeatedly used to support suspension of the US constitution, suspension of free press, suspension of free speech and suspension of a host of other rights.
So I am very wary of arguments whose only foundation is arguments like "the interests of children take precedence over the rights of individuals" cause by following such logic is how you depose democracies and establish tyrannies and dictatorships.

I find it offensive that you use bullshit anecdotal "evidence" to make a claim for a larger group of people. First of all, I doubt your characterization of these women you claim to have met is accurate, and secondly, you can't take anecdotal evidence from a small area and extend it to make assumptions about a larger universe of people--unless you're an idiot.
Exactly how many people do you deal with? Care to answer that?
The policies I would have voted on would have affected these people.
The way the women responded with answers like "The child support money is mine to do with how ever I want."
The way the women used the money to go clubbing while their children were found home alone with no food in the house is not anecdotal.
This is not about conducting scientific studies. Fortunately, we do not rely purely on rigid studies or science for public policy making. No society should, its dehumanizing.
And I believe that I predicted that someone was going to make your second point. Which, by predicting, I by, defacto, conceded was possible.

Your the only person insisting on a scientifically rigid "study". Which I have not and will not do. Peope are not microbes to be dissected by careless scientists who have their noses in the air and think they are better than everyone else.

I am asking for evidence. Your bs claims are worth the paper they're written on. Anyone can make claims on the internet. Your claims don't fit with what I know to be true. If I changed my mind every time someone made a claim, I'd be pretty ignorant and fairly confused.

I take my information from two places: people I know personnally and from people I met and talked to on the campaign trail. I will not have them dissected or psychoanalyzed in of your "studies" just to prove a point.

Uh-huh. In other words, you have no evidence. You've listened to complaints of men while you were 'campaigning'. Very useful and unbiased that is.

I love this by the way. A minute ago, you had credentials. Now you 'met and talked' to them on the campaign trail. What's it gonna be next? Did you marry three hundred women and they are the ones who are doing this?

Over 300 women that I know are using child support payments to go clubbing on. Becuase the area I was campaigning for is relatively small, and the fact that some of those 300 do live in areas outside the district, there is only one possible conclusion: the majority of women committ child support fraud.

Your conclusion is flawed. Assuming you're not full of it, the only conclusion you can draw is that the majority of women in that area are committing fraud. It says nothing about women in other areas of the country. In fact, it says nothing about the women you haven't met. There are all kinds of factors you're not considering. Why are you encountering these women? Why are these women allowing you into their finances? Are you just making it up?

Unless you want to argue that that's the way it is inside the district but the women outside are just flukes to the nation at large.

Actually, I don't really need to argue it. You're doing a pretty damn good job showing that you don't know the difference between an unusual case and a case that is evidence of the state of things.

I don't like and I don't accept the idea of reducing people to mere objects for study and I find very offensive.

Uh-huh. Yet, you're doing so. You're looking at evidence and drawing conclusions. The difference in a proper study is that the evidence is gather objectively rather than subjectively as you're doing.

Exactly how many people do you deal with? Care to answer that?

I met a large number of single mother who receive child support. I met them while I was teaching them to pass the GED and complete their education. Most of them were teenage mothers (a group most people would expect to abuse the situation the most) and, for the most part, they were doing everything they could to responsibly raise their children.

The policies I would have voted on would have affected these people.
The way the women responded with answers like "The child support money is mine to do with how ever I want."
The way the women used the money to go clubbing while their children were found home alone with no food in the house is not anecdotal.

In these situations children are removed from the home and child support is no longer an issue. In fact, it's possible to sue the women for return of the support (on behalf of the child) when a woman is doing this. The evidence doesn't suggest women are the problem. The evidence suggests you're full of crap.

This is not about conducting scientific studies. Fortunately, we do not rely purely on rigid studies or science for public policy making. No society should, its dehumanizing.
And I believe that I predicted that someone was going to make your second point. Which, by predicting, I by, defacto, conceded was possible.

Amusing. I must say, I know I'm swayed. This may be the worst argument I've ever seen anyone make. I'd quit while I was way behind if I were you. By the way, I'm still waiting on those 'credentials'.

By the way, what is more dehumanizing - making sweeping generalizations and even legal changes based a select group of people you've encountered/made-up or actually finding out what the situation is and dealing with it from an objective view? Your prejudice against women aside, there are as many men as women abusing the system. The system needs to and often does deal with these cases to make the system and the support of children better. The solution is not to give parents more ways to avoid supporting their children.

As much as it shows I have to much time on my hand I have read every post on this thread. From what Im seeing it isnt the rights of the child that are being discussed or debated its the rights of the Woman to choose to become a mother or not and if she does forcing the male in the situation to pay for her choice for the rest of his life or at least a big chunk of it. Agreed PArenthood isn't slavery as long as both partners want to be parents. But SHould either party be Forced to become a parent if they arent ready or can't financially provide for the child? People... both male and female have been doing this for hundreds of years by "Finding a way" or "Making ends meet". So its not really an issue of wheather they can or not its an issue of if they "want" to or not. I am a father, have 3 great kids which I wouldnt trade anything in the world for, not all by the same female, I made the choice when I got my divorce that I would support them and provide for them and take part in there lives. In issues of divorce if anything males are screwed from the get go anyway, your lucky if you can get any parental rights and if you do its normally help over your head by the exspouse in the name of the child for financial gain on the exspouse's end untill your financial responsibility ends anyway. The issue here isnt wheather parents chooseing to go there separate ways should both support the child, I think this is a given by all debaters here, its wheather in situations of pregnancy where there is no prior commitment the male should be able to say" Well, I am all for your right to motherhood and all that but Im not ready to be a father, so you have the choice to have the child or not but I should have the choice to support it or not support it". Honestly, I think this is a good idea. It may prevent alot of situations where unwanted and later on uncared for children are born and releave a bit of pressure from not only young people that made a mistake but from the social welfare dept as well. If the Child support enforcement divisions (Or what ever they are called now) dont have dad to chase for the rest of his life for child support that gets floated around and used by the state before it goes to the mom it may convince them to say "You know, Maybe you shouldnt have just had this child in the first place." . Don't get me wrong I do not believe in abortion as a means of birth control under any situation, I believe both partners should have to think about what they are doing before that midnight passionate game of hide the weasel ever happens. But the reality of things is it does happen and once it does what do you do? Force both partners to take responsibility for there mistake by haveing to care for an unwanted child for the next 18 years who is probably going to be looked down on and regretted the entire time? Force the male into a financial burden for the next 18-20 years because the female wanted to be a Mother? If she wants to be a mother then she should also want to be a provider for the child, not just depend on the state to make sure she ahs an income for the next 20 years. Pretty sweet deal, 9 months of burden for a 20 year retirement plan...Im sure this is going to be picked apart and flamed by most of you, and truth to be told there are alot of holes in it. But if we are going to be fair and just then lets be fair and just to both parties. NOw, I don't believe either party should be able to force thru court decision the abortion of the child, I do believe that should be left in the females realm of decision, but I do believe the male should have the ability to bow out during the first trimester if he doesnt believe he would make a good father ro provider for the child. Ok there you go, Tear it up.
Well said.
In my travels during my campaigns, I found that the majority of men who are paying child support are in the exact same situation which you have described. Where the women use the money for themselves.
When I campaigned on this issue I proposed that men be allowed to make nonfinancial contributions to the child's support such as paying for private school or paying rent or buying his food or clothing. The women objected violently to this proposal cause they wanted the money. I argued that if it is the care of the child that the money is being given for, then the care of the child can just as fairly and effeciently be met nonfinancially. The most common argument against it that I got was that the money was for what ever the woman wanted it for, to spend on clubs, booze, drugs, makeup, or even buying presents for other men they are shacking up with. That argument convinced me that the women were not using the money on the children.
Tell me, as a parent what think you of my proposal? Do you think it would help someone in your situation or make things worse?

In a case where the father refuses to put a child up for adoption, he by defacto agrees to become soley responsible for said child.
It's about equality. They should both be told it if it is necessary.
You keep saying "consideration for the child" over and over.
The same herring argument has been repeatedly used to support suspension of the US constitution, suspension of free press, suspension of free speech and suspension of a host of other rights.
So I am very wary of arguments whose only foundation is arguments like "the interests of children take precedence over the rights of individuals" cause by following such logic is how you depose democracies and establish tyrannies and dictatorships.

Oh, yay, more lack of the consideration for the child. Don't consider the child; they're just a pawn in this little war of rights anyway, right?

You're argument is ridiculous. Consideration for the child is paramount because when a child exists care for it is necessary. The child didn't choose to be born, but the parents didn't choose to engage in acts that resulted in a child. BOTH parents. The child deserves adequate support. Your hate for children and women is obvious. However, it has nothing to do with what is and what should be encapsulated in law. The fact that you can't seem to stay on topic and seem to really just being trying to do whatever you can to make the case that women are evil is clear evidence that this has nothing to do with making things 'fair'.

I don't believe anything you've said about your 'credentials' or your 'campaigning' because you've more than once shown that you have difficulties forming an argument (necessary for campaigning) and you've contradicted yourself. Thus, I don't buy into your 'evidence' which is little more than mysogyny (look it up, friend). Now, if you'd like to come back when you can actually back up your assertions, and can track the conversation, I'd be interested in continuing the conversation. Until then, caio, bambino.

No, I'm not. Men have the ability to request paternity tests and I recommend they do so. I think women who fraudulantly tell men they are the father of a child they are not should be prosecuted. You are making assumptions that DO NOT have anything to do with this discussion. If a man is not the father of the child, he has no responsibility to the child whatsoever and already has a way to dissolve himself of responsibility in the event a woman tries to press it on him. Thus we are only talking about cases where a man is the father.

I am advocating that if a child exists a man that IS the father of it has a responsibility to the CHILD, not to the mother of the child. The mother has the same responsibility. Again, it's called parenthood and there are ways to avoid it where no child comes into being. Potential parents are free to practice these 'ways' to prevent a child from coming into being. However, once a child exists the role of the people who created them is to ensure that child is cared for. It's quite simple.




I agreed with that already. Why are you altering the argument to a point that has NOTHING to do with a 'paper abortion'? We're not talking about cases where a man wishes for custody. We are talking about cases where a man does not want custody or to care for his child.



If a father wants a say in the raising of the child, he should take part in raising the child. Same goes for the mother. You are giving obscure examples. In cases like this, if the father can show this is actually happening he has lots of legal channels for changing custody and addressing the situation. You are crying for a changing in child custody laws and you won't hear me arguing. Again, a 'paper abortion' has nothing to do with this.



Yes, there are tons of these cases. Uh-huh. Would you like to actually address cases that are commonplace or would you like to keep giving really obscure and unusual examples of how evil a mother can be. Yes, occasionally, mothers even kill their children. That's hardly representative of the usual situation where a man and woman aren't married and have children.


Such cases? Let me guess, you're have done a study and 85% of women who have sole custody of their children are pimping them out, right? Ridiculous. There are an equal number of cases where parents live together and both have custody of the child and these types of abuses or worse occur. These are reasons for child services to look out for these abuses and really have nothing to do with custodial law.

A better reason why men and women should have equal say in the legal and moral matters of a child, along with an equal part in raising the child, is because it's in the best interest of the child, it's the healthiest situation.

Your ridiculous examples are unnecessary. It's like arguing against freedom of religion because some people use it to brainwash their children into believe women are inferior to men and such things - using unusual cases merely gives a reason to deal with the unusual cases not to change the laws for those that aren't abusing it.

Amusingly, a minute you were arguing to give sole custody of the child to the mother and now you're arguing why it's not in best interest of the child to do so. Good job at staying on point.
You appear to have missed the main point I was making. I was not saying that women made bad parents. I was saying that women were not necessarily the best parents. The validity being that most American courts automatically grant the woman custody by automatically assuming that because she is a woman, she is the best parent. The cases I cited were examples of why that is not always true.
As for the pimping for drugs, I never said those constituted a majority. I merely cited that they have popped up in the news.

its wheather in situations of pregnancy where there is no prior commitment the male should be able to say" Well, I am all for your right to motherhood and all that but Im not ready to be a father, so you have the choice to have the child or not but I should have the choice to support it or not support it".
<snipped for brevity>
paragraphs are our friends.

you dont watch "jerry springer" do you? the ability to walk away from all responsibility for the results of sex encourages certain men to move from woman to woman get them pregnant, then say "i didnt want that baby".

is it OK with you that more women are forced into abortion due to lack of support?

is it OK with you that men can irresponsibly father dozens of children? (they are on "jerry springer" and "maury" on a regular basis) That they have no reason to modify their behavior at all?

is it OK with you that there are children born who have no rights to support from their fathers?

its not OK with me. men father children without having to face the consequences of pregnancy and childbirth that women face. having a baby never endangers the fathers life (as long as the mother doesnt have access to a gun during labor) HE never has to face the prospect of aborting a fetus growing inside him.

all he faces is the benefit of having a child and the burden of supporting it.

as jocabia said, i think it balances out.

Well said.
In my travels during my campaigns, I found that the majority of men who are paying child support are in the exact same situation which you have described. Where the women use the money for themselves.
When I campaigned on this issue I proposed that men be allowed to make nonfinancial contributions to the child's support such as paying for private school or paying rent or buying his food or clothing. The women objected violently to this proposal cause they wanted the money. I argued that if it is the care of the child that the money is being given for, then the care of the child can just as fairly and effeciently be met nonfinancially. The most common argument against it that I got was that the money was for what ever the woman wanted it for, to spend on clubs, booze, drugs, makeup, or even buying presents for other men they are shacking up with. That argument convinced me that the women were not using the money on the children.
Tell me, as a parent what think you of my proposal? Do you think it would help someone in your situation or make things worse?

Incidentally, where do you live? Because in most places this is already allowed provided the things bought for the child are agreed upon or, at least, reasonable (for example, the parent cannot just spend the entire support payment on a car or clothes for the child since this does nothing to lessen the requirement for housing and food). My brother pays child support and he is permitted to deduct, by decree of the judge, certain things he pays for, for the child, like school books and fees, medical fees, etc.

Or perhaps, you can just show the child support and custody laws where you're from. You've been campaigning, so certainly you've researched them, right?

You appear to have missed the main point I was making. I was not saying that women made bad parents. I was saying that women were not necessarily the best parents. The validity being that most American courts automatically grant the woman custody by automatically assuming that because she is a woman, she is the best parent. The cases I cited were examples of why that is not always true.
As for the pimping for drugs, I never said those constituted a majority. I merely cited that they have popped up in the news.

You're right they're not necessarily the best parents. This is an argument for keeping both parents involved and reforming the prejudice of the courts, something I agree with. You've been arguing about the man stepping out of the situation, yet, you've evidence that his doing so is not in the best interest of the child.

all he faces is the benefit of having a child and the burden of supporting it.

Which, in addition to all the things you've mentioned, women also face, of course. Men have less responsibilities and burdens in the situation, due to nature, and the 'paper abortion' argues to lessen their responsibilities and burdens further at the expense of the child and the mother. Nice thought, that is, no?

I am asking for evidence. Your bs claims are worth the paper they're written on. Anyone can make claims on the internet. Your claims don't fit with what I know to be true. If I changed my mind every time someone made a claim, I'd be pretty ignorant and fairly confused.



Uh-huh. In other words, you have no evidence. You've listened to complaints of men while you were 'campaigning'. Very useful and unbiased that is.

I love this by the way. A minute ago, you had credentials. Now you 'met and talked' to them on the campaign trail. What's it gonna be next? Did you marry three hundred women and they are the ones who are doing this?



Your conclusion is flawed. Assuming you're not full of it, the only conclusion you can draw is that the majority of women in that area are committing fraud. It says nothing about women in other areas of the country. In fact, it says nothing about the women you haven't met. There are all kinds of factors you're not considering. Why are you encountering these women? Why are these women allowing you into their finances? Are you just making it up?



Actually, I don't really need to argue it. You're doing a pretty damn good job showing that you don't know the difference between an unusual case and a case that is evidence of the state of things.



Uh-huh. Yet, you're doing so. You're looking at evidence and drawing conclusions. The difference in a proper study is that the evidence is gather objectively rather than subjectively as you're doing.
1. I talked to the women in the cases also.

2. www.geocities.com/canales4congress proof that I did some campaigning.

3. I agree that it might be flawed, but when you get that many women responding that way, you reach the same conclusion. Of course, the 300 was the lower limit cause when you campaign you talk to more than 300 people. And it is very tiring and brings many long long hours or walking from one house to another house just to talk to the people there. Also, it causes big and very sore blisters on your feet but you have to keep going.
And you're right, it does not really describe the women I haven't met. Yet, according to the concept of extrapolation, it does.

4. Public policy is not made on the basis of studies. It is made on the basis of the experiences that people having everyday that they are reporting to their representatives on.
Proper study A does not cause a public policy to be implemented or even created. What does is that Betty has this experience and calls her rep about it. Then Gina calls with the same experience. And Jed calls. And then Tim. And so on. And enough people call, that Rep. Bob decides public policy needs to be made or changed on the issue and he writes legislation. If the other reps agree, the law is made or changed. On the basis of real people's experience as they describe to their reps. Not on the basis of some study or the opinion of some elite scientist or some elite university scholar.

Wow, Jacoba someone has struck a nerve eh? And in some of your arguments your exactly right. In cases where there is consentual partnership and a child is born, BOTH parents should have to support the child. Thats not what we are talking about here I dont think. Honestly, Although I think its off topic, I dont think there is a fair way to provide support for a child except the custodial parent save reciepts showing funds spent on the child and the noncustodial parent paying exactly half of these bills. Anything new should have to be agreed upon by both parents before hand except in extreme situations like surgery or hospitalization and such. The problem with this is the Word "agreed". Most females unless it gives them some sort of financial gain wont agree, or try and budget for that matter. "Doesn't matter to me what it costs, I don't have to pay for it he does and he should because I carried HIS child for 9 months and have to live my life around it now" is a quote I actually heard. But as far as before the child is born and if there isnt a marrage or partnership of some kind between the 2 adults, I do believe BOTH parties whould have the chance to make a rsponsible decision even if the decision to have sex and make the baby weren't done responsibly.
Just my humble opinion.

I met a large number of single mother who receive child support. I met them while I was teaching them to pass the GED and complete their education. Most of them were teenage mothers (a group most people would expect to abuse the situation the most) and, for the most part, they were doing everything they could to responsibly raise their children.



In these situations children are removed from the home and child support is no longer an issue. In fact, it's possible to sue the women for return of the support (on behalf of the child) when a woman is doing this. The evidence doesn't suggest women are the problem. The evidence suggests you're full of crap.



Amusing. I must say, I know I'm swayed. This may be the worst argument I've ever seen anyone make. I'd quit while I was way behind if I were you. By the way, I'm still waiting on those 'credentials'.

By the way, what is more dehumanizing - making sweeping generalizations and even legal changes based a select group of people you've encountered/made-up or actually finding out what the situation is and dealing with it from an objective view? Your prejudice against women aside, there are as many men as women abusing the system. The system needs to and often does deal with these cases to make the system and the support of children better. The solution is not to give parents more ways to avoid supporting their children.
Ah ha. So your whole premise is that you know better because you are teacher. You know as well as I do that teachers don't make public policy.
You also know that not all single mothers receiving child support are teenagers. You also know that of all such mothers, teen mothers are the most likely to actually use the money for their kid. Unless of course, they are members of ethnic minorities such as hispanics or blacks who insist the money is for them. Course, I've seen white women make the same claim.
Pray, tell me, why would they necessarily be expected to abuse the situation the most? They are most likely the ones who do not know what to do and who, if they are doing so, don't know better. All they need is a little guidance.
2. Not in all situations. There are many where the child is left there by a blind and inhumane bureacracy.
3. Yet you are making a generalization on equally select group of people. Yet somehow, the experiences of your select group or more valid than those of the people in my select group?

I must say that when campaigning you meet people of diverse backgrounds and incomes. I would ask the backgrounds and incomes of the people you speak of. Are the incomes homogenous or diverse. The same of the backgrounds.

Oh, yay, more lack of the consideration for the child. Don't consider the child; they're just a pawn in this little war of rights anyway, right?

You're argument is ridiculous. Consideration for the child is paramount because when a child exists care for it is necessary. The child didn't choose to be born, but the parents didn't choose to engage in acts that resulted in a child. BOTH parents. The child deserves adequate support. Your hate for children and women is obvious. However, it has nothing to do with what is and what should be encapsulated in law. The fact that you can't seem to stay on topic and seem to really just being trying to do whatever you can to make the case that women are evil is clear evidence that this has nothing to do with making things 'fair'.

I don't believe anything you've said about your 'credentials' or your 'campaigning' because you've more than once shown that you have difficulties forming an argument (necessary for campaigning) and you've contradicted yourself. Thus, I don't buy into your 'evidence' which is little more than mysogyny (look it up, friend). Now, if you'd like to come back when you can actually back up your assertions, and can track the conversation, I'd be interested in continuing the conversation. Until then, caio, bambino.
You're not saying much good about your status as a teacher with the way you come in and get all condescending.

<snipped for brevity>
paragraphs are our friends.

you dont watch "jerry springer" do you? the ability to walk away from all responsibility for the results of sex encourages certain men to move from woman to woman get them pregnant, then say "i didnt want that baby".

is it OK with you that more women are forced into abortion due to lack of support?

is it OK with you that men can irresponsibly father dozens of children? (they are on "jerry springer" and "maury" on a regular basis) That they have no reason to modify their behavior at all?

is it OK with you that there are children born who have no rights to support from their fathers?

its not OK with me. men father children without having to face the consequences of pregnancy and childbirth that women face. having a baby never endangers the fathers life (as long as the mother doesnt have access to a gun during labor) HE never has to face the prospect of aborting a fetus growing inside him.

all he faces is the benefit of having a child and the burden of supporting it.

as jocabia said, i think it balances out.
The guests on the Jerry Springer and Maury tabloid shows (that's what they are is tabloids, not real news programs) do not represent the way society is.

<snipped for brevity>
paragraphs are our friends.

you dont watch "jerry springer" do you? the ability to walk away from all responsibility for the results of sex encourages certain men to move from woman to woman get them pregnant, then say "i didnt want that baby".

is it OK with you that more women are forced into abortion due to lack of support?

is it OK with you that men can irresponsibly father dozens of children? (they are on "jerry springer" and "maury" on a regular basis) That they have no reason to modify their behavior at all?

is it OK with you that there are children born who have no rights to support from their fathers?

its not OK with me. men father children without having to face the consequences of pregnancy and childbirth that women face. having a baby never endangers the fathers life (as long as the mother doesnt have access to a gun during labor) HE never has to face the prospect of aborting a fetus growing inside him.

all he faces is the benefit of having a child and the burden of supporting it.

as jocabia said, i think it balances out.

Grin , Yes I did get long winded there, will try and put a pause or two in.

No, As a matter of fact i don't watch Jerry Springer, its all staged and really the only value of it is entertainment. But I have lived in a trailer court lol. I have seen with my own eyes children that shouldnt have been brought into the world in the first place running around with no shoes because there mom spent all the CS on dope or booze.

And No, I dont agree with men being able to father several children and then bow out saying "I dont want the child". But on the other hand, I believe women have the choice of saying" Wow, that guy is a deadbeat, he should at least have teeth if Im gonna have a relationship with him." I believe in the fact that women have a brain and are able to make realistic decisions based on wheather the guy is "Dad Material" or not. And for the Most part alot of women do just this. The cases we are talking about here arent the mainstream, they are the ones like what you see portrayed on Jerry Springer, most of the divorced dads that I know(And I know a few) have no problem at all paying a fair and just amount of child support or giving extra to make sure the child is comfortable.
But on the other hand, IF women werent guaranteed support for the next 18-20 years that might give them something to think about before making the decision or the Choice to have a child. If its prochoice this is the only way to think. If it's prolife Think about the life the child is going to ahve once it is brought into the world? Is it a good fair and just life for the child to live his existance in a world where he obviously wasnt wanted by either parent but now has to be cared for?
Do you believe it is right for a child to have to be part of the welfare system and grow up fending for itself?
Do you believe it is right for a Custodial parent (And I say custodial Parent because men are just as guilty for it as women, they just dont get custody as much) to be able to have several children as an income, relying on the state (Your Taxes) and a Dad that is never around to support them while they go out and make more babies?
Like I said, There is only one way to make it fair and just after the fact, and its a burden on all concerned including the child, So the choice should be made prior to there being a child to worry about.

Incidentally, where do you live? Because in most places this is already allowed provided the things bought for the child are agreed upon or, at least, reasonable (for example, the parent cannot just spend the entire support payment on a car or clothes for the child since this does nothing to lessen the requirement for housing and food). My brother pays child support and he is permitted to deduct, by decree of the judge, certain things he pays for, for the child, like school books and fees, medical fees, etc.

Or perhaps, you can just show the child support and custody laws where you're from. You've been campaigning, so certainly you've researched them, right?
1. In some but not most cases are they allowed to deduct. And even then, it is very rare that judge allows it.

2. Obviously you would need safeguards to ensure that he doesn't just spend it all on one thing. Unless of course the rent is very high. But if that is the case, why would he agree to allowing the child to live there? Have the kid and custodial parent move somewhere that is not as expensive.
Futher, the support must connected to how much he is actually making. If he is out of work, he needs to be given a reprieve. That means either he temporarily absolved from having to make payments until he gets work or the government stops applying interest to the support he owes. Most men would prefer the latter. The most common complaint I get is the unreasonable interest charged where $500 in due child support gets ballooned to $5000 owed, merely because of the unreasonably high penalty interest added to the amount owed.
I know a few men who owe $50,000 in back support. How much of it is actually the amount owed for the child? $1,200. Where did the rest come from? Inhumane punitive fees and interest charges that are designed to automatically treat all men as evil criminals.
Los Angeles County, Cal.

You're right they're not necessarily the best parents. This is an argument for keeping both parents involved and reforming the prejudice of the courts, something I agree with. You've been arguing about the man stepping out of the situation, yet, you've evidence that his doing so is not in the best interest of the child.
I agree. Nor are men necessarily the best parents either.
On the last point:
This whole time, you been arguing the best interest of the child. Have you considered it may be in the child's best interest to absolve the father altogether? In some cases it is.

1. In some but not most cases are they allowed to deduct. And even then, it is very rare that judge allows it.

2. Obviously you would need safeguards to ensure that he doesn't just spend it all on one thing. Unless of course the rent is very high. But if that is the case, why would he agree to allowing the child to live there? Have the kid and custodial parent move somewhere that is not as expensive.
Futher, the support must connected to how much he is actually making. If he is out of work, he needs to be given a reprieve. That means either he temporarily absolved from having to make payments until he gets work or the government stops applying interest to the support he owes. Most men would prefer the latter. The most common complaint I get is the unreasonable interest charged where $500 in due child support gets ballooned to $5000 owed, merely because of the unreasonably high penalty interest added to the amount owed.
I know a few men who owe $50,000 in back support. How much of it is actually the amount owed for the child? $1,200. Where did the rest come from? Inhumane punitive fees and interest charges that are designed to automatically treat all men as evil criminals.
Los Angeles County, Cal.

This exact thing happened to me, I did get behind once Because I was laid off and at the same time the child support enforcement Division decided (All by them selves mind you, they have there own judges) that my exwife needed a raise. My child support was more than doubled. I contested, alone at first, and she had the chance to say "No, the CS before hand was ok with me.". Instead she chose to say "I could use a little more". and had her free lawyer argue the point. Mind you it took 90 days for this to get to a mediation all this time me making my regular payments thru the court, but accrueing interest on the extra they said I might be oweing if the mediation decision (Also decided upon by the CSED judges) was for the raise.
Of course the decision was for the CSED and I then had the option of Hiring a lawyer and going to actual court (Which I did and it was decided there it was unfair) or just "catching up" on my CS payments or losing my Trade License (I work construction) and my drivers License(not allowing me to go to work and getting farther behind). I did go to court and it did get resolved but the extra that was put on my tab while fighting and the interest accrued they said I still owed, and there was nothing I could do about it.
This could have all been resolved if the custodial parent (My exwife) had simply had to fork over a shred of proof that more CS was needed, which she didnt have to do because the state was deciding for her.
LOL, OK.. /rant off

Ah ha. So your whole premise is that you know better because you are teacher. You know as well as I do that teachers don't make public policy.

Who said they do make public policy? You keep putting words in my mouth. The point is that I encounted a lot of women who were in the situation and not abusing it.

You also know that not all single mothers receiving child support are teenagers.

You're not paying attention. I said they first got pregnant as teenagers. Some of them have twelve and fourteen-year-olds. Some of them got pregnant and then married the father had a couple of kids and then got divorced. Very few of them were teenagers when I met them.

You also know that of all such mothers, teen mothers are the most likely to actually use the money for their kid. Unless of course, they are members of ethnic minorities such as hispanics or blacks who insist the money is for them. Course, I've seen white women make the same claim.

Most of them were minorities which seems to combat your racist claim. Also, I love how now my anecdotal evidence doesn't count because teenage mothers (which you apparently encounters almost none of) are least likely to abuse the system, according to you. Oh, wait, unless they're dirty mexicans or negros, because they can't be trusted. If you weren't serious, your racism would be amusing.

Pray, tell me, why would they necessarily be expected to abuse the situation the most? They are most likely the ones who do not know what to do and who, if they are doing so, don't know better. All they need is a little guidance.

Do you think teenage mothers are the most likely to get 'a little guidance'. Teenage mothers in many cases are the children of teenage mothers. If they had gotten a little guidance and support they more than likely would have completed school in the first place (provided they didn't happen to go to a school that booted them out for being pregnant).

2. Not in all situations. There are many where the child is left there by a blind and inhumane bureacracy.

Okay. Can you please give some examples of these cases? It should be relatively easy since there are 'many'.

3. Yet you are making a generalization on equally select group of people. Yet somehow, the experiences of your select group or more valid than those of the people in my select group?

No, I'm saying I'm not going to attack this group without evidence, which you've not supplied. You cannot deny rights on the basis of sweeping and unsupported generalizations. I'm not basing my beliefs on a select group. I'm basing my beliefs on the fact that I believe people should be treated fairly and equally unless evidence is given to do otherwise. If I remember correctly there is a consitutional amendment with this express purpose. Hmmm.... what's it called? Oh, the fourteenth amendment.

I must say that when campaigning you meet people of diverse backgrounds and incomes. I would ask the backgrounds and incomes of the people you speak of. Are the incomes homogenous or diverse. The same of the backgrounds.

You were walking door-to-door and women were answering the door and telling you that they were spending child support money on partying and denying the child the support they deserve. They told you that they were using the money to buy presents for their boyfriends. I'm certain that's the case. I mean, I know that I can't to tell people about how I mistreat people.

Since you've said who you are, let's talk about a few of the laws where you come from.

Adoption law and who can give a child up for adoption -
http://laws.adoption.com/statutes/california-laws,3.html

Requires both parents to consent, just as I stated. Looks like men have the same ability to 'enslave' the mother if they so choose once a child exists.

Child support law -
http://www.childsup.cahwnet.gov/faq.asp

Hmmm... looks like children are legally owed support from BOTH parents, not just the mother or the father.

Can I get child support if I'm not sure who the father of my child is?

No. Paternity (a legal determination of who the father is) must be established before child support can be ordered. Paternity gives your child many rights, including child support, access to medical records, government benefits and more

What do you know? It lists child support as a right of the child. Sounds like something I said. Oh, wait, it is. It also says that child support REQUIRES established paternity. Amazing that you could manage to not know the laws and attempt to legislate them. Politicians :rolleyes:

Wow, let's look at your platform, shall we?


1. Men should have a federal right to bloodtest if a woman wants a court to force them to
involuntarily pay child support. This right would not apply if the man waves it.

Already a right. Whoops. Good research you did there. Yep, I guess you know better than a little investigation of the law because knocked on doors.

6. We need to promote better male responsibility and male celibacy. Male celebacy is the best form of natural birth control for those who have the guts to practice it.

4. I support allowing both parents to claim the children on their federal tax returns whether they are married or not. Even if the woman is working and already claims the child. Both should be allowed to claim the children. Allowing a a father to deduct child support from his taxes will encourage deadbeats to start paying up. This also means bigger tax savings for American couples.

How very consistent of you. You promote better male responsibility by allowing them absolve themselve from raising their children. Yep, makes sense.

7. Remove the federal government from having any role in abortion. Bar both the President and Congress from banning or promoting abortion.

Oh, look who's anti-choice. You pretend like you support choice, but really you're being deceptive. Looks like Nazz pegged you.

Oh, oh, here's my favorite -

THE CANALES AMENDMENT
SECTION 1: CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAWS FAVORING OR PROHIBITING ABORTION.

SECTION 2:CONGRESS SHALL NEITHER FUND ABORTION NOR WITHHOLD FUNDING FROM STATES OR INDIVIDUALS ON THE BASIS OF WHETHER THEY SUPPORT OR OPPOSE ABORTION.

SECTION 3: THE PRESIDENT AND HIS CABINET SHALL NEITHER ISSUE OR ENFORCE ANY LAWS OR REGULATIONS REGARDING THE PARTICIPATION BY ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN IN THE ABORTION PROCEDURE.

SECTION 4: THE STATES SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO ENACT AND ENFORCE ALL NECESSARY LAWS ENCOURAGING OR RESTRICTING ABORTION WIHTIN THEIR BORDERS, AS SHALL SEEM TO THEM TO BE IN THEIR BEST INTEREST.

SECTION 5: THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE INOPERATIVE UNLESS IT SHALL HAVE BEEN RATIFIED AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION BY CONVENTIONS IN THREE-FOURTHS OF THE STATES, WITHIN ONE HUNDRED YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE SUBMISSION HEREOF TO THE STATES BY THE CONGRESS.

Section 5? Wow, that's some good understanding of the Constitution you have there. Here I thought the rules for amending the Constitution were already laid out, but apparently they must defined in the amendment where the 'rule' only counts if the amendment has already passed. Brilliant.

Hmmmm... Now, you mentioned credentials. Let's see what your degree is in, shall we?

The difference being in credentials which I have.
Do you have any?

In 1993 he began attending Rio Hondo Community College where he obtained an Associates Degree in Business Administration in 1999.

An associates degree in business administration. How could I have doubted you? Those are some hefty credentials there.

Let's find some other contradictions because this is fun -

He also began a major study of the abortion issue and its affects on American society. This research sidetracked him from his studies at Rio Hondo. He read many articles presenting both sides of the debate, listened to television and news reports and discussed it with a couple of hundred women.

Peope are not microbes to be dissected by careless scientists who have their noses in the air and think they are better than everyone else.

Hmmmm.... more consistency. Nice.

Oh, and by the way, I'd be interested in seeing the wording of this amendment -

He also has drafted a religious freedom/equal rights amendment to protect the right of students to pray in school, let states implement voucher programs for poor families, and to ban denial of equal protection under the law on the basis of religion, gender, national origin, ideology, age, disability, and sexual orientation. This comprehensive amendment also addresses other important issues. If it is introduced into the Congress, it will be the most comprehensive amendment so far, clarify the religious freedom and church state seperation, and will be the first amendment to propose constitutional protections for the elderly, the disabled, and people with diverse sexual orientations. He beleives this amendment is important in light of the fact that the US Supreme Court virtually ruled recently that neither the Congress nor the President had any constitutional authority to protect the rights of the elderly and disabled.

Linking to your campaign site didn't help your case. It's just more evidence of your inconsistency.

I agree. Nor are men necessarily the best parents either.
On the last point:
This whole time, you been arguing the best interest of the child. Have you considered it may be in the child's best interest to absolve the father altogether? In some cases it is.

And there are methods to do so already. Your 'paper abortion' just allows it to happen with no consideration for the child's best interests. But then that's not really what this is about, now is it? You're anti-choice and you're pretending in order to try attack the 'whores' who get pregnant outside wedlock. Your views of women, abortion, children and childbirth are obvious. Your site just put the final nail in it.

1. In some but not most cases are they allowed to deduct. And even then, it is very rare that judge allows it.

2. Obviously you would need safeguards to ensure that he doesn't just spend it all on one thing. Unless of course the rent is very high. But if that is the case, why would he agree to allowing the child to live there? Have the kid and custodial parent move somewhere that is not as expensive.
Futher, the support must connected to how much he is actually making. If he is out of work, he needs to be given a reprieve. That means either he temporarily absolved from having to make payments until he gets work or the government stops applying interest to the support he owes. Most men would prefer the latter. The most common complaint I get is the unreasonable interest charged where $500 in due child support gets ballooned to $5000 owed, merely because of the unreasonably high penalty interest added to the amount owed.
I know a few men who owe $50,000 in back support. How much of it is actually the amount owed for the child? $1,200. Where did the rest come from? Inhumane punitive fees and interest charges that are designed to automatically treat all men as evil criminals.
Los Angeles County, Cal.

So now you would have men decide where a woman lives? Her rent has nothing to do with the amount of child support he pays. Her bills are no factor whatsoever. Child support in your state is determined based on his income (disposable) solely and his level of custody. Her rent payments are not considered and are, thus, none of his business, mysogyny aside.

Um, you really should read the child support laws in your state. People who are unemployed (both men and women pay child support) ARE given a reprieve. Child support IS based on income. If you're going to argue for changes in the law, should you not know what the law is currently? I linked it for you in a previous post. I'd recommend reading up.

You're not saying much good about your status as a teacher with the way you come in and get all condescending.

Actually, when I did teach people who were not adults they actually liked very much that my interaction with people was based on merit and not on age. I am not condescending to children of any age unless they merit it. I am not condescending to adults unless they merit it. I'll give you an example, a person comes in and claims credentials that make their claims have more weight and it turns out those credentials are an associate's degree in BA. That same person says that minority women are less trustworthy with child support. That same person wants to deny choice to women. That same person wants to enhance the choices of men. That same person suggests that children need not be considered in the responsibility of parents. Yep, that person earns a condescending tone.

"Little Billy, now quit pulling Mary's pigtails."
"She was looking at me funny. All little girls look at me funny."
"Okay, now, Billy, put down the scissors and follow me. Billy... Billy...No. Billy, NO! Bad Billy. Bad Billy."

I treat people with the respect they deserve. When I see evidence that you are respectful to EVERYONE including the dirty whores, greasy mexicans and unlawful negros then you'll notice my tone will become a lot more respectful.

Wow, Jacoba someone has struck a nerve eh? And in some of your arguments your exactly right. In cases where there is consentual partnership and a child is born, BOTH parents should have to support the child. Thats not what we are talking about here I dont think. Honestly, Although I think its off topic, I dont think there is a fair way to provide support for a child except the custodial parent save reciepts showing funds spent on the child and the noncustodial parent paying exactly half of these bills. Anything new should have to be agreed upon by both parents before hand except in extreme situations like surgery or hospitalization and such. The problem with this is the Word "agreed". Most females unless it gives them some sort of financial gain wont agree, or try and budget for that matter. "Doesn't matter to me what it costs, I don't have to pay for it he does and he should because I carried HIS child for 9 months and have to live my life around it now" is a quote I actually heard. But as far as before the child is born and if there isnt a marrage or partnership of some kind between the 2 adults, I do believe BOTH parties whould have the chance to make a rsponsible decision even if the decision to have sex and make the baby weren't done responsibly.
Just my humble opinion.

Men should not, do not and will not have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. Pregnancy puts a woman in harm's way. You pretend like a man should be involved in the decision but remember, there is NO child. The man at this point is merely telling an independent women he deemed mature enough to sleep with that she is not mature enough to decide whether her body undergoes one medical procedure or another. A man and a woman can discuss intentionally having a child. A man and a woman can discuss adoption. A man and a woman can discuss birth control. However, ultimately, until there is another person who is injured by a woman's medical choices they are hers. In the case of abortion, the only person involved is the woman. The only time anyone else is effected is if she does not get one, and no one can coerce or force a woman to undergo a potentially dangerous surgery.

Grin , Yes I did get long winded there, will try and put a pause or two in.

No, As a matter of fact i don't watch Jerry Springer, its all staged and really the only value of it is entertainment. But I have lived in a trailer court lol. I have seen with my own eyes children that shouldnt have been brought into the world in the first place running around with no shoes because there mom spent all the CS on dope or booze.

And No, I dont agree with men being able to father several children and then bow out saying "I dont want the child". But on the other hand, I believe women have the choice of saying" Wow, that guy is a deadbeat, he should at least have teeth if Im gonna have a relationship with him." I believe in the fact that women have a brain and are able to make realistic decisions based on wheather the guy is "Dad Material" or not. And for the Most part alot of women do just this. The cases we are talking about here arent the mainstream, they are the ones like what you see portrayed on Jerry Springer, most of the divorced dads that I know(And I know a few) have no problem at all paying a fair and just amount of child support or giving extra to make sure the child is comfortable.
But on the other hand, IF women werent guaranteed support for the next 18-20 years that might give them something to think about before making the decision or the Choice to have a child. If its prochoice this is the only way to think. If it's prolife Think about the life the child is going to ahve once it is brought into the world? Is it a good fair and just life for the child to live his existance in a world where he obviously wasnt wanted by either parent but now has to be cared for?
Do you believe it is right for a child to have to be part of the welfare system and grow up fending for itself?
Do you believe it is right for a Custodial parent (And I say custodial Parent because men are just as guilty for it as women, they just dont get custody as much) to be able to have several children as an income, relying on the state (Your Taxes) and a Dad that is never around to support them while they go out and make more babies?
Like I said, There is only one way to make it fair and just after the fact, and its a burden on all concerned including the child, So the choice should be made prior to there being a child to worry about.
i think its bad for society to have a woman make abortion decision based on the support she will or will not be getting from the father. i think the father should be forced to support any child he has (which is current law)

i believe that even children raised on welfare have a right to live. that there is nothing inherently wrong with growing up poor and that it is not better to have never lived than to have grown up poor.

of course its wrong for women to keep having babies so they can continue to get welfare (yes ive known a few of those) that is why welfare was reformed in the clinton administration and its no longer possible to do that.

unless one tricks a rich man into fatherhood (like robert blake) child suppport isnt enough to raise a child on. its very hard for a woman to hide her many children by many fathers from the next guy she is hoping to trick into fatherhood.

yes the choice should be made before conception. people should know all about those they have sex with. too bad thats not always the way it works. some men prey on young women, some women target wealthy men, sometimes its all an unfortunate "accident". once conception has occurred both people invovled have responsibilities. there is no way to make it FAIR. both (or all 3 if you include the potential child) have rights and responsibilities that are different from the other's.

i think its bad for society to have a woman make abortion decision based on the support she will or will not be getting from the father. i think the father should be forced to support any child he has (which is current law)

i believe that even children raised on welfare have a right to live. that there is nothing inherently wrong with growing up poor and that it is not better to have never lived than to have grown up poor.

of course its wrong for women to keep having babies so they can continue to get welfare (yes ive known a few of those) that is why welfare was reformed in the clinton administration and its no longer possible to do that.

unless one tricks a rich man into fatherhood (like robert blake) child suppport isnt enough to raise a child on. its very hard for a woman to hide her many children by many fathers from the next guy she is hoping to trick into fatherhood.

yes the choice should be made before conception. people should know all about those they have sex with. too bad thats not always the way it works. some men prey on young women, some women target wealthy men, sometimes its all an unfortunate "accident". once conception has occurred both people invovled have responsibilities. there is no way to make it FAIR. both (or all 3 if you include the potential child) have rights and responsibilities that are different from the other's.

Ashmoria, are you already married, male or a lesbian, because I think I'm in love with you?

This exact thing happened to me, I did get behind once Because I was laid off and at the same time the child support enforcement Division decided (All by them selves mind you, they have there own judges) that my exwife needed a raise. My child support was more than doubled. I contested, alone at first, and she had the chance to say "No, the CS before hand was ok with me.". Instead she chose to say "I could use a little more". and had her free lawyer argue the point. Mind you it took 90 days for this to get to a mediation all this time me making my regular payments thru the court, but accrueing interest on the extra they said I might be oweing if the mediation decision (Also decided upon by the CSED judges) was for the raise.
Of course the decision was for the CSED and I then had the option of Hiring a lawyer and going to actual court (Which I did and it was decided there it was unfair) or just "catching up" on my CS payments or losing my Trade License (I work construction) and my drivers License(not allowing me to go to work and getting farther behind). I did go to court and it did get resolved but the extra that was put on my tab while fighting and the interest accrued they said I still owed, and there was nothing I could do about it.
This could have all been resolved if the custodial parent (My exwife) had simply had to fork over a shred of proof that more CS was needed, which she didnt have to do because the state was deciding for her.
LOL, OK.. /rant off
What happened to you is just plain wrong and stuff like this needs to be addressed. For too long, the sytem, as promoted by Jacobia, has caused more harm than good. If you charge outrages interest rates and high penalties, you remove the man's ability to pay.
If you take away driver's licenses and a man's ability to work, you take away his ability to pay.
It is not only the man who is being hurt by the current system, it is the child.

What happened to you is just plain wrong and stuff like this needs to be addressed. For too long, the sytem, as promoted by Jacobia, has caused more harm than good. If you charge outrages interest rates and high penalties, you remove the man's ability to pay.
If you take away driver's licenses and a man's ability to work, you take away his ability to pay.
It is not only the man who is being hurt by the current system, it is the child.

Uh-huh, let's pretend this thread is about supporting the current child support system. It's not. If you'd like to start one, do so. I'm all for making sure child support is fair to the child and reasonable for the parents as well. It is occasionally abused by one or both parents or the administrators of CS. I've said all of this. Burn, strawman, burn.

Mr. Smoke and Mirrors, let's pretend like your whole point wasn't to deny child support altogether rather reform the current system. Do I need to go back and quote you? I'm happy to do it.

Now if you'd like to quote me where I said the current child support system works great and we should make no changes. I'll wait. *waits*

Ashmoria, are you already married, male or a lesbian, because I think I'm in love with you?
well isnt that sweet!

married 22 years this month.

So we don't lose the point, you, Whittier, are claiming that not just a majority but 85% of women are abusing their child support payments.

I've met over 300 during my life who were either paying or recieving child support. Of those, 15% were using the money for their kids. The rest of the women were using the money to go clubbing while leaving their kids home alone starving and with holes in their clothes. And the state would not do anything cause in California, the woman can do what ever the hell she wants with the child support money cause its considered to be hers and not the childs. Its like the state considers it a due payment just for keeping the child around. Now if you don't have a problem with that, I have a problem with you.

Of course, in the state of California it IS considered the child's but hey, who needs to stick to the facts, right? And of course, 85% is a RIDICULOUS number, but again, facts-schmacts. And 85% of the children in homes receiving child support are at 'home alone starving and with holes in their clothes'. Yep, no hyperbole there. Nope, no way. Nothing ridiculous about that.

Should women who are denying their children adequate support because they are using child support payments for other than the child lose that child support? Yep. They should also lose custody of the child and be prosecuted for defrauding a minor. I've made no bones about addressing the people who abuse the system. I'm simply realistic about the fact that by no means is the vast majority of women abusing the system as you claim. But then, you didn't say the vast majority, you said the vast majority of minority women, didn't you?

You also know that of all such mothers, teen mothers are the most likely to actually use the money for their kid. Unless of course, they are members of ethnic minorities such as hispanics or blacks who insist the money is for them.

Emphasis mine.

Would you like to build the next strawman please while I still have the torch lit? Quickly now.

well isnt that sweet!

married 22 years this month.

I actually knew that. But seriously I love your arguments in this discussion. Of course, you need to be careful, because if you're not an advocate of allowing men to deny child support to children on a whim then you think everything about the current child support system is hunky-dory. I hope someone informed you of that when you entered the thread.

This exact thing happened to me, I did get behind once Because I was laid off and at the same time the child support enforcement Division decided (All by them selves mind you, they have there own judges) that my exwife needed a raise. My child support was more than doubled. I contested, alone at first, and she had the chance to say "No, the CS before hand was ok with me.". Instead she chose to say "I could use a little more". and had her free lawyer argue the point. Mind you it took 90 days for this to get to a mediation all this time me making my regular payments thru the court, but accrueing interest on the extra they said I might be oweing if the mediation decision (Also decided upon by the CSED judges) was for the raise.
Of course the decision was for the CSED and I then had the option of Hiring a lawyer and going to actual court (Which I did and it was decided there it was unfair) or just "catching up" on my CS payments or losing my Trade License (I work construction) and my drivers License(not allowing me to go to work and getting farther behind). I did go to court and it did get resolved but the extra that was put on my tab while fighting and the interest accrued they said I still owed, and there was nothing I could do about it.
This could have all been resolved if the custodial parent (My exwife) had simply had to fork over a shred of proof that more CS was needed, which she didnt have to do because the state was deciding for her.
LOL, OK.. /rant off
What happened to you is just plain wrong and stuff like this needs to be addressed. For too long, the sytem, as promoted by Jacobia, has caused more harm than good. If you charge outrages interest rates and high penalties, you remove the man's ability to pay.
If you take away driver's licenses and a man's ability to work, you take away his ability to pay.
It is not only the man who is being hurt by the current system, it is the child.

Who said they do make public policy? You keep putting words in my mouth. The point is that I encounted a lot of women who were in the situation and not abusing it.



You're not paying attention. I said they first got pregnant as teenagers. Some of them have twelve and fourteen-year-olds. Some of them got pregnant and then married the father had a couple of kids and then got divorced. Very few of them were teenagers when I met them.



Most of them were minorities which seems to combat your racist claim. Also, I love how now my anecdotal evidence doesn't count because teenage mothers (which you apparently encounters almost none of) are least likely to abuse the system, according to you. Oh, wait, unless they're dirty mexicans or negros, because they can't be trusted. If you weren't serious, your racism would be amusing.



Do you think teenage mothers are the most likely to get 'a little guidance'. Teenage mothers in many cases are the children of teenage mothers. If they had gotten a little guidance and support they more than likely would have completed school in the first place (provided they didn't happen to go to a school that booted them out for being pregnant).



Okay. Can you please give some examples of these cases? It should be relatively easy since there are 'many'.



No, I'm saying I'm not going to attack this group without evidence, which you've not supplied. You cannot deny rights on the basis of sweeping and unsupported generalizations. I'm not basing my beliefs on a select group. I'm basing my beliefs on the fact that I believe people should be treated fairly and equally unless evidence is given to do otherwise. If I remember correctly there is a consitutional amendment with this express purpose. Hmmm.... what's it called? Oh, the fourteenth amendment.



You were walking door-to-door and women were answering the door and telling you that they were spending child support money on partying and denying the child the support they deserve. They told you that they were using the money to buy presents for their boyfriends. I'm certain that's the case. I mean, I know that I can't to tell people about how I mistreat people.

Since you've said who you are, let's talk about a few of the laws where you come from.

Adoption law and who can give a child up for adoption -
http://laws.adoption.com/statutes/california-laws,3.html

Requires both parents to consent, just as I stated. Looks like men have the same ability to 'enslave' the mother if they so choose once a child exists.

Child support law -
http://www.childsup.cahwnet.gov/faq.asp

Hmmm... looks like children are legally owed support from BOTH parents, not just the mother or the father.

Can I get child support if I'm not sure who the father of my child is?

No. Paternity (a legal determination of who the father is) must be established before child support can be ordered. Paternity gives your child many rights, including child support, access to medical records, government benefits and more

What do you know? It lists child support as a right of the child. Sounds like something I said. Oh, wait, it is. It also says that child support REQUIRES established paternity. Amazing that you could manage to not know the laws and attempt to legislate them. Politicians :rolleyes:

Wow, let's look at your platform, shall we?


1. Men should have a federal right to bloodtest if a woman wants a court to force them to
involuntarily pay child support. This right would not apply if the man waves it.

Already a right. Whoops. Good research you did there. Yep, I guess you know better than a little investigation of the law because knocked on doors.

6. We need to promote better male responsibility and male celibacy. Male celebacy is the best form of natural birth control for those who have the guts to practice it.

4. I support allowing both parents to claim the children on their federal tax returns whether they are married or not. Even if the woman is working and already claims the child. Both should be allowed to claim the children. Allowing a a father to deduct child support from his taxes will encourage deadbeats to start paying up. This also means bigger tax savings for American couples.

How very consistent of you. You promote better male responsibility by allowing them absolve themselve from raising their children. Yep, makes sense.

7. Remove the federal government from having any role in abortion. Bar both the President and Congress from banning or promoting abortion.

Oh, look who's anti-choice. You pretend like you support choice, but really you're being deceptive. Looks like Nazz pegged you.

Oh, oh, here's my favorite -

THE CANALES AMENDMENT
SECTION 1: CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAWS FAVORING OR PROHIBITING ABORTION.

SECTION 2:CONGRESS SHALL NEITHER FUND ABORTION NOR WITHHOLD FUNDING FROM STATES OR INDIVIDUALS ON THE BASIS OF WHETHER THEY SUPPORT OR OPPOSE ABORTION.

SECTION 3: THE PRESIDENT AND HIS CABINET SHALL NEITHER ISSUE OR ENFORCE ANY LAWS OR REGULATIONS REGARDING THE PARTICIPATION BY ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN IN THE ABORTION PROCEDURE.

SECTION 4: THE STATES SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO ENACT AND ENFORCE ALL NECESSARY LAWS ENCOURAGING OR RESTRICTING ABORTION WIHTIN THEIR BORDERS, AS SHALL SEEM TO THEM TO BE IN THEIR BEST INTEREST.

SECTION 5: THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE INOPERATIVE UNLESS IT SHALL HAVE BEEN RATIFIED AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION BY CONVENTIONS IN THREE-FOURTHS OF THE STATES, WITHIN ONE HUNDRED YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE SUBMISSION HEREOF TO THE STATES BY THE CONGRESS.

Section 5? Wow, that's some good understanding of the Constitution you have there. Here I thought the rules for amending the Constitution were already laid out, but apparently they must defined in the amendment where the 'rule' only counts if the amendment has already passed. Brilliant.

Hmmmm... Now, you mentioned credentials. Let's see what your degree is in, shall we?



In 1993 he began attending Rio Hondo Community College where he obtained an Associates Degree in Business Administration in 1999.

An associates degree in business administration. How could I have doubted you? Those are some hefty credentials there.

Let's find some other contradictions because this is fun -

He also began a major study of the abortion issue and its affects on American society. This research sidetracked him from his studies at Rio Hondo. He read many articles presenting both sides of the debate, listened to television and news reports and discussed it with a couple of hundred women.



Hmmmm.... more consistency. Nice.

Oh, and by the way, I'd be interested in seeing the wording of this amendment -

He also has drafted a religious freedom/equal rights amendment to protect the right of students to pray in school, let states implement voucher programs for poor families, and to ban denial of equal protection under the law on the basis of religion, gender, national origin, ideology, age, disability, and sexual orientation. This comprehensive amendment also addresses other important issues. If it is introduced into the Congress, it will be the most comprehensive amendment so far, clarify the religious freedom and church state seperation, and will be the first amendment to propose constitutional protections for the elderly, the disabled, and people with diverse sexual orientations. He beleives this amendment is important in light of the fact that the US Supreme Court virtually ruled recently that neither the Congress nor the President had any constitutional authority to protect the rights of the elderly and disabled.

Linking to your campaign site didn't help your case. It's just more evidence of your inconsistency.

Those laws you cited were implemented after the fact. After 2000 which is when the site was put up and the campaign was in operation. In 2000 those laws did not exist. And the child support laws were far far different from what you linked to.
The fact that they were changed may have something to do with the fact that I am very opinionated and had a lot of friends in the California legislature who I regularly expressed my views to. Heck, I kept some of them informed on what the issues of concern to the people were.

And I am getting tired of your libelous racism/anti-women charges.

The abortion amendment was designed to stop special interest groups like Planned Parenthood and Focus on the Family from imposing their little culture war on the rest of us. A lot of prochoice groups said the amendment was a good idea. Lucky for you the christian fanatics in the Republican party opposed it. Do you really want the feds to decide who should be allowed and who should not be allowed to have an abortion? What ever happened to the right of a woman to decide if she needed an abortion. Further, it is very wrong to force people, who oppose abortion, to pay for it for immoral women. The part you cite would block the federal government from dictating terms which is what it does when dems are in power.

Most amendments, after the 20th I believe, include such clauses that place a time limit on passage. And no, that is not an automatic rule for amendments. That is why you have to include it. Amendments are not subject to the same rules as other laws.

As for bloodtests, they are still not a right in every state. Nor were they the right in california at the time I wrote that. The reason it is now, is that in 2000, Republicans kicked democratic ass and made it a right.

I actually knew that. But seriously I love your arguments in this discussion. Of course, you need to be careful, because if you're not an advocate of allowing men to deny child support to children on a whim then you think everything about the current child support system is hunky-dory. I hope someone informed you of that when you entered the thread.

all systems can use some tweaking eh? nothing that deals with people is free from abuse

the reason men feel that the woman is "wasting' child support is that they look at the "top" of her budget rather than the "bottom line"

so she is getting by after a fashion before he is required to pay child support. after he starts paying he sees that she is suddenly GOING OUT TO EAT, or worse yet BUYING A PRESENT FOR HER BOYFRIEND. this is obviously HIS money going to this frivolity.

what has really happened is that his money is going to her bottom line, paying rent, food, clothing, etc for the child in question. this frees up some of HER money that then goes for "frivolous" things. until his contribution exceeds half the cost of raising a child, his money isnt being wasted.

and, as to it being unfair for a man to lose his drivers license, my neice had her deadbeat exboyfriend lose his driver's lic. his hunting lic, and took some of his girlfriends money that they had in a joint account in order to get this guy to start paying what he owed. its a tough life when you cant be bothered to support your children.

Actually, when I did teach people who were not adults they actually liked very much that my interaction with people was based on merit and not on age. I am not condescending to children of any age unless they merit it. I am not condescending to adults unless they merit it. I'll give you an example, a person comes in and claims credentials that make their claims have more weight and it turns out those credentials are an associate's degree in BA. That same person says that minority women are less trustworthy with child support. That same person wants to deny choice to women. That same person wants to enhance the choices of men. That same person suggests that children need not be considered in the responsibility of parents. Yep, that person earns a condescending tone.

"Little Billy, now quit pulling Mary's pigtails."
"She was looking at me funny. All little girls look at me funny."
"Okay, now, Billy, put down the scissors and follow me. Billy... Billy...No. Billy, NO! Bad Billy. Bad Billy."

I treat people with the respect they deserve. When I see evidence that you are respectful to EVERYONE including the dirty whores, greasy mexicans and unlawful negros then you'll notice my tone will become a lot more respectful.
Your post shows you to be a partisan democrat. Tell me, do you hate America like the other democrats do?
It only makes sense, since it is only the dems who engage in divide and conquer by using race card. And their claims of America being an evil empire have had wide publication lately. Just look at the remarks by Barbara Boxer, the leader of the democrats.
I do not hate Democrats.
Contrary to what you are libelously claiming, I don't hate women nor do I hate children, in fact I am very good children.
Nor do I hate hispanics. In fact I got a lot of my input from hispanics.
What I do hate and what I do disrespect is powerhungry democrats and partisan hacks such as yourself and Nazz.
Let's cut to the chase and call your posts what they really are? A shameful attempt to return democrats to power by pandering to people's greatest fears. By pandering the race card. It didn't work in 2000. It didn't work 2004. And it won't work in 2006 or in 2008. The American people have wisened up to your tactics.

As for the equal rights amendment, I'll tell what it would have done. Equal rights under the law for all religious groups and for homosexuals.

The rights that were implemented in California in the last 5 years, must be expanded to cover the entire United States cause there are a lot of states where those rights do not exist. And that is a job of a member of Congress.

Those laws you cited were implemented after the fact. After 2000 which is when the site was put up and the campaign was in operation. In 2000 those laws did not exist. And the child support laws were far far different from what you linked to.
The fact that they were changed may have something to do with the fact that I am very opinionated and had a lot of friends in the California legislature who I regularly expressed my views to. Heck, I kept some of them informed on what the issues of concern to the people were.

Ok, so you should be able to tell me when those laws were enacted and cite the specific laws then. I mean you haven't actually supplied an evidence yet, but hey, there's a first time for anything.

And I am getting tired of your libelous racism/anti-women charges.

It's not libelous when I quote you.

The abortion amendment was designed to stop special interest groups like Planned Parenthood and Focus on the Family from imposing their little culture war on the rest of us. A lot of prochoice groups said the amendment was a good idea. Lucky for you the christian fanatics in the Republican party opposed it. Do you really want the feds to decide who should be allowed and who should not be allowed to have an abortion? What ever happened to the right of a woman to decide if she needed an abortion. Further, it is very wrong to force people, who oppose abortion, to pay for it for immoral women. The part you cite would block the federal government from dictating terms which is what it does when dems are in power.

Your amendment is an attempt to take away the choice of women that is protected by the Constitution. Don't pretend. Anyone who reads your site can see that you're not pro-choice. It's obvious. You know denying funding to states based on what services they offer is not the same as overturning Roe v. Wade, yeah? See Roe v. Wade simply gives a woman jurisdiction over her body.

Let's just ignore that you make it clear on your site that you're looking to take away the federal protection of a woman's right to choose. But, hey, let's disguise it as attempt to expand a woman's right to choose. Yeah, that'll work. Can't imagine why you didn't get elected.

Most amendments, after the 20th I believe, include such clauses that place a time limit on passage. And no, that is not an automatic rule for amendments. That is why you have to include it. Amendments are not subject to the same rules as other laws.

I wasn't talking about the time limit. That's common. I was talking about including how it gets passed.

As for bloodtests, they are still not a right in every state. Nor were they the right in california at the time I wrote that. The reason it is now, is that in 2000, Republicans kicked democratic ass and made it a right.

Again, could you cite the law and when it was enacted? Evidence please.

Your post shows you to be a partisan democrat. Tell me, do you hate America like the other democrats do?

Ha. Amusing. Unlike you, I was honorably discharged from the US Marine Corps after serving eight years. I also wouldn't vote any group as corrupt as the Democrats OR the Republicans. I can imagine how you would think that a post where I say that I treat people with the respect they earn would make you assume I'm not a Republican. I couldn't agree more. However Republican and Democrat aren't the only choices. I'm also amused that you call me a partisan and then you make ANOTHER sweeping statement that shows how particularly partisan you are.

Tell me, do you pretend to be someone who honorably served your country like other Republicans do?

It only makes sense, since it is only the dems who engage in divide and conquer by using race card. And their claims of America being an evil empire have had wide publication lately. Just look at the remarks by Barbara Boxer, the leader of the democrats.
I do not hate Democrats.

I used the race card. Seems like it's time to quote again.

You also know that of all such mothers, teen mothers are the most likely to actually use the money for their kid. Unless of course, they are members of ethnic minorities such as hispanics or blacks who insist the money is for them.

Hmmm... now who was it that injected race again? I'm fairly certain I never mentioned race until you made racist statements that suggest that being of certain races somehow makes you less responsible.

Contrary to what you are libelously claiming, I don't hate women nor do I hate children, in fact I am very good children.

Let's pretend that's a sentence. You wish to deny children the support of fathers. That's as pro-children as it gets. Anyone can see that.

You wish to deny women choice by overturning Roe v Wade. You suggested the 85% of women who receive child support are out clubbing around while their children are starving and wearing tattered clothes. Yep, real pro-women. Oh, I forgot to mention how you wish to deny children support from their fathers altogether and force women to raise the children alone. Yep, I know I wouldn't be afraid to allow you to date my sister. Although, to be fair, that's because my sister would make you cry the first time you opened your mouth and admitted your beliefs.

Time for another quote:

I've met over 300 during my life who were either paying or recieving child support. Of those, 15% were using the money for their kids. The rest of the women were using the money to go clubbing while leaving their kids home alone starving and with holes in their clothes. And the state would not do anything cause in California, the woman can do what ever the hell she wants with the child support money cause its considered to be hers and not the childs. Its like the state considers it a due payment just for keeping the child around. Now if you don't have a problem with that, I have a problem with you.

Ha. Nothing anti-women there. Uh-huh.

Nor do I hate hispanics. In fact I got a lot of my input from hispanics.
What I do hate and what I do disrespect is powerhungry democrats and partisan hacks such as yourself and Nazz.

Partisan, huh? When did I ever mention party? Oh, wait, it was you who brought parties into this. Ridiculous. You bring in race and then say I played the race card. You bring in parties and say I played partisan politics. You need to pick up a dictionary.

Partisan - noun - Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause: partisan politics.

Now when you can name when I supported a specific party, group or cause rather simply sticking to ideas, I'd be interested to see the quote.

You don't hate hispanics? Is it just hispanic single mothers?

Let's cut to the chase and call your posts what they really are? A shameful attempt to return democrats to power by pandering to people's greatest fears. By pandering the race card. It didn't work in 2000. It didn't work 2004. And it won't work in 2006 or in 2008. The American people have wisened up to your tactics.

Ha. Yep. I'm a democrat. Care to hear what I think of the Democrats? I'd be happy to explain how I specifically think Clinton was a liar and a hypocrite, how he violated the constitution, etc.? Of course, that's not really germaine to the conversation.

As for the equal rights amendment, I'll tell what it would have done. Equal rights under the law for all religious groups and for homosexuals.

What religious groups are not receiving equal rights? And homosexuals deserve equal rights under the law and the constitution already supports it. A more appropriate campaign is to get the Republicans and the Democrats to stop spitting on the Constitution.

The rights that were implemented in California in the last 5 years, must be expanded to cover the entire United States cause there are a lot of states where those rights do not exist. And that is a job of a member of Congress.
Oh, yeah. Perhaps you should take a look at those laws. And weren't you just the one arguing to make rights move to the state level rather than enacted by the federal government. Hey, who needs to be consistent when you're a politician, right?

I'm marking this post by the way - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10110268&postcount=298 - it's hilarious. You took a post I wrote outlining your positions and how I don't like them because they are racist and mysogynistic and you say that makes me a democrat, very suggestive of how you think Republicans feel about minorities and women. Amusing. In attacking Democrats, you actually insulted Republicans.

Of course, you need to be careful, because if you're not an advocate of allowing men to deny child support to children on a whim

You're very, very fond of the strawman today, aren't you? Do you need a little more fiber in your diet? Who has advocated any such thing?

As for the topic of discussion:

In a perfect world, where every adult was responsible, this wouldn't be an issue. When people say that any man who would take advantage of such a system is irresponsible, most of us are going to say, "Damn straight!" Of course, we don't live in a world where everyone is responsible, now do we? In such a world, there would be no unwanted children. Anyone who didn't want kids simply wouldn't have sex - or would consider abortion. Again, the whole discussion would be a moot point.

Some interesting points in the last 5 or so pages:

Jocabia, you suggest that any woman who will not consider an abortion because of religion has no choice at all. This is utter bullshit. She still makes a decision not to have an abortion. The fact that it is based in religion does ont remove the decision itself, nor the responsibilities that go along with making the decision.

Whittier, the suggestion that most women who receive child support spend it on "clubbing, etc." is spurious. Most parents in this world care about their children and are going to do the best they can to take care of them. When we have discussions like this, we aren't talking about those types of parents. We are talking about the bottom of the barrel. We are talking about those who don't want to take responsibility for their actions. In many cases, forcing someone to take responsibility for their actions is a good thing. If someone spraypaints a neighboor's wall, they should take responsibility for that. If someone chooses to take drugs, they should take responsibilty for any consequences that ensue. However, forcing someone to take responsibility for a child puts that child in danger. We aren't talking about a wall or a car accident or a house burning down. We are talking about a human being that requires much more than monetary support.

Several people have created a fun strawman argument that suggests anyone is saying that the woman is more responsible simply because she carries the child. Obviously, that would be silly. The actual argument is that the woman is more responsible because she is the only one with the right to make a decision that directly results in there either being (or not being) a child. If she chooses abortion, no child. If she chooses to give birth, there is a child. She has that choice, and must therefore take the responsibilities that come along with it. Of course, this argument (at least when I was making it) never had anything at all to do with legality. It had to do with morality. I don't think that anyone can suggest that they are acting in the best interests of the child and then turn around and advocate forcing parenting upon anyone.

One could argue that the father makes the decision to let her make that decision when he has sex. However, this is not even close to being in the best interests of any child that results. The type of person who would use a "paper abortion" is not going to be a good father. Having him around at all is going to be psychologically damaging to the child. I am not a fan of the argument being made here that, "Money = all". It doesn't. A poor child in a loving atmosphere is going to be much better off than a child with more money who has parents that don't want to be parents. A child with a single loving parent is going to be in a better situation than a child with one parent who is loving and a second parent who resents the fact that the child exists at all. A child with adoptive parents is going to be in a better situation than a child with one or two parents that do not want it and thus resent it.

Forcing anyone, whether they brought the child into the world or not, to take the responsibility for the child is putting the child in danger. If they have to be forced, and will not take it on willingly, no reasonable person can logically argue that we are taking the interests of the child into account. All we are doing is placing the child in a situation that, best case scenario, is psychologically damaging and, worst case scenario, is physically dangerous.

The idiotic suggestion that anyone who thinks the child needs a little more than monetary support "isn't taking the interests of the child into account" is incredibly spurious. Monetary support is necessary, but can come from anywhere. It can come from the mother, the father, the state, charity, grandparents, adoptive parents, aunts, uncles, family friends, the CEO of Sony, etc....... Psychological and emotional support, on the other hand, can only be given willingly. Thus, only someone willing to take on that burden - the burden of parenthood - is going to give such support. Having a "parent" in the picture that isn't interested in giving such support has the exact opposite effect - it damages the child psychologically and emotionally. Thus, getting such a parent out of the picture is in the best interests of the child.


On another note, I have yet to see a single person advocating that someone (anyone) be legally forced to be a parent equally advocate that any person so forced gets an equal say in the child's future. If this really were a matter of equal rights and responsibilities, the second the child is born, both parents would have equal custody. This means equal time with the child, equal say in medical matters, etc. This is, of course, not the case. As it stands, unless the man and woman are married, the woman gets immediate and full custody. If the man wants even partial custody, he must go to court to sue for it. If a woman listed someone else (or no one) on the birth certificate, he must first get a court order to get a paternity test done, for which he needs some sort of evidence that he might be the father (which, unless he can show he was in a committed relationship with the woman in question or there was someone else with them while they had sex, is a bit difficult to come by without the paternity test in the first place). This is, of course, a bit off-topic, and could be the topic of an entirely different discussion. It just seems to have crept into the conversation a bit.

It seems to me that people are misunderstanding the scope and functioning of law.

No matter what laws are in place, the consequences of a pregnancy to the two parents will not be identical.

The workings and effects of biology need to be reckoned seperately with the workings and effects of the law. The law can only take biology into account, it cannot over-rule or issue a binding injunction against it.

The law in the US grants that people have certain rights over their bodies. It is because of this principal that woman cannot be forced to have an abortion, and cannot be forced to refrain from one (within certain limits).

The law does not apply only to women. No man has ever yet needed the protection of the law for the purpose of securing freedom from or access to an abortion, but that is a working of biology, not of the law. Men are fully entitled to the protection of this law, and if ever a man is pregnant then the protections will certainly apply. There's nothing whatsoever the law can do about the lack of pregnant men seeking to apply the protection it provides for that particular purpose!

In law 'persons' have rights (and obligations). If you can show that a live human being has a time and place of birth (even approximate) the law is unlikely not to recognise that human being as a person. In application this means that any newborn human being will probaby be recognised in law as a legal person with subsequent rights. As it happens a newborn (if recognised as a person) is seen in law as a particular type of person (ie a minor) with certain legal disabilities as well as certain rights. These are intended to recognise and grant protection in accordance with the 'vulnerable status' of an immature human being.

This includes a right to have other people held responsible for their well-being. The law makes a primae facie assumption that two of the most 'responsible' parties are the two parents. However the rights of minors do not stop there. Indeed most parties who are not themselves minors assume an onus under a minor's rights if they engage in a relationship with the minor.
Not only is there no general right to be free of obligations to minors (in accordance with the special rights the law grants to minors), but rather there is a presumption that people assume these obligations simply by being in a relationship to a minor, however uninvited the relationship might be.

A biological parent has a relationship to their child that is legally recognised in the absence of an adoption (that legally severes the link).

The principals at law (once a child is born) are that a person with special rights and disabilities, (both of which place subsequent legal obligations on a vast range of people) has a particular claim under these special rights and disabilities.

This principal is being pitted against a non-existent right to 'opt-out' of the legal obligations a relationship with a minor places on someone.

So the law enforces the rights of the legal minor against the non-existent right of someone to 'opt out' of non-optional legal obligations.

The issue of abortion is a red herring. The decision to not exercise her right to access an abortion, has no legal bearing on the special legal status (and subsequent disabilities and rights) of any of a woman's off-spring.

Ha. Amusing. Unlike you, I was honorably discharged from the US Marine Corps after serving eight years. I also wouldn't vote any group as corrupt as the Democrats OR the Republicans. I can imagine how you would think that a post where I say that I treat people with the respect they earn would make you assume I'm not a Republican. I couldn't agree more. However Republican and Democrat aren't the only choices. I'm also amused that you call me a partisan and then you make ANOTHER sweeping statement that shows how particularly partisan you are.

Tell me, do you pretend to be someone who honorably served your country like other Republicans do?



I used the race card. Seems like it's time to quote again.



Hmmm... now who was it that injected race again? I'm fairly certain I never mentioned race until you made racist statements that suggest that being of certain races somehow makes you less responsible.



Let's pretend that's a sentence. You wish to deny children the support of fathers. That's as pro-children as it gets. Anyone can see that.

You wish to deny women choice by overturning Roe v Wade. You suggested the 85% of women who receive child support are out clubbing around while their children are starving and wearing tattered clothes. Yep, real pro-women. Oh, I forgot to mention how you wish to deny children support from their fathers altogether and force women to raise the children alone. Yep, I know I wouldn't be afraid to allow you to date my sister. Although, to be fair, that's because my sister would make you cry the first time you opened your mouth and admitted your beliefs.

Time for another quote:



Ha. Nothing anti-women there. Uh-huh.



Partisan, huh? When did I ever mention party? Oh, wait, it was you who brought parties into this. Ridiculous. You bring in race and then say I played the race card. You bring in parties and say I played partisan politics. You need to pick up a dictionary.

Partisan - noun - Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause: partisan politics.

Now when you can name when I supported a specific party, group or cause rather simply sticking to ideas, I'd be interested to see the quote.

You don't hate hispanics? Is it just hispanic single mothers?



Ha. Yep. I'm a democrat. Care to hear what I think of the Democrats? I'd be happy to explain how I specifically think Clinton was a liar and a hypocrite, how he violated the constitution, etc.? Of course, that's not really germaine to the conversation.



What religious groups are not receiving equal rights? And homosexuals deserve equal rights under the law and the constitution already supports it. A more appropriate campaign is to get the Republicans and the Democrats to stop spitting on the Constitution.


Oh, yeah. Perhaps you should take a look at those laws. And weren't you just the one arguing to make rights move to the state level rather than enacted by the federal government. Hey, who needs to be consistent when you're a politician, right?

I'm marking this post by the way - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10110268&postcount=298 - it's hilarious. You took a post I wrote outlining your positions and how I don't like them because they are racist and mysogynistic and you say that makes me a democrat, very suggestive of how you think Republicans feel about minorities and women. Amusing. In attacking Democrats, you actually insulted Republicans.
I've telegrammed you.

You're very, very fond of the strawman today, aren't you? Do you need a little more fiber in your diet? Who has advocated any such thing?

As for the topic of discussion:

In a perfect world, where every adult was responsible, this wouldn't be an issue. When people say that any man who would take advantage of such a system is irresponsible, most of us are going to say, "Damn straight!" Of course, we don't live in a world where everyone is responsible, now do we? In such a world, there would be no unwanted children. Anyone who didn't want kids simply wouldn't have sex - or would consider abortion. Again, the whole discussion would be a moot point.

Some interesting points in the last 5 or so pages:

Jocabia, you suggest that any woman who will not consider an abortion because of religion has no choice at all. This is utter bullshit. She still makes a decision not to have an abortion. The fact that it is based in religion does ont remove the decision itself, nor the responsibilities that go along with making the decision.

Whittier, the suggestion that most women who receive child support spend it on "clubbing, etc." is spurious. Most parents in this world care about their children and are going to do the best they can to take care of them. When we have discussions like this, we aren't talking about those types of parents. We are talking about the bottom of the barrel. We are talking about those who don't want to take responsibility for their actions. In many cases, forcing someone to take responsibility for their actions is a good thing. If someone spraypaints a neighboor's wall, they should take responsibility for that. If someone chooses to take drugs, they should take responsibilty for any consequences that ensue. However, forcing someone to take responsibility for a child puts that child in danger. We aren't talking about a wall or a car accident or a house burning down. We are talking about a human being that requires much more than monetary support.

Several people have created a fun strawman argument that suggests anyone is saying that the woman is more responsible simply because she carries the child. Obviously, that would be silly. The actual argument is that the woman is more responsible because she is the only one with the right to make a decision that directly results in there either being (or not being) a child. If she chooses abortion, no child. If she chooses to give birth, there is a child. She has that choice, and must therefore take the responsibilities that come along with it. Of course, this argument (at least when I was making it) never had anything at all to do with legality. It had to do with morality. I don't think that anyone can suggest that they are acting in the best interests of the child and then turn around and advocate forcing parenting upon anyone.

One could argue that the father makes the decision to let her make that decision when he has sex. However, this is not even close to being in the best interests of any child that results. The type of person who would use a "paper abortion" is not going to be a good father. Having him around at all is going to be psychologically damaging to the child. I am not a fan of the argument being made here that, "Money = all". It doesn't. A poor child in a loving atmosphere is going to be much better off than a child with more money who has parents that don't want to be parents. A child with a single loving parent is going to be in a better situation than a child with one parent who is loving and a second parent who resents the fact that the child exists at all. A child with adoptive parents is going to be in a better situation than a child with one or two parents that do not want it and thus resent it.

Forcing anyone, whether they brought the child into the world or not, to take the responsibility for the child is putting the child in danger. If they have to be forced, and will not take it on willingly, no reasonable person can logically argue that we are taking the interests of the child into account. All we are doing is placing the child in a situation that, best case scenario, is psychologically damage and, worst case scenario, is physically dangerous.

The idiotic suggestion that anyone who thinks the child needs a little more than monetary support "isn't taking the interests of the child into account" is incredibly spurious. Monetary support is necessary, but can come from anywhere. It can come from the mother, the father, the state, charity, grandparents, adoptive parents, aunts, uncles, family friends, the CEO of Sony, etc....... Psychological and emotional support, on the other hand, can only be given willingly. Thus, only someone willing to take on that burden - the burden of parenthood - is going to give such support. Having a "parent" in the picture that isn't interested in giving such support has the exact opposite effect - it damages the child psychologically and emotionally. Thus, getting such a parent out of the picture is in the best interests of the child.


On another note, I have yet to see a single person advocating that someone (anyone) be legally forced to be a parent equally advocate that any person so forced gets an equal say in the child's future. If this really were a matter of equal rights and responsibilities, the second the child is born, both parents would have equal custody. This means equal time with the child, equal say in medical matters, etc. This is, of course, not the case. As it stands, unless the man and woman are married, the woman gets immediate and full custody. If the man wants even partial custody, he must go to court to sue for it. If a woman listed someone else (or no one) on the birth certificate, he must first get a court order to get a paternity test done, for which he needs some sort of evidence that he might be the father (which, unless he can show he was in a committed relationship with the woman in question or there was someone else with them while they had sex, is a bit difficult to come by without the paternity test in the first place). This is, of course, a bit off-topic, and could be the topic of an entirely different discussion. It just seems to have crept into the conversation a bit.
Well put and persuasive.

This principal is being pitted against a non-existent right to 'opt-out' of the legal obligations a relationship with a minor places on someone.

If there is a right to put a child up for adoption (and last time I checked, doing so is legal), then there is a right to "opt-out" of legal obligations to a child. That is *exactly* what putting a child up for adoption is - opting out of legal obligations to the child. The difference is that, with biological parents, by the law, one parent can force another not to opt-out. Practically, this basically means that a mother can force a father not to opt out, as the father is rarely in the picture unless the mother chooses him to be in the first place.

If the man doesn't want to accidentally get a woman pregnant, he has several options prior to having sex.

1. Get a vasectomy.
2. Use contraception (iffy, but better than nothing).
3. Don't have sex with women - have sex with men.
4. Don't have sex with women - use your right hand.
5. Don't have sex with women - have sex with their mouths.

If there is a right to put a child up for adoption (and last time I checked, doing so is legal), then there is a right to "opt-out" of legal obligations to a child. That is *exactly* what putting a child up for adoption is - opting out of legal obligations to the child. The difference is that, with biological parents, by the law, one parent can force another not to opt-out. Practically, this basically means that a mother can force a father not to opt out, as the father is rarely in the picture unless the mother chooses him to be in the first place.

That right requires consent of the father no matter how much you try to ignore the law. Current laws require this in most states and I've posted those laws. Thus women can't 'opt-out' without consent of the men and men can't 'opt-out' without consent of the women. Exactly equitable which is what you claim to be seeking. I'm glad you got your way.

You're very, very fond of the strawman today, aren't you? Do you need a little more fiber in your diet? Who has advocated any such thing?

Whittier-- and you have advocated such a thing. If all it takes is a signature on a paper, that is a whim. Women have no such choice. Women must undergo a surgery and in their case there is no child. With your 'paper abortion' there is a child and it must be considered. You are denying the child the support of one of their parents simply because abortion exists. Basically you would have men have no responsibility to a child unless they choose to be responsible whereas once conception occurs women are faced with much harder decision. You ask the government to condone abandoning children. I hesitate to use the word silly since it implies we should laugh rather than bow our heads in sorrow at the suggestion.

Jocabia, you suggest that any woman who will not consider an abortion because of religion has no choice at all. This is utter bullshit. She still makes a decision not to have an abortion. The fact that it is based in religion does ont remove the decision itself, nor the responsibilities that go along with making the decision.

Yep, the government should encourage her to get an abortion or raise the child alone. Nothing irresponsible about that. "You think abortion is murder. Who cares? Screw you, you whore. You opened your legs so you get what you deserve. Now get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich." Hyperbole? Yes, but the things you say are suggestive of my quote.

Your 'paper abortion' has NO effect unless a child exists, thus it serves only to deny support to the child in the interest of punishing the woman for being of the sex that happens to have a womb. Again, ridiculous.

On another note, I have yet to see a single person advocating that someone (anyone) be legally forced to be a parent equally advocate that any person so forced gets an equal say in the child's future. If this really were a matter of equal rights and responsibilities, the second the child is born, both parents would have equal custody. This means equal time with the child, equal say in medical matters, etc. This is, of course, not the case. As it stands, unless the man and woman are married, the woman gets immediate and full custody. If the man wants even partial custody, he must go to court to sue for it. If a woman listed someone else (or no one) on the birth certificate, he must first get a court order to get a paternity test done, for which he needs some sort of evidence that he might be the father (which, unless he can show he was in a committed relationship with the woman in question or there was someone else with them while they had sex, is a bit difficult to come by without the paternity test in the first place). This is, of course, a bit off-topic, and could be the topic of an entirely different discussion. It just seems to have crept into the conversation a bit.

Most people do this thing called reading. First you READ the thread. Then you post. I'll help.

A better reason why men and women should have equal say in the legal and moral matters of a child, along with an equal part in raising the child, is because it's in the best interest of the child, it's the healthiest situation.

You're right they're not necessarily the best parents. This is an argument for keeping both parents involved and reforming the prejudice of the courts, something I agree with.

If a father wants a say in the raising of the child, he should take part in raising the child. Same goes for the mother.

The child is what we are considering here. And yes, if a man is required to pay child support he should allowed equal custody unless this is either 1) impossible due to distance, work schedule, etc. or 2) unsafe for the child (the home life of one of the parents is not conducive to the child). In the case that the man is caring for his child he does get equal say in legal matters. He gets equal say in an adoption decision in nearly every state (and it should be EVERY state). He gets an equal say in medical decisions. He gets an equal say in all decisions. That's exactly how it's supposed to work.

I can understand how you could miss it, since I only mention it like once on every page. In fact, nearly every time I mention 'responsibility' rather than just expecting men to pay for a child. But, hey, why even pretend like you're trying to be objective, right? Oh, wait, you are feigning objectivity, aren't you? That's why you pretend like you're actually giving any consideration to the child. Rest assured, the only inequity is that a man can father a child and end up with exactly the same responsibility to the child as a woman with absolutely no danger to his physical person while for the woman this is simply not true. Women CANNOT have children without severe physical trauma and you wish to enhance the current inequity (which to be fair is not the fault of the law) by absolving the father of any responsibility which actually ONLY truly denies anything to the child.

Excellent argument. This 'paper abortion' condones irresponsibility on the part of the father. Many make that argument about an actual abortion, but in the case of the actual abortion there is no other person to be responsible to (in the eyes of the state). In the paper abortion there is most certainly a child or the paper abortion has no effect. It is only necessary when a child is born and it actually is the state giving the power to men AND ONLY MEN to be able to walk away from their responsibilities to another human being.
Yes, both men and women agree to be responsible for a child should one come to exist when they have sex. BOTH MEN AND WOMEN. In the case of abortion, no child comes to exist. In the paper abortion, one does. And both parents must be responsible to the child when a child exists.

The state gives women that power. It is an unfair and unfortunate choice presented to them as a result of their biological process that the choice is either the trauma of surgery or chemical abortion, or childbirth. The state does not give men any control whatsoever. It punishes men and children for the choices of the woman. It gives one person absolute authority over the lives of two people.

Because in the mother's choice there is no child and in the father's it only takes effect when there is a child. The child MUST be considered. Also, the mother's choice requires a traumatic medical procedure (either an abortion or a pregnancy and birth). The father's 'choice' requires him to put a pen on a piece of paper. Hardly equitable. In fact, it's not even an attempt at being equitable. The only reason a woman gets a later choice is because her body is going through an event that she as a human being is permitted to control so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of any other human being. In the case of abortion, only the woman is involved. There is no father because there is no child. In the case of a 'paper abortion' there are three human beings involved and only one of them gets a choice. Again, hardly equitable.

Again as I stated, only the mother gets a say in how many human beings are involved. That is hardly fair, that a man be beholden to two people for the rest of his life because he wasn't careful about who he had sex with, but we don't ask women to do the same.

As I said before:

Agreeing to have sex does not equal agreeing to parenthood. For either party.

Again as I stated, only the mother gets a say in how many human beings are involved. That is hardly fair, that a man be beholden to two people for the rest of his life because he wasn't careful about who he had sex with, but we don't ask women to do the same.

As I said before:

Agreeing to have sex does not equal agreeing to parenthood. For either party.

And yet another who makes no consideration for the child. The child makes no choice and should not be denied the care of one of its parents because you don't like that women have a womb. No amount of crying will change that women, in fact, have a womb. Until men have a womb they will never be put through the trauma of either a pregnancy or an abortion. When a child comes into the world, there is no danger to the person of the man.

Men and women agree to an equal thing when they have sex. They agree that if a child results from that sex act they will care for it. BOTH ADULTS agree to this.

And yet another who makes no consideration for the child. The child makes no choice and should not be denied the care of one of its parents because you don't like that women have a womb. No amount of crying will change that women, in fact, have a womb. Until men have a womb they will never be put through the trauma of either a pregnancy or an abortion. When a child comes into the world, there is no danger to the person of the man.

Men and women agree to an equal thing when they have sex. They agree that if a child results from that sex act they will care for it. BOTH ADULTS agree to this.

EDIT: I am not the one showing no consideration for the child. That would be the mother who chooses to have a child against the wishes of someone else and then expects that someone else to pay for her decision. No, the child does not make a choice but since we're talking about finance here and not care, yes it should if that parent doesn't want the responsibility and has made that plain from the beginning of the pregnancy. Yes the child is the important consideration here, but it really is the responsibility of the person who chose to have it against the wishes of the other person responsible. And I'm really sorry, but I don't see how being poorer than other kids is really that big an issue. Love, and care are the issues here.

Actually, I really really despise my womb, since once a month its existence results in my absolute agony. And no amount of my crying once a month is going to change the fact that I do in fact have a womb. But I'm assuming that you're assumption was that I am male. No, it is because women really need to take some responsibility. Get a job if you want to have the kid. Don't party all night. Wear clothes from Kmart instead of Myer and David Jones. Or get an abortion. Put father unknown on the birth certificate and put the kid up for adoption. I really don't care. But don't ruin some guy's life because you have a fetish for motherhood.

No, men are not going to be put through the trauma of abortion or childbirth at any time in the near future, except indirectly. But if a man considers abortion murder, and a woman aborts the zygote/blastocyst/embryo, to him, she has murdered his child. Now, quite rightly, he has no say whatsoever in her decision to do this. But she has no right to make claims on a man's finances just because she makes a choice. She knew that she had a womb, when she had sex. She knew what could happen, and the decision she might have to make. She needs to deal with it. Just like a man does.

I... I think I love you Saint Jade

I... I think I love you Saint Jade

Awww shucks, now you made me blush...:fluffle:

The law does not apply only to women. No man has ever yet needed the protection of the law for the purpose of securing freedom from or access to an abortion, but that is a working of biology, not of the law. Men are fully entitled to the protection of this law, and if ever a man is pregnant then the protections will certainly apply. There's nothing whatsoever the law can do about the lack of pregnant men seeking to apply the protection it provides for that particular purpose!


I've actually found this to be the most persuasive aurgument so far for your position. I've used the same line of thought myself when debating gay marriage. I still however hold that life starts before birth. Although I have not come up with "starting date" I believe it is at least by the sixth week when the child begins emitting brain waves (our determination of whether or not we can take someone of life support). Therefore since I beleive human rights extend into the womb so then would the rights of parents-both of them. So then, the next step of my line of reasoning would be that both parents must agree to have an abortion, since neither parent is of lesser value. However, either parent should also be able to "terminate" not pregnancy, but parenthood without the consent of their parter.

EDIT: I am not the one showing no consideration for the child. That would be the mother who chooses to have a child against the wishes of someone else and then expects that someone else to pay for her decision. No, the child does not make a choice but since we're talking about finance here and not care, yes it should if that parent doesn't want the responsibility and has made that plain from the beginning of the pregnancy. Yes the child is the important consideration here, but it really is the responsibility of the person who chose to have it against the wishes of the other person responsible. And I'm really sorry, but I don't see how being poorer than other kids is really that big an issue. Love, and care are the issues here.

Actually, I really really despise my womb, since once a month its existence results in my absolute agony. And no amount of my crying once a month is going to change the fact that I do in fact have a womb. But I'm assuming that you're assumption was that I am male. No, it is because women really need to take some responsibility. Get a job if you want to have the kid. Don't party all night. Wear clothes from Kmart instead of Myer and David Jones. Or get an abortion. Put father unknown on the birth certificate and put the kid up for adoption. I really don't care. But don't ruin some guy's life because you have a fetish for motherhood.

No, men are not going to be put through the trauma of abortion or childbirth at any time in the near future, except indirectly. But if a man considers abortion murder, and a woman aborts the zygote/blastocyst/embryo, to him, she has murdered his child. Now, quite rightly, he has no say whatsoever in her decision to do this. But she has no right to make claims on a man's finances just because she makes a choice. She knew that she had a womb, when she had sex. She knew what could happen, and the decision she might have to make. She needs to deal with it. Just like a man does.

Yep, you're right. What was I thinking? Why pretend like children have fathers? They only have mothers. Nope. Fathers should just be able to walk away. I mean, forget doing something responsible like finding out BEFORE you have sex how she feels about abortion. Nope. Women get last touch so they are solely responsible for the baby. Men, well, hell, they already have too few rights in this world. It's time we stop oppressing men and give the freedom they've been denied for so long. Forget the fact that women already have to deal with MUCH greater responsibilities in exchange for having their womb, let's give them some more. Let's ignore the fact that the father knew how biology worked when he had sex. Let's forget the fact that some women view abortion as murder and thus simply cannot engage. Nope, too bad. In fact, let's take the word father out of the dictionary. We'll start calling them volcars for voluntary caregiver.

You know what. I just thought of this. If men have no responsibility for the child. Then, men don't have to terminate their rights. Women have to give them rights to the child. We'll create a peice of paper called 'paper insemination' and that paper if signed by the mother within six months of birth allows the father to have rights as far as the child is concerned. I mean the woman is the only one decides to bring a baby into the world. Yep. Sounds fair. Let's not pretend like they have equal responsibility. The baby might have killed the mother in it's birth. She should have the right to choose the father. Of course, this also gives no consideration for the child, but hey, we're not considering the child here at all, now are we? The state should encourage a lack of parental responsibility and a denial of the rights of the child by creating this 'paper insemination'. It makes perfect sense.

Whittier-- and you have advocated such a thing.

No, we haven't. Well, maybe Whittier has.

I'm sorry if I have a little more respect for men in general than to assume that they would make this decision "on a whim". Your assumption otherwise is no better than those who assume that women go out and have abortions "on a whim" or "for convenience."

Basically you would have men have no responsibility to a child unless they choose to be responsible whereas once conception occurs women are faced with much harder decision.

If you had read the bulk of the post you are responding to, you would know that I don't think *anyone* should have the responsibility for a child forced upon them. Doing so is dangerous to the child in question.

You ask the government to condone abandoning children.

I ask the government to do what is best for the child. Forcing the responsibility for a child upon an irresponsible person is not what is best for the child. It is putting the child in danger.

Yep, the government should encourage her to get an abortion or raise the child alone.

Or give it up for adoption, or get the help of others, or get the consent of the father to help. There are all sorts of options here, none of which the government should actually encourage above the other. The government should be neutral in this case, only worrying about what is best for the child should one be born. Again, forcing responsibility for a child upon an irresponsible person is not what is best for the child. A child is not an inanimate object, nor is it a plant.

"You think abortion is murder. Who cares? Screw you, you whore. You opened your legs so you get what you deserve. Now get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich." Hyperbole? Yes, but the things you say are suggestive of my quote.

Not in the least. What I am saying is, "Take responsibility for your own choices," plain and simple. I don't think anyone deserves an unwanted child, nor have I ever suggested such a thing. I think that every human being on the planet has to take responsibility for the results of their own choices. A woman chooses whether or not to continue a pregnancy. If she has a child, she should take responsibility for that choice. Of course, as I've already said, I don't advocate forcing that responsibility upon her, because that would be dangerous to the child in question.

Your 'paper abortion' has NO effect unless a child exists, thus it serves only to deny support to the child in the interest of punishing the woman for being of the sex that happens to have a womb. Again, ridiculous.

If the first sentence were true, the second would be true as well. Of course, it isn't. The "paper abortion" serves to get an irresponsible person out of a child's life before there ever is a child, so that those who do care about the child can make sure it gets what it needs.

Most people do this thing called reading. First you READ the thread. Then you post. I'll help.

I'm sorry, which one of those quotes advocated defaulting to complete custody for both parents from the outset? Maybe you are speaking another language?

That's why you pretend like you're actually giving any consideration to the child.

Your animosity towards anyone with a slightly different opinion than yours is not helping. To suggest that, just because I don't agree with you on what is best for the child, that I don't consider the child is ludicrous.

Of course, the fact that you failed to reply to the entire meat of my post lets me know that you either can't or won't address my points.

Rest assured, the only inequity is that a man can father a child and end up with exactly the same responsibility to the child as a woman with absolutely no danger to his physical person while for the woman this is simply not true. Women CANNOT have children without severe physical trauma and you wish to enhance the current inequity (which to be fair is not the fault of the law) by absolving the father of any responsibility which actually ONLY truly denies anything to the child.

Again, reading is important. I wish to see [b]no freaking irresponsible person who will not take on the burden willingly/b] forced into that responsibility. Doing so is punishment, not what is best for the child. Putting an irresponsible person (ie. anyone who would use the 'paper abortion') in a position of responsibility to a child is not what is best for the child. Forcing anyone who will not willingly take on this responsibility to do so is endangering the child. Do you really want to condone that just so you can be sure that your tax dollars don't go to taking care of the child even for a short time?

If you had read the bulk of the post you are responding to, you would know that I don't think *anyone* should have the responsibility for a child forced upon them. Doing so is dangerous to the child in question.

I don't agree. I think a lot of my friends who were, let's call them, reluctant parents (teen pregnancy and pregnancy of people not dating was fairly common in my neighborhood) ended up being great parents once they accepted their fates and the realized they were responsible for the needs of the child.

I ask the government to do what is best for the child. Forcing the responsibility for a child upon an irresponsible person is not what is best for the child. It is putting the child in danger.

You ask the government to do what is best for the child in your opinion. Since it goes against the very nature of parenthood, you're gonna have to offer a little more than that
.
I'm sorry, which one of those quotes advocated defaulting to complete custody for both parents from the outset? Maybe you are speaking another language?

Are you serious? Here, I'll help you out here. "A better reason why men and women should have equal say in the legal and moral matters of a child, along with an equal part in raising the child, is because it's in the best interest of the child, it's the healthiest situation. "

Since you couldn't comprehend that I'll help. I want men to have an equal say in legal and moral matters deal with a child once there is one and and EQUAL part in raising the child. EQUAL. That's equal custody for both parents, equal say in major issues, equal parts in raising the child. And in order for it to be EQUAL it would have to be from the outset. I didn't realize interpreting EQUAL was so difficult. I won't make assumptions about your ability to understand simple language in the future. I apologize for assuming this time.

Your animosity towards anyone with a slightly different opinion than yours is not helping. To suggest that, just because I don't agree with you on what is best for the child, that I don't consider the child is ludicrous.

Of course, the fact that you failed to reply to the entire meat of my post lets me know that you either can't or won't address my points.

I skipped much of your very long post, because you repeat yourself. You think fathers are bad for children if they are reluctant. I don't agree. You've offered no support for your opinion so I really don't have anything I need to refute now do I? When your points consist of a REAL care for equality, a REAL care for the child, I'll worry about them.

Of course, I can just keep quoting your posts and mine and this thread can go on forever. Would that make you happy? You've offered nothing of substance, nothing based on biology or morality, nothing really worth debating. It's perfectly silly to expect to ask the government to discourage responsibility and familial support. You're going to have to go farther than 'I think' to show otherwise.

Again, reading is important. I wish to see [b]no freaking irresponsible person who will not take on the burden willingly/b] forced into that responsibility. Doing so is punishment, not what is best for the child. Putting an irresponsible person (ie. anyone who would use the 'paper abortion') in a position of responsibility to a child is not what is best for the child. Forcing anyone who will not willingly take on this responsibility to do so is endangering the child. Do you really want to condone that just so you can be sure that your tax dollars don't go to taking care of the child even for a short time?
I got that. You just don't really understand what makes a responsible person. No responsible person would run into a burning building, in the eyes of many. No responsible person would voluntarily decide to put themselves in harm's way in order to protect others, in some opinions. Fortunately, those opinions, like yours, are not incapsulated in law. Our laws tend to encourage people to serve the greater good not abandon responsibilities. I hope this never changes.

i dont understand this notion that "fathers should have equal custody of their children" as if its not already the law of the land. where do y'all live that mothers get sole custody of their children? in most states (maybe all) of the united states joint custody is standard and visitation will be enforced for any parent who is not shown to be dangerous to his/her child.

If there is a right to put a child up for adoption (and last time I checked, doing so is legal), then there is a right to "opt-out" of legal obligations to a child.
No. The legal effect of a legally recognised adoption is to sever a relationship. An effect of severing a relationship is that obligations that exist because of that relationship cease to exist.

That is *exactly* what putting a child up for adoption is - opting out of legal obligations to the child.
No it isnt. It is severing the relationship, since the obligations exist as an effect of that relationship,the obligations cease when the relationship ceases.

The difference is that, with biological parents, by the law, one parent can force another not to opt-out. Practically, this basically means that a mother can force a father not to opt out, as the father is rarely in the picture unless the mother chooses him to be in the first place.
Incorrect. The law equally protects men and women from being forced to undergo surgical proceedures. The law doesnt cause, nor can remedy the fact that males cannot elect to end a pregnancy by choosing to undergo a surgical proceedure.
As has already been pointed out in this thread, fathers can prevent their child from being adopted out. So the decision is one that both parents have a say in.
As for fathers being 'in the picture', they have a right (and in my opinion an obligation) to be 'in the picture'. The law can only do so much in this regard for instance by having provisions that allow a father to press a paternity suite. If a man can prove he is the father of a child, and barring any reason why he should not be allowed to, a father is entitled to participate in their child's life.

I've actually found this to be the most persuasive aurgument so far for your position. I've used the same line of thought myself when debating gay marriage. I still however hold that life starts before birth.
It doesnt matter when life starts. What matters (in relation to this issue) is when something is a person in the eyes of the law.
Although I have not come up with "starting date" I believe it is at least by the sixth week when the child begins emitting brain waves (our determination of whether or not we can take someone of life support). Therefore since I beleive human rights extend into the womb so then would the rights of parents-both of them.
This would only be relevent if and when the law recognised non-born human beings as persons. Even in such a case there is no telling how the rights of competing parties would be applied. Not all persons (as recognised by law) have an inherent right to live (for instance there is no law against winding up a company, just laws about how one goes about doing so).
Even if the courts decided in favour of paternal rights, all this would do is give one person the ability to force another to continue to be pregnant. It certainly would give no right to a father to demand a pregnancy be ended.

So then, the next step of my line of reasoning would be that both parents must agree to have an abortion, since neither parent is of lesser value.
So basically we give control of the bodies of women to men? The courts can do nothing about the fact that men cannot opt to have an abortion, breaching the rights of women in order to give men rights over other peoples' bodies will not change this. The law doesnt exist in order to spot any biological fact that may impinge on men in some way that it doesnt impinge on women so that it can ensure that where such facts exist the law makes provisions that require men be no worse off in any situation than a woman is.

How either parent should also be able to "terminate" not pregnancy, but parenthood without the consent of their parter.
The consent of the other parent is irrelevent once a child is born. The parenthood obligations exist in respect of the child not the other parent. The law imposes the obligations for the sake of the child. The other parent does not impose the obligations and the obligations are not to the other parent.

It seems to me that the problem is that the consequences of pregnancy are not the same regardless what the law does. To some people the position of women appears better than men and they want to remedy this by ensuring that the position of men is better than that of women. None of the suggestions would make the consequences identical for both parties. The suggestions all seem to revolve around the notion that if things are in any way unequal, this is not ok unless it is men who happen to have the better position at the expense of everyone else, even when setting things up to deliever such a result infringes on more people's rights more often to a greater extent than the current way of dealing with the issue.

anyone else having trouble getting to this page?

If there is a right to put a child up for adoption (and last time I checked, doing so is legal), then there is a right to "opt-out" of legal obligations to a child. That is *exactly* what putting a child up for adoption is - opting out of legal obligations to the child. The difference is that, with biological parents, by the law, one parent can force another not to opt-out. Practically, this basically means that a mother can force a father not to opt out, as the father is rarely in the picture unless the mother chooses him to be in the first place.
The problem is that men are immorally and unfairly, and unjustifiably left at the mercy of women. That is wrong and that is why the system must be changed to add protection for the men against unscrupulous women.
Whether they are the majority of women or not is not the point. The fact is there are women who abuse the system and get away with it.
The whole point of the "paper abortion" debate is to point out that there is indeed a problem and that problem needs to be addressed.
Would you advocate that women be placed at the mercy of men, just because they had sex with them? If not, why would you argue the opposite for men.

The problem is that men are immorally and unfairly, and unjustifiably left at the mercy of women.
No they are not.
That is wrong and that is why the system must be changed to add protection for the men against unscrupulous women.
Whether they are the majority of women or not is not the point. The fact is there are women who abuse the system and get away with it.
The fact is where there is a system used by people, there are people who abuse that system and get away with it.

The whole point of the "paper abortion" debate is to point out that there is indeed a problem and that problem needs to be addressed.
The whole problem with the 'paper abortion' idea is that it creates worse problems than it solves.

Would you advocate that women be placed at the mercy of men, just because they had sex with them?
I wouldnt advocate that any person be placed at the mercy of some other person just because they had sex.
If not, why would you argue the opposite for men.
No one is arguing any such thing.

Whittier-- and you have advocated such a thing. If all it takes is a signature on a paper, that is a whim. Women have no such choice. Women must undergo a surgery and in their case there is no child. With your 'paper abortion' there is a child and it must be considered. You are denying the child the support of one of their parents simply because abortion exists. Basically you would have men have no responsibility to a child unless they choose to be responsible whereas once conception occurs women are faced with much harder decision. You ask the government to condone abandoning children. I hesitate to use the word silly since it implies we should laugh rather than bow our heads in sorrow at the suggestion.



Yep, the government should encourage her to get an abortion or raise the child alone. Nothing irresponsible about that. "You think abortion is murder. Who cares? Screw you, you whore. You opened your legs so you get what you deserve. Now get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich." Hyperbole? Yes, but the things you say are suggestive of my quote.

Your 'paper abortion' has NO effect unless a child exists, thus it serves only to deny support to the child in the interest of punishing the woman for being of the sex that happens to have a womb. Again, ridiculous.



Most people do this thing called reading. First you READ the thread. Then you post. I'll help.









I can understand how you could miss it, since I only mention it like once on every page. In fact, nearly every time I mention 'responsibility' rather than just expecting men to pay for a child. But, hey, why even pretend like you're trying to be objective, right? Oh, wait, you are feigning objectivity, aren't you? That's why you pretend like you're actually giving any consideration to the child. Rest assured, the only inequity is that a man can father a child and end up with exactly the same responsibility to the child as a woman with absolutely no danger to his physical person while for the woman this is simply not true. Women CANNOT have children without severe physical trauma and you wish to enhance the current inequity (which to be fair is not the fault of the law) by absolving the father of any responsibility which actually ONLY truly denies anything to the child.
1. Well, that seems to be just the problem here. We are comparing apples and oranges. A paper abortion is not equal to a physical abortion. I agree the child must be considered. Would not, allowing a woman to give up a child to only the father also be denying the child the right to be supported by one of his or her parents? I don't agree that men should be released from responsibility on a whim. What I want are laws to protect them from abuse. Laws that don't either don't exist in most states or that are extremely weak and go unenforced in the states that do have them.

2. HELL NO!!!! The government should not be allowed to pressure anyone into getting an abortion. Nor should the government be allowed to pressure a woman into not having one. That's what the Canales Amendment was written to prevent. That's something I'm prepared to fight a war over. To suggest the government be allowed to do either, is unamerican. (rant over, I have strong opinion about the role of government in abortion: there shouldn't be any, it should left to the woman, her doctor, and her God [or conscience whichever]).

3. Dempublicents 1 is right. Most of the time, the man has to go to court to sue to get such rights. They are not automatically given to him except in very very rare circumstances. None of the guys paying child support that I have met have ever had those rights given to them automatically. They all had to sue in court to get those rights.
Regarding the points you raised:
a. I agree.
b. I agree.
c. I agree.
d. He has to go to court to get any say. And the courts don't always give him those rights. Sometimes the court decides against allowing him any say even if he did nothing to merit the denial of such equality.

Lets stop comparing physical abortions to paper abortions. Cause that's what's keeping the argument going. It's like the guy who keeps insisting that an orange is an apple.

Again as I stated, only the mother gets a say in how many human beings are involved. That is hardly fair, that a man be beholden to two people for the rest of his life because he wasn't careful about who he had sex with, but we don't ask women to do the same.

As I said before:

Agreeing to have sex does not equal agreeing to parenthood. For either party.
Yet there must be legal protections to prevent unscrupulous people from taking advantage of such system to sucker punch other people.

And yet another who makes no consideration for the child. The child makes no choice and should not be denied the care of one of its parents because you don't like that women have a womb. No amount of crying will change that women, in fact, have a womb. Until men have a womb they will never be put through the trauma of either a pregnancy or an abortion. When a child comes into the world, there is no danger to the person of the man.

Men and women agree to an equal thing when they have sex. They agree that if a child results from that sex act they will care for it. BOTH ADULTS agree to this.
This agreement however, is not a defacto agreement. It is something they must agree to in writing or in discussion. And if a couple does not talk about what would happen if the woman gets pregnant, that is not a good relationship. And problems will result.

The interests of the child and the interests of the man ought to have as much input in the matter as the interest of the woman. The interest of the woman does not out weigh the interest of either the child or the man. Nor does it always equal the interest of the child.
I speak here, not of abortion which is not connected to the matter, but to the matter of what should happen once a baby is born.

This agreement however, is not a defacto agreement. It is something they must agree to in writing or in discussion. And if a couple does not talk about what would happen if the woman gets pregnant, that is not a good relationship. And problems will result.

The interests of the child and the interests of the man ought to have as much input in the matter as the interest of the woman. The interest of the woman does not out weigh the interest of either the child or the man. Nor does it always equal the interest of the child.
I speak here, not of abortion which is not connected to the matter, but to the matter of what should happen once a baby is born.

Once the child is born, the man has exactly as much input as the women. The child, technically, has no input, just people acting on behalf of the child.

As to you're earlier point, you are incorrect. Men have full rights to custody of a child unless a court takes that away. If a woman denies custodial interaction with the child, there are repercussions. The same however can happen the other way. When people abuse the rights of others the court must get involved. That's how it works. No rule, law, contract, or anything will ever change that.

You are making arguments for making courts treat men more equally not creating a documents that discourage men to have an equal part in the childrearing. In fact, this document reinforces the idea that it is the woman's kid, only.

I think it should be yes but in all honesty it is gennerally no.

Yep, you're right. What was I thinking? Why pretend like children have fathers? They only have mothers. Nope. Fathers should just be able to walk away. I mean, forget doing something responsible like finding out BEFORE you have sex how she feels about abortion. Nope. Women get last touch so they are solely responsible for the baby. Men, well, hell, they already have too few rights in this world. It's time we stop oppressing men and give the freedom they've been denied for so long. Forget the fact that women already have to deal with MUCH greater responsibilities in exchange for having their womb, let's give them some more. Let's ignore the fact that the father knew how biology worked when he had sex. Let's forget the fact that some women view abortion as murder and thus simply cannot engage. Nope, too bad. In fact, let's take the word father out of the dictionary. We'll start calling them volcars for voluntary caregiver.

Children have both a mother and a father. Noone is denying that. You seem to be denying the ability of mothers to provide adequate or appropriate care for their children. If a man should be expected to find out how a woman feels about abortion before he has sex with her, why shouldn't a woman do the same? Find out how the man feels about abortion beforehand. I believe that a woman should show exactly the same responsibility a man would.

I actually believe that we still don't have equal rights in this world between men and women. I am not foolish enough not to see it. I however do not believe that affording a man the opportunity to decide whether he wishes to father a child is simply giving them the same rights as a woman. A woman, by virtue of her biology can choose whether or not to become a mother. A father should have the same right (at least on paper).

And the thing you seem to forget in your little tirade Jocabia, is that every day, women are given the right to ignore the fact that some men view abortion as murder. As they should. Its not a man's body, not his decision. But because of a woman's choice not to have an abortion, for whatever reason, a man is forced to be held responsible. That is not fair. A man should be given some limited opportunity to say "I want no part in this."

And as a side note, many of the women I know, who are on the single mother's pension, could be termed voluntary caregivers, since their children go to child care for 50 hrs a week, for $3 per child. I really see that they're interested in taking care of their children, and owning up to their responsibilities.

Yes, the man should have some choice but the final decision is with the woman.

Children have both a mother and a father. Noone is denying that. You seem to be denying the ability of mothers to provide adequate or appropriate care for their children. If a man should be expected to find out how a woman feels about abortion before he has sex with her, why shouldn't a woman do the same? Find out how the man feels about abortion beforehand. I believe that a woman should show exactly the same responsibility a man would.

I'm not denying that a woman CAN care for a child alone. I'm denying that she should. In all cases it should be encouraged for both parents to raise and care for a child unless one of those parents are a danger to the child. This 'paper abortion' denies that a situation where both parents raise the child is best for the child. It encourages irresponsibility in men.

And a woman should discuss this with her partner. The difference is that since a pregnancy physically endangers the woman there are a lot of things that change when a woman ACTUALLY becomes pregnant that she cannot equally make decisions on when she is not pregnant. I can say that I wouldn't mind being blind or that I would kill myself if I was, but when it comes down to it the actual and the theoretical are different. There is no difference from before and after conception for men. The risk to their person is the same on both sides of conception. The effects on their bodies the same on both sides of conception.

More importantly, when a woman gets an abortion there IS no child. Thus no father. So the government can't exactly give a man say over a woman's body, now can they? Especially, when that say might endanger her life. Now, once a child exists, there is a child, a mother and a father. A 'paper abortion' allows a father to make a decision that has nothing to do with his BODY and effects TWO other human beings. The paper allows him to make that decision alone without consideration for the other two human beings involved. When an abortion directly effects a father then he will be included in the decision. Until then, your argument is specious.

I actually believe that we still don't have equal rights in this world between men and women. I am not foolish enough not to see it. I however do not believe that affording a man the opportunity to decide whether he wishes to father a child is simply giving them the same rights as a woman. A woman, by virtue of her biology can choose whether or not to become a mother. A father should have the same right (at least on paper).

I'll tell you what. Let's make it equal then. If a father chooses to enact that right, I get to perform surgery on him. I mean, if we're aiming for fair, let's be fair. Also, if he chooses to have a child I get to damage his body at the level that a baby damages the body of the mother. I think he's gonna be really upset when I tear the hole on his penis.

And the thing you seem to forget in your little tirade Jocabia, is that every day, women are given the right to ignore the fact that some men view abortion as murder. As they should. Its not a man's body, not his decision. But because of a woman's choice not to have an abortion, for whatever reason, a man is forced to be held responsible. That is not fair. A man should be given some limited opportunity to say "I want no part in this."

I didn't forget. Men don't engage in abortion. This is why women get to ignore men. Women endanger their lives with pregnancy. You ingore the physical danger that women must endure when they get pregnant, whether they get an abortion or not. That danger earns them the right to decide what happens to their body. Like I said, if you really want fair then let's set up clinics where men are really subjected to the effects of pregnancy.

And as a side note, many of the women I know, who are on the single mother's pension, could be termed voluntary caregivers, since their children go to child care for 50 hrs a week, for $3 per child. I really see that they're interested in taking care of their children, and owning up to their responsibilities.

Men have the same ability. It is an unfortunate thing about our country that people are encouraged to not leave a caregiver home during the day. Many of the women who are single mothers are staying at home to care for their children and I guarantee somewhere someone is complaining that they get to stay home all day while the father pays for it. Unfortunately, much like you, people are more concerned about the mother getting over than they are about the care of the child and the child loses in the battle. You mention the care of the child almost as a sidenote. Your concern is entirely about women getting something that men don't. Your lack of ability to be concerned for the child is the reason no one stays home to care for their children anymore (hyperbole - yes I realize SOME people do stay home to care for their children).

The whole thing just looks ugly and unreasonable (not even starting into the ability of a man to force the risks, however great or small, of pregnancy on a woman).

Did you read the original post, it made no mention of the law allowing the father a say over the child being born or not. It only talked about allowing the man to discharge his responsibilties (within the same legal time limit that women get to choose about abortion) of support for the child after birth if he doesn't want to be a father but the women wishes to continue the pregancy. In other words if the women wants to have the child and the man doesn't then she takes all responsibility for raising it and does not force her choice on the man.

If it is wrong for the man (or other people) to force a choice on the women then it should be true the other way as well.

Did you read the original post, it made no mention of the law allowing the father a say over the child being born or not. It only talked about allowing the man to discharge his responsibilties (within the same legal time limit that women get to choose about abortion) of support for the child after birth if he doesn't want to be a father but the women wishes to continue the pregancy. In other words if the women wants to have the child and the man doesn't then she takes all responsibility for raising it and does not force her choice on the man.

If it is wrong for the man (or other people) to force a choice on the women then it should be true the other way as well.

In one choice there is no child. In the the other there is. Your claim does not consider this and it's a crying shame.

Okay, all you people interested in fairness. I propose a bill that makes it COMPLETELY fair -

A bill that makes it fraud when a women intentionally denies the rights of a father in regards to his child. If it can be shown that she did so she will be convicted of defrauding the child (this part is not sarcastic, I truly believe women should be convicted of fraud for attempting to put a child up for adoption without consent of the father ragardless of whether they succeed or for not notifying the father of the pregnancy).

This same bill would give the potential father an equal say in abortion. If either potential parent wishes to continue the pregnancy then the pregnancy continues. Just like an adoption. However, there are some stipulations -
-The man throughout the pregnancy will be required to undergo hormone treatments much like a woman goes through naturally.
-The man will be required to suffer the same physical effects as the woman he impregnated. This will include death if the pregnancy kills her.
-The man will be required to have those physical effects be permanent if they are for the women, to include incontinence, stretch marks, damage to internal organs, etc.
-The man is required to expose his private parts to a roomful of people during the birth. The doctor will either tear or cut his anus depending on what occurs to the womans vagina.
-If an abortion occurs the man must also undergo the same trauma.

Of course, this doesn't include all of the trauma that women go through to prepare for pregnancy. So we have to do a little more.

-All men will be forced to report to a center once a month where they bleeding will be induced for seven days.
-All men will be injected with hormones for one week prior to this appt.
-All men will be required to use birth control pills if any sex partner they've had in the last six months is.
-Men will be given prostate cancer at a rate that brings the incidence of prostate cancer up to match the incidence that women get cervical cancer, uterine cancer and ovarian cancer combined.
-Men's incidence of breast cancer will be increased until it matches the incidence of breast cancer in women.

Let's all vote for this bill, because it will finally make things fair.

I don't agree. I think a lot of my friends who were, let's call them, reluctant parents (teen pregnancy and pregnancy of people not dating was fairly common in my neighborhood) ended up being great parents once they accepted their fates and the realized they were responsible for the needs of the child.

Reluctant != unwilling. Thanks for the strawman argument.

You ask the government to do what is best for the child in your opinion.

Anyone who ever says, "The government should do what is best for the child" is asking it to do what is best for the child in their opinion. How exactly are your opinions better? Do you honestly think that economic support is all that matters?

Are you serious? Here, I'll help you out here. "A better reason why men and women should have [b]equal say in the legal and moral matters of a child, along with an equal part in raising the child,[b] is because it's [b]in the best interest of the child[b], it's the healthiest situation. "

Note that this quote still doesn't say it should default to this situation. In past posts, you have stated that, if a man wants custody, he can sue for it. You have yet, until now, suggested that the default state be for both parents to have equal custody.

I skipped much of your very long post, because you repeat yourself. You think fathers are bad for children if they are reluctant.

Using the strawman once again. Where exactly did I ever say "reluctant"? Oh wait! I didn't! I said "unwilling". Look up the two words, there is a difference between them.

I don't agree.

Of course you don't - you're arguing with someone other than me with your strawman bullshit.

You've offered no support for your opinion so I really don't have anything I need to refute now do I?

No logical person could possibly believe that a parent unwiling to be a parent is going to be a good parent. "I hate this child. I resent it's very existence. But I'm a good parent, really."

When your points consist of a REAL care for equality, a REAL care for the child, I'll worry about them.

And once again with your, "If you don't agree with me, you don't actually care about anything. Obviously, Jocabia is always right."

It's perfectly silly to expect to ask the government to discourage responsibility and familial support.

Oh look! More strawmen! I have never suggested that the government do any such thing. In fact, I specifically stated that the government shouldn't suggest such a thing.

You're going to have to go farther than 'I think' to show otherwise.

But, for you, "I think" is perfectly fine, eh?

I got that. You just don't really understand what makes a responsible person.

A responsible person would willingly take on the care of their child and do everything in their power for that child. Anyone who does not is irresponsible.

Our laws tend to encourage people to serve the greater good not abandon responsibilities. I hope this never changes.

You fail to realize that it doesn't matter what our law says. An irresponsible person is going to abandon responsibilities. If you start garnishing their wages, then you have forced them to take on a very, very tiny portion of the responsibility owed to a cihld. There is no way to force someone to love a child, to truly care for it, to worry about its emotional and psychological well-being. I'm really sorry that you seem to think that the only thing that matters in child-rearing is money. It is not.

Once again, a child is not an object. It is not a car, which if you fail to be responsible with it it will fall apart and the only one harmed is you. It is not a plant, which, if it dies, just leaves a blank spot in your yard or your house. A child needs responsible care. Giving a child to an irresponsible person who is unwilling to take on that responsibility is putting a child in a dangerous situation. You have yet to provide anything to demonstrate otherwise and, indeed, jumped straight to a strawman instead of even trying.

i dont understand this notion that "fathers should have equal custody of their children" as if its not already the law of the land. where do y'all live that mothers get sole custody of their children? in most states (maybe all) of the united states joint custody is standard and visitation will be enforced for any parent who is not shown to be dangerous to his/her child.

Visitation != equal custody.
Joint custody != equal custody

One parent is generally assumed to have primary custody. although there are rare situations in which custody is actually equal. Unless the father sues for it, this parent is the mother.

In one choice there is no child. In the the other there is. Your claim does not consider this and it's a crying shame.

And my personal belief is that a child should not be brought into the world unless it is wanted and cared for by both parents. But that in realality means that the man would also be directly involved in the womans choice of abortion and control of her own body. This is wrong to me as everyone should should have control over thier bodies, the next closest to this is the initial post. As this would discourage women from having the child against the mans wishes (as at the moment after the initial act only the womens desire for a child is considered) and so come closer to a situation where a child would only be created when it is wanted by both parents.

I am not for complete and absoloute equality as men and women are different, what I want is to discourage people having children unless both parties are willing to raise the child.

No. The legal effect of a legally recognised adoption is to sever a relationship. An effect of severing a relationship is that obligations that exist because of that relationship cease to exist.

So a person could contine to meet those obligations if they wanted to even after giving the kid up for adoption? They could continue to see that child and take care of it, even though someone else was technically in charge? Hmmmmm.....nope. The only way a biological parent can have any contact with an adopted child whatsoever is if the adoptive parent specifically allows it. The default state is generally that they cannot do so . Thus, we aren't talking about a "loss of obligation", but a complete removal of the ability to meet that obligation, even if you wanted to.

Incorrect. The law equally protects men and women from being forced to undergo surgical proceedures. The law doesnt cause, nor can remedy the fact that males cannot elect to end a pregnancy by choosing to undergo a surgical proceedure.

Ok, I never said any differently, so no problem here.

As has already been pointed out in this thread, fathers can prevent their child from being adopted out. So the decision is one that both parents have a say in.

...which means that the decision of the father forces the mother to take on responsibility for the child, just as a mother deciding to take on that responsibility forces a father to do so. Thank you for making my point that it only takes one of them to decide to keep the child - for both of them.

I'm not denying that a woman CAN care for a child alone. I'm denying that she should.

Yup, even if she is responsible and the man is irresponsible and hates the child. We should force him to take that responsibility anyways. After all, it's onlly money that matters.

In all cases it should be encouraged for both parents to raise and care for a child unless one of those parents are a danger to the child.

As an unwilling parent is, unless we are just talking about physical dangers again. You know, because the emotional and psychological well-being of the child means nothing.

This 'paper abortion' denies that a situation where both parents raise the child is best for the child.

No, it doesn't. It denies that the situation where an irresponsible parent is forced to take on the responsibility for a child (which is more than just "write a check once a month") is best for the child.

It encourages irresponsibility in men.

You mean like having abortion legal encourages women to have abortions? Oh wait, you were saying earlier that most women would never even consider having an abortion, even though a pregnancy can put them in greater danger and damages their bodies more. Yet you seem to believe that every single man out there would find the 'paper abortion' acceptable. What a poor opinion of men you must have.

Okay, all you people interested in fairness. I propose a bill that makes it COMPLETELY fair -

I known you're being facetious, but lets point out some of the glaring unfairness in your "bill"

A bill that makes it fraud when a women intentionally denies the rights of a father in regards to his child.

Unless he willingly gave them up at some point, I have no problem with this. Good luck trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any woman did this though.

This same bill would give the potential father an equal say in abortion. If either potential parent wishes to continue the pregnancy then the pregnancy continues. Just like an adoption. However, there are some stipulations -

That's cute, but still not fair. The man would be choosing to go through these things willingly, while the woman would not. You seem to have a real problem with the difference between willing action and unwilling action.

Visitation != equal custody.
Joint custody != equal custody

One parent is generally assumed to have primary custody. although there are rare situations in which custody is actually equal. Unless the father sues for it, this parent is the mother.
funny that.

how if a person doesnt insist on his right he might not get them.

funny that.

how if a person doesnt insist on his right he might not get them.

Except, of course, that the mother gets them automatically. She doesn't have to sue anyone to get custody of her children, nor does she have to offer full custody to a father in order to get monetary support from him for the child. And the chances that both will get full custody unless both agree to it is virtually nil.

We could argue all day over whether or not this is a good thing, but to claim that it is equitable is truly idiotic.

As an unwilling parent is, unless we are just talking about physical dangers again. You know, because the emotional and psychological well-being of the child means nothing.

Did I say 'physical'? Quote me. Your strawman aside, I pointed out that often people think they're not interested in raising a child, but when the child is actually there, they step up. Your document would make it impossible for them to do so. I also would point out that you KNOW this would be used to coerce women into abortion even when the man would step up and care for the child if the child was actually born, 'cept now he can't because your document makes it impossible. Ah, but screw consideration for the child let's make men's responsibility in the process EVEN LESS.

No, it doesn't. It denies that the situation where an irresponsible parent is forced to take on the responsibility for a child (which is more than just "write a check once a month") is best for the child.

Again, your ignorance of the facts doesn't make them cease to exist.

You mean like having abortion legal encourages women to have abortions? Oh wait, you were saying earlier that most women would never even consider having an abortion, even though a pregnancy can put them in greater danger and damages their bodies more. Yet you seem to believe that every single man out there would find the 'paper abortion' acceptable. What a poor opinion of men you must have.

Yes, because a document that simply makes you not responsible for the chilld and a surgery that makes the child not ever exist are EXACTLY the same. Let's play pretend and act like paper and surgery are the same. No need to actually address the real world here.

Unless he willingly gave them up at some point, I have no problem with this. Good luck trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any woman did this though.

Oh, it's rather easy in those cases where the father is a boyfriend that was never informed of the child. If a boyfriend turns out to be the father of a child, it's not too hard to expect her to reasonably suspect that he was the father. Actually, I think if a woman gets pregnant she should be required to inform all potential fathers she can reasonably get a hold of. In the case of adoption, some states do as well.

That's cute, but still not fair. The man would be choosing to go through these things willingly, while the woman would not. You seem to have a real problem with the difference between willing action and unwilling action.

He would have the same choice a woman would. That choice would be available to all men with the exact same consequences. No willingly about it, no more so than for a woman. If a man impregnates a women he is subjected to the exact same consequences as a woman. He doesn't get to choose any more than she does. They either both agree to an abortion (and undergo equal surgeries) or the pregnancy continues (and they undergo equal conditions). Let's take this off paper and make it real if we're really going for equality like you pretend.

Except, of course, that the mother gets them automatically. She doesn't have to sue anyone to get custody of her children, nor does she have to offer full custody to a father in order to get monetary support from him for the child. And the chances that both will get full custody unless both agree to it is virtually nil.

Unfortunately, possession is always a problem. If I break up with my girlfriend and I have the dog that we shared and she wishes to gain access to it, she does have to sue. Nature gives women possession of the child at birth. As they say "possession is 9/10s of the law."

And would you care to back up your assertions about custody are we accepting wive's tales as evidence.. With the exception of someone I know who erringly signed away his rights (he was told that signing the document would allow the child to have better support. Now he cannot support his child even though he would absolutely love to and always has wanted to. Of course, according to you this never happens), every man I know that impregnated a woman out of wedlock has equal custody. Divorced men I know are different, but then many of them don't actually want custody and are happy to just send a check. Not that divorce is inherently different, just the men I know who are divorced are.

We could argue all day over whether or not this is a good thing, but to claim that it is equitable is truly idiotic.

To claim that your 'paper abortion' somehow helps the situation is equally idiotic. In fact, it furthers the belief that women are somehow more responsible for the child. If you really want to address the problem then you would actually be talking about a solution that increases the rights and responsibilities of men to their children.

Except, of course, that the mother gets them automatically. She doesn't have to sue anyone to get custody of her children, nor does she have to offer full custody to a father in order to get monetary support from him for the child. And the chances that both will get full custody unless both agree to it is virtually nil.

We could argue all day over whether or not this is a good thing, but to claim that it is equitable is truly idiotic.
yeah well a mothers automatic physical custody is pretty much a matter of biology isnt it? what with squeezing it out of her body and feeding it from her breasts. so she gets to take it home. go figure.

the father gets custody and visitation and potentially half of the time physical custody (if she or a court agrees) regardless of is actual paying of support. they are considered seperate issues.

of course if he ends up in jail for nonsupport he cant have his child in jail with him.

both automatically get joint custody in most states unless they go to court to contest it. the physical location of the child is "up for grabs" unless there is a court order on the subject.

yeah well a mothers automatic physical custody is pretty much a matter of biology isnt it? what with squeezing it out of her body and feeding it from her breasts. so she gets to take it home. go figure.

the father gets custody and visitation and potentially half of the time physical custody (if she or a court agrees) regardless of is actual paying of support. they are considered seperate issues.

of course if he ends up in jail for nonsupport he cant have his child in jail with him.

both automatically get joint custody in most states unless they go to court to contest it. the physical location of the child is "up for grabs" unless there is a court order on the subject.
There is the factor of breastfeeding, particularly since there is a ton of evidence that it's better for you than bottle feeding.

Did I say 'physical'? Quote me. Your strawman aside, I pointed out that often people think they're not interested in raising a child, but when the child is actually there, they step up. Your document would make it impossible for them to do so. I also would point out that you KNOW this would be used to coerce women into abortion even when the man would step up and care for the child if the child was actually born, 'cept now he can't because your document makes it impossible. Ah, but screw consideration for the child let's make men's responsibility in the process EVEN LESS.

Again with your assumption that all men are irresponsible and would just jump at the chance to use this without thinking about the consequences.

Edit: Meanwhile, I never said that you said "physical". Therefore your suggestion of a strawman is ludicrous. I'm just wondering why you completely ignore the very real emotional danger of having a parent forced to be around when that parent does not love the child or have any wish to take care of it.

Again, your ignorance of the facts doesn't make them cease to exist.

Exactly what facts are you talking about here?

Yes, because a document that simply makes you not responsible for the chilld and a surgery that makes the child not ever exist are EXACTLY the same.

I've never said anything to suggest that they are. However, you keep suggesting that men are so irresponsible that they would just sign the paper on a whim without even thinking about the consequences of it.

Oh, it's rather easy in those cases where the father is a boyfriend that was never informed of the child. If a boyfriend turns out to be the father of a child, it's not too hard to expect her to reasonably suspect that he was the father.

Unless of course she was also sleeping with 10 other men, in which case she would have no way of knowing, right? And how do we prove that she wasn't? How do we prove that she even knew their names, much less how to get in touch with them?

Actually, I think if a woman gets pregnant she should be required to inform all potential fathers she can reasonably get a hold of. In the case of adoption, some states do as well.

They tried that. The only thing they could come up with was that a woman who chose to be promiscuous and didn't know how to get in touch with all potential fathers was to advertise her sex life in the paper. One could reasonably think that she might reach them that way, but at what price?

He would have the same choice a woman would.

And his decision would make the decision for the mother as well. Thus, once again, one person's decision controls the body and life of another. Thus, once again, very unfair.

Any time one person's decision makes a decision for another, we are talking about an unfair situation.

Unfortunately, possession is always a problem. If I break up with my girlfriend and I have the dog that we shared and she wishes to gain access to it, she does have to sue.

A child is the same as a dog now?

((I know you didn't say that, but since you've been doing the same thing to me this whole thread, I figured you might like a taste of it)).

And would you care to back up your assertions about custody are we accepting wive's tales as evidence.

You show me a single instance in which a child was born and both (unmarried) parents got equal custody immediately.

I'm waiting.....


Of course, according to you this never happens), every man I know that impregnated a woman out of wedlock has equal custody.

Really? They automatically get equal time with the kid? The mother is not considered as having primary custody? Neither parent is? Neither parent pays child support to the other because they have equal time actually taking care of the child?

To claim that your 'paper abortion' somehow helps the situation is equally idiotic.

The paper abortion has nothing to do with the unequal situation of child custody. It doesn't apply to responsible people who are willing to take on the responsibility of taking care of a child. It has only to do with irresponsible men who would not take on that burden willingly.

In fact, it furthers the belief that women are somehow more responsible for the child.

Not in the least. The same type of arrangement would be available for the mother. At birth, she could sign away her rights and responsibilities to the father. If he didn't want them, she could sign them away to the state or to adoptive parents.

In this system, irresponsible people would be able to "get out of their responsibilities", instead of being forced into a responsibility that cannot really be taken on unwillingly.

If you really want to address the problem then you would actually be talking about a solution that increases the rights and responsibilities of men to their children.

I am - for those fathers who are actually responsible. For the irresponsible ones, their very presence is a danger to the child. It should be removed.

yeah well a mothers automatic physical custody is pretty much a matter of biology isnt it? what with squeezing it out of her body and feeding it from her breasts. so she gets to take it home. go figure.

Then it isn't equitable. Period. As for breast-feeding, they have these fun devices these days known as breast pumps. The child can still get breastmilk, but spend equal time with the father.

the father gets custody and visitation and potentially half of the time physical custody (if she or a court agrees) regardless of is actual paying of support. they are considered seperate issues.

It shouldn't be up to her or a court. The default should be equal custody.

of course if he ends up in jail for nonsupport he cant have his child in jail with him.

Of course not. And if a woman ends up in jail for nonsupport or neglect, she wouldn't have the child with her either.

both automatically get joint custody in most states unless they go to court to contest it.

Joint custody is not equal custody. Joint custody generally refers to one parent having primary custody while the other gets "visitation rights". Maybe a weekend here and there or a holiday.

the physical location of the child is "up for grabs" unless there is a court order on the subject.

And what I am saying is that it shouldn't be. The default should be equal custody. Anything else should take a court order. It's either that or we simply say, "One parent always has more rights." And, as I have said time and time again, with more rights should come more responsibility.

There is the factor of breastfeeding, particularly since there is a ton of evidence that it's better for you than bottle feeding.

The great thing is that, since the invention of the breast pump, you can have the best of both worlds! A father can feed his child breast milk!

Dem, you argue against yourself (and I'm going to go ahead a let you hang yourself on this before I quote you and prove it).

You suggest that the mothers should be allowed to raise the child alone if they're responsible and the man doesn't wish to. However, they can already do that. A responsible mother can ask the father who 'hates the child' to sign away his responsibility including child support. You wish to take the decision away from the responsible parent and give it to the parent you claim hates the child. I can see how that makes sense. NOT.

You pretend like child support forces men who don't want to be fathers to be around their children, yet child support and custody are not equal. In fact, in equal custody, child support generally isn't necessary. You pretend like when one talks about support we are only talking about financial. However, custody is never forced.

Go ahead. Respond. But I recommend you reread your previous posts before doing so, because I'm about to hang you.

A child is the same as a dog now?

((I know you didn't say that, but since you've been doing the same thing to me this whole thread, I figured you might like a taste of it)).

Actually, they do treat custody of just about everything the same. Custody is unfortunately complicated and police rarely involve themselves in custody battles. They appropriately leave it to the courts.

You show me a single instance in which a child was born and both (unmarried) parents got equal custody immediately.

I'm waiting.....

EVERY CASE. Every single one. Now sometimes mothers deny the fathers appropriate custody and the father has to go to court to correct it. This also goes the other way at times, however, it's much more difficult to pull off since mother's by nature have physical possession of the child initially.

Show me a case where it was assumed by ANY LEGAL entity that a proven father had less than equal custody. Show me one.

Really? They automatically get equal time with the kid? The mother is not considered as having primary custody? Neither parent is? Neither parent pays child support to the other because they have equal time actually taking care of the child?

Actually, it goes both ways. All of the kids I know of are in school now. Several of them live with thier father on school days. Most of them are the other way. The other parent has custody on weekends and they alternate holidays. That's six couples.

The paper abortion has nothing to do with the unequal situation of child custody. It doesn't apply to responsible people who are willing to take on the responsibility of taking care of a child. It has only to do with irresponsible men who would not take on that burden willingly.

Yet every time I reference these irresponsible men you suggest I'm talking about all men. Ridiculous. Contest that? I'm happy to quote you.

Not in the least. The same type of arrangement would be available for the mother. At birth, she could sign away her rights and responsibilities to the father. If he didn't want them, she could sign them away to the state or to adoptive parents.

Yep, take the decision out of the hands of the responsible parent and put in the hands of the irresponsible parent. I suppose if I wasn't looking out for the child that would make sense.

In this system, irresponsible people would be able to "get out of their responsibilities", instead of being forced into a responsibility that cannot really be taken on unwillingly.

Point proven. Irresponsible people are only forced to monetarily support their children. No one is forced to have custody of a child.

I am - for those fathers who are actually responsible. For the irresponsible ones, their very presence is a danger to the child. It should be removed.

If their presence is a danger to the child there are fairly easy avenues to not allow them around the child. Of course, that requires more than YOUR opinion and their wish not to pay for their child. You suggest the only reason a man would choose to sing this document is because he is a danger to the child. If only danger was the issue then there are already avenues to deal with it. So I'm guessing you are expecting other people to use it as well.

Dem, you argue against yourself

Not in the least. I am arguing on two different points, and you are trying to pretend they are all part of the same issue. When I talk about a responsible person, you try to apply what I say to an irrresponsible one. When I talk about an irresponsible person, you try to apply what I say to a responsible one. When I talk about morality, you try to apply what I say to legality. When I talk about legality, you try to apply what I say to morality. If you won't be honest with what I say, you can twist things however you want.

You suggest that the mothers should be allowed to raise the child alone if they're responsible and the man doesn't wish to. However, they can already do that. A responsible mother can ask the father who 'hates the child' to sign away his responsibility including child support.

That all depends on where you are. In some places, neither parent has any say at all in whether or not there are child support payments. My mother specifically requested that my father not be required to pay child support, but was told that the law denied her the right to do so.

You wish to take the decision away from the responsible parent and give it to the parent you claim hates the child. I can see how that makes sense. NOT.

I don't think the decision should belong to the parent because too many people will take the same tack you have, "Money = all, therefore it is better to force an unloving parent upon a child so long as they pay up. Never mind the damage it can do the child."

You pretend like child support forces men who don't want to be fathers to be around their children,

No, I haven't pretended that at all. In fact, I have talked about the exact opposite. Having a "check-writing" parent who isn't involved is not good for a child, but that is what required child support will end up in if you have a parent who is unwilling to take on the responsibility. You end up with a kid who knows who his father/mother is and knows, without a doubt, that the parent doesn't care about them. You end up with a custodial parent who, no matter how hard they try, cannot make up for that emptiness because there is a montly reminder - especially if the check doesn't come in.

In fact, in equal custody, child support generally isn't necessary.

And I have seen one case of such custody. Generally, one parent has primary custody and the other pays child support, whether they do so willingly or not.

You pretend like when one talks about support we are only talking about financial.

You quite obviously are, since you don't seem to think that the child needs emotional and psychological support from those who take care of it. To you, it is better if one parent says, "I want this child (for whatever reason they say it - love being only one possibility), therefore I am going to force you to take care of it as well."

However, custody is never forced.

There you go again with enforcing responsibilities without rights.

Go ahead. Respond. But I recommend you reread your previous posts before doing so, because I'm about to hang you.[/QUOTE]


EVERY CASE. Every single one.

Really? So every child that is born spends equal time with both parents from the offset? It is not expected to go home with the mother with the father getting "visitation rights"? This is news to me.

Show me a case where it was assumed by ANY LEGAL entity that a proven father had less than equal custody. Show me one.

Just about every case - whether divorce or at birth. One parent is assumed to have or given primary custody. The other is only entitled to visitation. The very fact that we are talking about child support - and that it applies in most cases - is proof of my point. Like you said, if they had equal custody, neither would pay the other child support, as they would have equal time in direct custody of the child.
I'll even quote you again on this:
In fact, in equal custody, child support generally isn't necessary.

So are you claiming that most children don't receive child support because it isn't generally necessary?


Actually, it goes both ways. All of the kids I know of are in school now. Several of them live with thier father on school days. Most of them are the other way. The other parent has custody on weekends and they alternate holidays. That's six couples.

Way to change the subject. Most kids that are in a joint custody situation are products of divorce. It has nothing to do with what is assumed at birth. Are you going to tell me that all 6 of these couples were unmarried at the time of birth of the child and have had this arrangement since it's birth?


Yet every time I reference these irresponsible men you suggest I'm talking about all men. Ridiculous. Contest that? I'm happy to quote you.

You're the one who acts like there would be so many men taking advantage of this system that it would be a problem. If you don't actually think many men would use it, by all means state that.


Yep, take the decision out of the hands of the responsible parent and put in the hands of the irresponsible parent.

Ok, prove to me that most parents who willingly take on the responsibility for a child would equally willingly say, "Ok, you are gone. Bye bye," to an irresponsible parent. Of course, if this were the case, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. OOPS!

I suppose if I wasn't looking out for the child that would make sense.

Oh look, it's the "Jocabia is right and anyone who doesn't agree with him doesn't care about children," tactic. How very cute. It doesn't help your case at all, but it's cute.

You see, I'm not suggesting that you don't care about children. I wouldn't stoop that low. You, on the other hand, seem to think the way to win a debate is to go, "OHMYGOD IF YOU DON"T AGREE WITH EVERYTHING I SAY YOU HATE CHILDREN!!!!!!!"


Point proven. Irresponsible people are only forced to monetarily support their children. No one is forced to have custody of a child.

Monetary support without true support = bad situation for the child. It would be better for the child to not have the person in the picture at all than to get a check from them every month with no love attached.

If the parent is writing out child support checks, they are present in that child's life. If that is all they are doing, they should not be.


If their presence is a danger to the child there are fairly easy avenues to not allow them around the child. Of course, that requires more than YOUR opinion and their wish not to pay for their child. You suggest the only reason a man would choose to sing this document is because he is a danger to the child. If only danger was the issue then there are already avenues to deal with it. So I'm guessing you are expecting other people to use it as well.

No, you simply refuse to recognize the very real emotional danger of having a "check-writing" parent. Like I said, apparently only physical danger matters to you. Emotional danger? No problem, so long as the check's in the mail....

Please do point out to me the law that recognizes the emotional danger in having such a parent?

Not in the least. I am arguing on two different points, and you are trying to pretend they are all part of the same issue. When I talk about a responsible person, you try to apply what I say to an irrresponsible one. When I talk about an irresponsible person, you try to apply what I say to a responsible one. When I talk about morality, you try to apply what I say to legality. When I talk about legality, you try to apply what I say to morality. If you won't be honest with what I say, you can twist things however you want.

In other words, your arguments don't stand together and aren't cohesive. Unfortunately, your 'paper abortion won't only sometimes apply'. If it's available it's available to everyone.

That all depends on where you are. In some places, neither parent has any say at all in whether or not there are child support payments. My mother specifically requested that my father not be required to pay child support, but was told that the law denied her the right to do so.

The state has NO say unless you are collecting benefits. The child is already represneted by the custodial parents. I would like to see you reference an actual case that we can all see. I know we were asking for examples before, but most of the other examples we've given we are all aware there are some that this happens with. I would actually like to read the legal justification for forcing money to go between to parents when they are the legal representatives of the child. The only exception is when the state has an interest due to giving benefits.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]I don't think the decision should belong to the parent because too many people will take the same tack you have, "Money = all, therefore it is better to force an unloving parent upon a child so long as they pay up. Never mind the damage it can do the child."

Quote me. You try to make that argument, but I've never made it. I pointed out that you can already avoid custody without permission of the other parent. The only thing this document changes is also allows for financial ties to be severed. And if the custodial parent needs additional support, you're damn right I think she or he should get it from the other person responsible for creating the child.

No, I haven't pretended that at all. In fact, I have talked about the exact opposite. Having a "check-writing" parent who isn't involved is not good for a child, but that is what required child support will end up in if you have a parent who is unwilling to take on the responsibility. You end up with a kid who knows who his father/mother is and knows, without a doubt, that the parent doesn't care about them. You end up with a custodial parent who, no matter how hard they try, cannot make up for that emptiness because there is a montly reminder - especially if the check doesn't come in.

Ha. And your 'paper abortion' changes that how? It only denies the child financial support. They still aren't being raised by the father and they still know who their father is or have the same potential to know. Which conveys the message I don't care more? I don't want to care for you or I signed a document that says I didn't want for you to born? Hell, I should just let you talk. I'm not sure I need to make an argument at all. You're doing a damn good job of showing how silly this document is.

And I have seen one case of such custody. Generally, one parent has primary custody and the other pays child support, whether they do so willingly or not.

Yes, often child support is not voluntary. Who's arguing that point? No one. Often, it's necessary for one parent to have primary custody. I don't deny that. There are tons of reasons. Some parents travel, as I do. Some parents work long hours. Some parents simply don't want to have the kids around. However, in cases where both parents are responsible they work out a schedule that is best for the child. Meanwhile, this has NOTHING to do with the subject of the thread.

You quite obviously are, since you don't seem to think that the child needs emotional and psychological support from those who take care of it. To you, it is better if one parent says, "I want this child (for whatever reason they say it - love being only one possibility), therefore I am going to force you to take care of it as well."

Quote me. Point it out. I can quote myself specifically saying the opposite. You mention people that don't wish to care for the child at all and I state that the child is better of in many situations having financial care if nothing else. You can't force parents to take custody of their children and raise them. To me, the child exists anyway so it is better for the child to get as much support as possible. The only one denying support of ANY TYPE to the child is you. You continually admit that children should not be denied that support. Again, I should just let you make the arguments. They show how silly your document is without anything from me.

There you go again with enforcing responsibilities without rights.

Really? Where? By saying we don't force custody. People have to willing take on custody. And unless there is some danger to the child a parent is paying child support should be allowed custody if they so desire. Are you actually paying attention. I'll requote that which you are responding to "custody is never forced". In other words, each parent has the option of not taking custody of the child. Of course, if neither parent wants custody they put it up for adoption. I'm a little embarassed for you that I had to explain that.

Go ahead. Respond. But I recommend you reread your previous posts before doing so, because I'm about to hang you.

Ha. Remember that you asked.

Really? So every child that is born spends equal time with both parents from the offset? It is not expected to go home with the mother with the father getting "visitation rights"? This is news to me.

I didn't say they do, I said that equal custody is assumed. Show me any law that states what you just claimed. If both parents agree to a change in that custody then fine. Who are you to say otherwise? However, if one parent or the other is denied equal custody then it is necessary for the courts to intervene. Any day you want to show that any legal entity assumes otherwise. People's prejudices or preferences have NOTHING to do with it is encouraged and enforced by the government, which is what you're arguing for. Unless you're suggesting we somehow force people to see things differently.

Just about every case - whether divorce or at birth. One parent is assumed to have or given primary custody. The other is only entitled to visitation. The very fact that we are talking about child support - and that it applies in most cases - is proof of my point. Like you said, if they had equal custody, neither would pay the other child support, as they would have equal time in direct custody of the child.
I'll even quote you again on this:

MOST cases are settled by the agreement of both parents. The court has nothing to do with it. Again, who are you to say it should be different? However, the fact that they come to an agreement together is a testament to the FACT that equal custody is assumed.

The cases that are settled by the court start with the assumption that custody is equal and then uses other information to decide the custody arrangement that is best for the child. Your argument is similar to saying that since so many people are found guilty in a court of law, we must not presume them innocent until proven guilty. The outcome has nothing to do with the original assumption. Again, find me any legal case that stated that men and women don't start with equal custody.

So are you claiming that most children don't receive child support because it isn't generally necessary?

Nope. I'm claiming that in cases of equal custody child support isn't necessary. It's right there in the sentence. Reading is fundamental. I didn't say equal custody is the result in most cases, just assumed in the beginning.

Now, to clear up your difficulties in following. I'll put it all together for you in the next paragraph.

All cases start with EQUAL CUSTODY. Now for various reasons, it doesn't remain as equal custody always. However, according to the law, there must be a reason to not have equal custody. Read that again. There must be a reason to not have equal custody. You know what that means. Equal custody is assumed. Hell, my mother and father were married and didn't have equal custody of me if you're talking about the amount of time each one spent in my presence or caring for me. And had my parents divorced my mother would have had full custody of me because my father wasn't interested in custody (my parents discussed it when they nearly divorced). However, equal custody was the jump-off point, which is the point. And in those cases where they end up with equal custody child support is unnecessary. As you pointed out, child support is based on the amount of custody.

Way to change the subject. Most kids that are in a joint custody situation are products of divorce. It has nothing to do with what is assumed at birth. Are you going to tell me that all 6 of these couples were unmarried at the time of birth of the child and have had this arrangement since it's birth?

Change the subject? I thought you were talking about the custody arrangement from birth? OH, wait, you were. Are you actually suggesting that majority of divorces involving children occur while the mother is pregnant? Follow along. See, in divorce, custody is part of the proceedings. So if you are actually talking about divorces then most of what you said is completely illogical. Thus, we must be talking about parents who were never married. Certainly, you're not claiming that custody is an issue at birth when the parents are still married?

Actually, I honestly don't know of anyone of my neighbors who got married. I assume there are some, but I don't know of any. Some are still with the father, like my sister (they are not married), and some are not. In the six couples, they are all no longer together and none were married. Just to accentuate the point, I have four siblings. Two are married and two are not. All have children. My married sister also had a child out of wedlock but that child died at three weeks, so I can't really tell you much about custody, other than my sister and the father agreed that it would be best if my sister stayed with my mother during the early weeks of the child's life in order to have some additional support while my sister was recovering.

Now as far as the arrangements, the arrangements have changed over time based on need. The decisions were, as they should be, made based on what the best way to care for the child was. Your shock says a lot about what you think of parents.

You're the one who acts like there would be so many men taking advantage of this system that it would be a problem. If you don't actually think many men would use it, by all means state that.

Okay, since you're struggling with the concept, I'll explain. We are discussing a document and its effects. Now, those couples that don't use it are not effected by it. So when having a discussion we talk about the ones who would. I don't think a majority or even a large minority of men would use it. I do think that a large portion of the men who used it would have been responsible parents once they were placed in the position. I think most people who are dangerous to their children wouldn't be any more likely to use this document than parents who would grow into the role. There is already a means to remove the dangerous parents. SO effectively, this would only add the ability to remove non-dangerous parents.

Ok, prove to me that most parents who willingly take on the responsibility for a child would equally willingly say, "Ok, you are gone. Bye bye," to an irresponsible parent. Of course, if this were the case, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. OOPS!

Did I say that? Nope. OOPS. First of all, child support isn't only an issue because people are bad parents. The child support arrangements by courts are often because two people who have a lot of history have difficulty settling the issue alone. OOPS.

However, since you seem to be referring to the cases where the father only gives financial support, we'll discuss that. In those cases the responsible parent decided whether child support from the other parent was necessary. OOPS. You would prefer that the 'irresponsible parent', as you referred to them, make the decision with no input from the the parent who would take on the responsibility. You're the only one that suggests it's always best to "Ok, you are gone. Bye bye." when it comes to a parent who is only offering financial support.

Since you have difficulty following, I'll quote you -
The paper abortion has nothing to do with the unequal situation of child custody. It doesn't apply to responsible people who are willing to take on the responsibility of taking care of a child. It has only to do with irresponsible men who would not take on that burden willingly.

You suggest the men using this document are irresponsible and yet you give the 'irresponsible' person in the situation the decision with no input from the responsible parent. Yep, generally the best way to ensure the best care of a child is to allow the least responsible person in the situation to dictate how that care is administered. Brilliant.


Oh look, it's the "Jocabia is right and anyone who doesn't agree with him doesn't care about children," tactic. How very cute. It doesn't help your case at all, but it's cute.

Tell me how a document that allows people who are irresponsible by your own statement to deny responsibility is caring about children. it's not. It's about the perceived idea that men are somehow trapped into fatherhood. And of course, that gives no consideration to the child.

You see, I'm not suggesting that you don't care about children. I wouldn't stoop that low. You, on the other hand, seem to think the way to win a debate is to go, "OHMYGOD IF YOU DON"T AGREE WITH EVERYTHING I SAY YOU HATE CHILDREN!!!!!!!"

Uh-huh. No. I seem to think that there is a child and that this document denies that child support. That you aren't considering the child is an obvious conclusion. In fact, most of your arguments have nothing to do with the child and everything to do with how unfair things are to men. That's exactly why you're making this huge argument about custody.

Monetary support without true support = bad situation for the child. It would be better for the child to not have the person in the picture at all than to get a check from them every month with no love attached.

Tell that to a child that can't afford clothes that fit or adequate medical attention or drinks powdered milk instead of actual milk. You have yet to show that a child is damaged by receiving funds by the father without support. With your document they still don't get support but they don't get the money either. Would you care to show how the child benefits by less money?

If the parent is writing out child support checks, they are present in that child's life. If that is all they are doing, they should not be.

No, you simply refuse to recognize the very real emotional danger of having a "check-writing" parent. Like I said, apparently only physical danger matters to you. Emotional danger? No problem, so long as the check's in the mail....

Please do point out to me the law that recognizes the emotional danger in having such a parent?
I don't admit that it is an emotional danger. Would you care to show that it is? It's usually held that children benefit from additional financial support. Want evidence? Child support. Would you care to show why anyone would think otherwise? You keep saying they are emotionally injured by knowing their father doesn't want them, but your document certainly doesn't change that. In fact, the only thing it changes in that situation is the child has less financial support. Now, show how this is a benefit.

The great thing is that, since the invention of the breast pump, you can have the best of both worlds! A father can feed his child breast milk!


I think you need to learn a little about breastfeeding. This comment and your earlier one make me think you believe a breast pump can create equal time. The fact is, many women's breasts will not react to a pump and many breastfeeding babies will not take a bottle. WHile they are an excellent invention, pumps are not the great equalizer. Many breastfeeding mothers find them useless or find they diminish supply, create nursing strikes, etc. Just thought, as a breasfeeding mother who has tried many manual and automatic pumps, I needed to point this out. (I even belong to a LLL group full of women who have this problem.)

So a person could contine to meet those obligations if they wanted to even after giving the kid up for adoption?
Of course not! Can you pick a random child and choose to 'meet the obligations' of their parent/s? A legal adoption severs the relationship between the biological parent/s and the child.
They could continue to see that child and take care of it, even though someone else was technically in charge? Hmmmmm.....nope. The only way a biological parent can have any contact with an adopted child whatsoever is if the adoptive parent specifically allows it.
I dont understand why for a moment you would think I believed or implied otherwise.:confused:
The default state is generally that they cannot do so . Thus, we aren't talking about a "loss of obligation", but a complete removal of the ability to meet that obligation, even if you wanted to.
As I said the relationship is legally severed. The biological parent in law has no more or less rights in regards to forming a relationship with the child, than any other random adult person.
Ok, I never said any differently, so no problem here.
...which means that the decision of the father forces the mother to take on responsibility for the child, just as a mother deciding to take on that responsibility forces a father to do so. Thank you for making my point that it only takes one of them to decide to keep the child - for both of them.
What exactly is your point? That there are consequences to pregnancy, and in some cases one party subject to the consequences might be more unhappy with the consequences than the other?
So what?
The only party involved that didnt in some way bring about the consequences, is probably in justice the one whose rights should be upheld to the greatest extent. Pragmatically, since that person is also a minor who the law is inclined to especially protect the interests of, particularly in being 'provided for' by 'accountable adults', it makes sense to uphold the rights of this most innocent and most 'vulnerable party (it doesnt hurt that holding 2 people financially accountable rather than 1 adds extra protection to a potential 4th also innocent party, ie the taxpayer if the child becomes a burden on the State due to insufficient parental income).

If you follow from the fact that prior to birth no one but the woman can have a say since any action involves her body, and you concede that the say after the child is born is equal for both parents (they either both agree to adopt or not), what more can be done? It doesnt seem justice to shield either parent from the consequence of their acts at the cost of another party (the child) who is not responsible for the consequences in question.


Yup, even if she is responsible and the man is irresponsible and hates the child. We should force him to take that responsibility anyways. After all, it's onlly money that matters.
No, it isnt only money that matters. Money is a necessity. A lack of money is a disadvantagement. A lack love and attention and care from either parent is a disadvantage.
So if it's a choice between a child who is missing out emotionally and financially, or a child who is missing out emotionally, but has the advantage of a financially stable house hold, I'd choose for the child to be as least disadvantaged as possible.

It's bad enough having an emotionally absentee parent without also having your custodial parent stressed about money, or working too many hours to be able to give you the attention you need, or you never go on school trips and always have second hand clothes.
If you already have the poor luck to have a heartless sod for a parent, you certainly dont need the extra crap of being a dependent in a household that suffers financial disadvantagement.

As an unwilling parent is, unless we are just talking about physical dangers again. You know, because the emotional and psychological well-being of the child means nothing.
No, it doesn't. It denies that the situation where an irresponsible parent is forced to take on the responsibility for a child (which is more than just "write a check once a month") is best for the child.
Actually it premises that writing a check is better than nothing. I see no valid argument that suggests otherwise. It's bad enough having a reluctant parent without also living on the poverty line. A financial contribution is superior to no contribution whatsoever. It may be a practical contribution rather than an emotional one, but the fact is life isnt made emotionally easier by having practical woes on top of emotional concerns. It's hard enough getting a postive attitude towards the world and oneself while dealing with emotional concerns without having the day to day stress of unnecessary practical burdens.
If a parent is going to let their child suffer through lack of their care, the friggen least they can do is make some financial contribution to their well-being.
You mean like having abortion legal encourages women to have abortions?
It's a red herring either way. Having an abortion does not prejudice the rights of any party.
Oh wait, you were saying earlier that most women would never even consider having an abortion, even though a pregnancy can put them in greater danger and damages their bodies more. Yet you seem to believe that every single man out there would find the 'paper abortion' acceptable. What a poor opinion of men you must have.
You are making an entirely false analogy.
In one case the principal (in law) is about one party's rights.
In the case of this 'paper abortion' you talk about there is an innocent party who happens to be a person of a particular type recognised as needing extra protection in law (ie a minor) whose rights are going to be significantly breached, and whose interests may as a result be significantly harmed.
In one case there is no competting rights that might be infringed on. In the other case there is a party with extra special claims and rights that would definately be infringed on by what you suggest.

There doesnt seem to be any compelling case for the law to intervene and effect a serious harm to the interests of an innocent party, in order to shield another party from consequences of their own actions.

To Saint Jude regarding post 312:
1. I agree.
2. I also thought you were a guy. Sorry. But I agree with you here.
3. I agree 1000% Are you married?

To Medio-Persia regarding post 315:
I would agree with your precept if you included an exemption in cases where the physical or psychological life of the woman is in jeopardy or where the child while die anyway if it is born.
To require the permission of the man in such cases would unnecessarily jeopardize the woman's life and be a violation of her human rights.

To Jacobia regarding post 316:
You are again arguing that men are all evil and placing all the blame on them for the woman getting her into the situation. The system you advocate requires no responsibility whatever from the woman. Instead it says that its ok for them to have irresponsible sex cause whatever happens, the man will always be held responsible and not them.
Regarding post 317:
an attempt at sarcasm? Unfortunately that represents the false and oversimplification of the issue that you are using to support your position.

To Dempublicents 1 regarding post 318:
1. What is it I am supposed to have advocated? That men be allowed to get paper abortions on a whim? Not true. That is just an unsupported accusation tossed around by Jacobia that is not proven by any of my posts. No where have I stated that men should be allowed to refuse responsibility on a whim. But rather, there are situations in which they should be. If the guy irresponsibly goes around having sex with as many women as he can, then no he should not be allowed a paper abortion.
2 through 4 Again I agree.
5. As he has been doing with me, he is putting words in your mouth that aren't there.
6. At least he is not calling you are racist or a bigot. Or at least not yet. :)
7. I like your reasoning.

To Jacobia regarding post 319:
1. You again are arguing that that is always the case. You continue to deny that other people have experiences that are different from that. Do you think the world revolves around you or something? Not everyone has the same experience.
3. They are not treated equal in such matters. The woman gets all the power and the man is left out in the cold with no power or say whatever most of the time.
4. Yet you've done nothing to prove your point except engage in name calling and flamebaiting. Your idea of equality is to give the woman total power over both man and child and to allow neither of the latter any say at all.
5. Fortunately, in America such things are not forced upon people. Under your system, people would not be free to make such decisions voluntarily. In fact, they would have no personal freedoms at all. What you advocate is a dictatorship run by women.

To Ashmoria regarding post 320:
It is not the law of the land. Our argument is whether it should be. I'm on the side that says it should. Also, in California, men are not given such equal treatment.

To Zagat regarding post 321
I agree on most of that. Except that the law is actually contradictory when it comes to the issue of whether the preborn are persons or not. In the case of a woman wanting an abortion it is not a person. But in all other cases, it is by law, a person. For example, when a pregnant woman is killed the murderer is charged with two murders: the woman's and the child's. Even in cases where the woman survives but the child doesn't, the killer can still get the death penalty for killing a person cause the law considers the preborn child to be a person.

Post 324:
1. I disagree based on experiences of people I know, spoke to, and read about.
2. Loopholes that allow for abuse should be closed.
3. You most likely have a point but at least the idea of a paper abortion is a starting point for acknowledging there is a problem that needs to be addressed. Rather than, as some people have insisted, pretend the system is fine and there are no problems with it.
4. Jacobia isn't arguing that? His posts read like he was.

If men participate in the conception of a fetus, and they're later held responsible for it, shouldn't they have a say in it as well?

Hells yes! Men are responsible for providing for a pregnant woman, and they are an equal part of the decision to have an abortion. How come a man takes all the heat when he leaves a pregnant woman, but its fine for that woman to have an abortion? The thing is, this is the way a lot of feminazis think. Why?

Hells yes! Men are responsible for providing for a pregnant woman, and they are an equal part of the decision to have an abortion. How come a man takes all the heat when he leaves a pregnant woman, but its fine for that woman to have an abortion? The thing is, this is the way a lot of feminazis think. Why?
:rolleyes: too bad you brought up "feminazi" at the end if your "arguement"
I had to waste my time reading it rather then doing something much more constructive ... like drinking

:rolleyes: too bad you brought up "feminazi" at the end if your "arguement"
I had to waste my time reading it rather then doing something much more constructive ... like drinking

Too bad you misspelled "argument." If you wish to bash me for using a term I deem to be perfectly adequate, don't misspell any three-syllable words.

At least mine was only a spelling error :D

To To Jacobia regarding post 316:
You are again arguing that men are all evil and placing all the blame on them for the woman getting her into the situation. The system you advocate requires no responsibility whatever from the woman. Instead it says that its ok for them to have irresponsible sex cause whatever happens, the man will always be held responsible and not them.
Regarding post 317:
an attempt at sarcasm? Unfortunately that represents the false and oversimplification of the issue that you are using to support your position.

No responsibility, huh? Really? So how many men have died in childbirth (let's assume the mother doesn't have gun during the birth)? How many men have died during from an abortion? You totally ignore that women are held responsible for getting pregnant by nature. You act like women are having this children and forcing ONLY the father to care for them. They aren't. If a father is held responsible, a mother is held MORE responsible. Not only is she financially responsible but in more cases than not she is emotionally and physically responsible for the child as well. Now add to that the woman also endures birth and tell how in the hell any woman is being allowed to be LESS responsible than a man? Tell me how in the hell women are getting pregnant with no consequences as you suggest?

Now as to post 317, I'm oversimplifying? You noticed? Good. Kind of like the oversimplification of a 'paper abortion'. If my solution was an oversimplification, then your solution is much more so. Prove me wrong. Show me how a 'paper abortion' isn't an oversimplification of the problem. Little hint: I was hoping you would make that argument. Thank you.

In other words, your arguments don't stand together and aren't cohesive.

Or maybe you, as usual, simply don't want to see what is being said and assume other things instead.

Unfortunately, your 'paper abortion won't only sometimes apply'. If it's available it's available to everyone.

It's available to everyone, but only the irresponsible would use it.

The state has NO say unless you are collecting benefits.

....which is why they specifically told her that she could not forego child support. Gotcha.

I would actually like to read the legal justification for forcing money to go between to parents when they are the legal representatives of the child.

Me too.

Ha. And your 'paper abortion' changes that how? It only denies the child financial support.

It does not such thing. The child can get financial support from all sorts of avenues.

And it changes it because there is no father in the picture to be dissapointed by. As far as the child is concerned, he doesn't even exist. Thus, you can't be disappointed by his lack of interest.

They still aren't being raised by the father and they still know who their father is or have the same potential to know.

Incorrect. The document in question would make it illegal for a father to try and have any contact with his children whatsoever. The child's "potential to know" him is basically nil, unless the father wants to get arrested.

Yes, often child support is not voluntary. Who's arguing that point? No one. Often, it's necessary for one parent to have primary custody. I don't deny that.

Wait, before you were telling me that every single case is equal custody. You really should make up your mind. Which is more common? Both parents having equal custody, or one having primary custody?

You mention people that don't wish to care for the child at all and I state that the child is better of in many situations having financial care if nothing else.

And you ignore the fact that financial care can come from anywhere. It would be better for it to come from those who actually care about the child, not setting the child up for disappointment from the other parent.

The only one denying support of ANY TYPE to the child is you.

Incorrect yet again. Quote me. Where have I said that a child should be denied support? In fact, I have said the EXACT OPPOSITE. I simply don't think that support needs to or should come from an irresponsible and unloving parent.

Really? Where? By saying we don't force custody.

You cannot force responsibility without giving rights in return. If a person is legally responsible for a child in any capacity, they have parental rights to that child. Such rights include custody. If you force someone to pay, but do not give them custody, you are enforcing responsibility without corresponding rights.

People have to willing take on custody.

Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. If a person must be willing to take on a right, they must be equally willing to take on a responsibility.

Ha. Remember that you asked.

I didn't. Those were your words. The quote tags were simply off.

I didn't say they do, I said that equal custody is assumed.

And provided no evidence whatsoever considering that the situation in which equal custody occurs is pretty close to unheard of. If equal custody were assumed, a mother wouldn't sue a father for child support - he would be assumed to have equal custody until such time as he gave it up. Thus, he would be assumed to have equal time taking care of the child and would thus not be required to pay child support. A father would have equal rights to come to the hospital at the birth of the child and then take the child home. I don't see this happening very often. In fact, the only case I can think of in which this would happen is if the mother had already been deemed a danger to the child.

You cannot pretend that, in the case of unmarried couples, the parents actually start off in equality. They do not. The only way this happens is if they have discussed it ahead of time and the mother has agreed.

MOST cases are settled by the agreement of both parents. The court has nothing to do with it.

In most cases, the court has to agree to it. After all, it is important for the government to know who has custody. And, in many states, laws are made restricting what agreements the parents can come to.

Nope. I'm claiming that in cases of equal custody child support isn't necessary.

Yup. And in the post right before that, you said that EVERY SINGLE CASE is equal custody. Thus, you are saying that child support is not necessary in every single case.

I didn't say equal custody is the result in most cases, just assumed in the beginning.

And you have provided no evidence for this, especially considering that equal custody is the extreme minority. You have shown no case in which a father was allowed to come pick up a child from the hospital even though the mother wanted to take it home. I bet I could find quite a few where the opposite occurred. Why aren't these mothers prosecuted for denying the father the rights of equal custody from the start?

All cases start with EQUAL CUSTODY. Now for various reasons, it doesn't remain as equal custody always.

....or even until the baby leaves the hospital a day later.

So when having a discussion we talk about the ones who would.

If the number of people who would use it is small, then the outrage and suggestion that it represents a huge difficulty for women is bullshit.

I don't think a majority or even a large minority of men would use it. I do think that a large portion of the men who used it would have been responsible parents once they were placed in the position.

I bet a lot of women who ended up getting abortions or giving a child up for adoption might have stood up and been responsible parents if we forced them to take that responsibility on too. But enough of them wouldn't that I wouldn't take that chance with the life of a child.

Did I say that? Nope. OOPS. First of all, child support isn't only an issue because people are bad parents. The child support arrangements by courts are often because two people who have a lot of history have difficulty settling the issue alone. OOPS.

...in which case they aren't forced and thus aren't a part of this discussion.

However, since you seem to be referring to the cases where the father only gives financial support, we'll discuss that. In those cases the responsible parent decided whether child support from the other parent was necessary.

I'm sorry. What is so magical about the money from a biological parent that money specifically from that parent is ever necessary? Is it super special magic money that does things that money from others cannot?

You're the only one that suggests it's always best to "Ok, you are gone. Bye bye." when it comes to a parent who is only offering financial support.

Then I am the only one really looking at what is best for the child, untempered by what is best for another person (ie. the custodial parent). If a parent is not going to be a parent, the best thing to do is to get rid of them completely. Remove them from that child's life completley. Anything else is, "I can't support this child myself and I don't want to find the help I need, I'll just get it from this person that is bad for the child to begin with."

You suggest the men using this document are irresponsible and yet you give the 'irresponsible' person in the situation the decision with no input from the responsible parent. Yep, generally the best way to ensure the best care of a child is to allow the least responsible person in the situation to dictate how that care is administered. Brilliant.

The person in question would have no say whatsoever in how care is administered, since they would have no rights in the situation whatsoever. The only person determining how care is administered would be the people who took on that responsibility willingly. Your twisting is cute, but idiotic.

Tell me how a document that allows people who are irresponsible by your own statement to deny responsibility is caring about children.

You are removing someone who would never take on that responsibility fully from the picture - removing the scumbags from the child's life. That's how. No child needs an unloving parent. No child needs a parent who resents them. No child needs to watch a responsible parent try to cover for the irresponsible one. No child needs to see a responsible parent struggle because they expected forced responsiblity to work, but it didn't. The best thing for the child is to have that person removed from their life altogether.

It's about the perceived idea that men are somehow trapped into fatherhood.

Bullshit. It's about the very true statement that anyone forced into parenthood is going to the a shitty parent. In case you missed the majority of my posts in this thread, I'm not just talking about men. I'm talking about all parents. Any parent, male or female, who will not willingly take on the full responsibility for a child should be removed completely from that child's life and never allowed to disrupt it again.

As far as I am concerned, monetary responsibility and custodial responsibility shouldn't be split into two separate components. They go hand in hand. There is no reason to disrupt a child's life with a parent who only provides a tiny portion of the equation. There is no reason to put a child in the situation where they have to deal, even briefly, with an unloving parent.

Uh-huh. No. I seem to think that there is a child and that this document denies that child support.

The child is never denied support. The child won't get support from one specific person out of billions on this planet. And since the child wouldn't be getting adequate support from them anyways, there isn't much lost there - and there is quite a bit gained.

In fact, most of your arguments have nothing to do with the child and everything to do with how unfair things are to men.

Yes, yes, that's why every post talks about the child and what is and is not best for the child. Yes, I think it is unfair to men that a child is put in a bad situation when a parent is forced upon them. Yup, that makes perfect sense.

That's exactly why you're making this huge argument about custody.

I know it's hard for you to keep more than one thing in your head at a time, but this thread is about parental rights in general. The discussion of custody is an entirely different discussion. In that discussion, responsible parents are assumed. In that discussion, we are talking about people willingly taking on the burden of childcare. I'm sorry that you have so much of a problem discerning the difference between *willing* and *unwilling* and *responsible* and *irresponsible*. You really should be able to tell the difference between exact opposites.

Tell that to a child that can't afford clothes that fit or adequate medical attention or drinks powdered milk instead of actual milk.

Any child that cannot afford this is being failed by their custodial parent and society in general.

You have yet to show that a child is damaged by receiving funds by the father without support.

You have yet to even consider the idea. I know from personal experience - and the experience of others - that this is true.

I don't admit that it is an emotional danger.

Then you don't know what you are talking about.

It's usually held that children benefit from additional financial support. Want evidence? Child support.

Cute. Most child support is paid by parents who actually do care about their children - who have taken on the responsibility of childrearing willingly. Care to prove that it isn't?

You keep saying they are emotionally injured by knowing their father doesn't want them, but your document certainly doesn't change that.

There is a difference between being raised in a completely loving environment, never having to deal with the person who is a dissapointment and actually still having that person in the picture. If there is no father in the picture, there is no expectation of how that father will act. If there is no expectation, there is no dissapointment. If there is no dissapointment, there is no danger.


I think you need to learn a little about breastfeeding. This comment and your earlier one make me think you believe a breast pump can create equal time.

And it can. Everything you bring up is a possibility, and one that would have to be dealt with if it came up. However, it is possible for the breast pump to enable a father to feed his child breast milk - which is all I was pointing out.

Of course not! Can you pick a random child and choose to 'meet the obligations' of their parent/s? A legal adoption severs the relationship between the biological parent/s and the child.

And part of that relationship is the legal responsibilities. Thank you for making my point.


If you follow from the fact that prior to birth no one but the woman can have a say since any action involves her body, and you concede that the say after the child is born is equal for both parents (they either both agree to adopt or not), what more can be done? It doesnt seem justice to shield either parent from the consequence of their acts at the cost of another party (the child) who is not responsible for the consequences in question.

Your assumption that the child would be harmed is exactly the problem here. Millions of children are raised in single parent homes - and turn out wonderfully. Children are adopted into loving homes - and turn out wonderfully. There is nothing magical in the money that a biological parent has that makes it better than money from other sources.

Actually it premises that writing a check is better than nothing. I see no valid argument that suggests otherwise.

There are two problems here. First of all, you obviously didn't have such a parent, so you obviously don't know what is involved.

Seconf of all, a parent who is doing nothing but check-writing is eventually going to try to get away with not writing the check. If the custodial parent hasn't already assumed the full responsibility and determined a source of income that does not depend upon the check, someone is going hungry. And then when the custodial parent pursues legal recourse in the situation, the scumbag parent tries to turn the child against them, not to mention generally not having the money to give anyways. You cannot depend upon the irresponsible to be responsible. To do so would be irresponsible.

You are making an entirely false analogy.

The analogy was about whether or not most people would consider the action as acceptable. I could have compared it to torturing a zebra and the analogy would hold, since most people wouldn't find torturing a zebra to be an acceptable action.

I'd feel guys were entitled to a choice in the matter if they were the ones who actually got pregnant. As we're not, it isn't any of our damned business.

I love how you pretend like children will just forget about their father if he signs this document. I have a father? Holy crap. I had no idea. I thought I was the product of asexual reproduction. Understand that in the case of this document, there is no reason to believe their mother is less likely to tell them their father is a deadbeat, no reason to believe their mother is going to feel LESS financial strain because of the father and every reason to believe the mother is going to feel MORE financial strain because of the father all the time and not just when he misses payments, no reason to believe that the child will feel less abandoned by a father that doesn't want him/her but pays for their child than by a father who signed a document called a 'paper abortion' that not only refuses the child support of the father but denies the existence of the child.

Yep, why deal in reality? Let's pretend like a man who does not want to support a child (would sign this document) is EXACTLY THE SAME as a man who would not meet his obligations once they arrived. Some men who would not meet their obligations would probably think they would like to have a child and some men who would meet their obligations (mininumally financial, but in many cases more) would not like to have a child. Your document does nothing to limit itself to those that would not meet their obligations once a child arrived and you've shown nothing that demonstrates otherwise.

I would assume you are aware of the vast number of men, and women for that matter, who feel they are not ready to have a child. A vast number of potential parents go through a traumatic time when they feel the child would be better off without them. Some women get abortions and then regret them for this very reason. To suspect no men would do the same is to simply deny reality. Fortunately, currently, until after the birth, parents do not have a way to create a child and deny responsibility for them. Even adoption proceedings can be halted up until transfer of custody. Why do you suppose this is?

Most people would claim that they would never suck snot out of a person's nose if they couldn't breath. Mother's have done so, however. Children are miraculous that way. They turn irresponsible children into responsible adults all the time. Your document makes no consideration for this possiblity, and in fact makes it impossible.

You set the time frame of the document during the time when a woman can still get an abortion so that a woman can still choose to get an abortion if the man chooses to sign the document then, astonishingly, claim that it wouldn't be used to coerce a woman into having the surgery.

You simply aren't looking at the reality of situation that would surround such a document. More saddening is that you create the document to repair a perceived inequity. You claim the document is in consideration for the child, yet you gave as the reason for to make the responsibilities optional for the man as they are for the woman. Sadly, you would give the irresponsible parent control of the situation and take it away from the responsible parent where it is presumed to preside currently. You rail at a system this document doesn't address and cite it as reasoning for why this document is fair. All of this denies the actual repercussions of such a document and the needs of the child.

I love how you pretend like children will just forget about their father if he signs this document.

Nice strawman. No, I said there is a big difference between having the scumbag around and not having him around. Having him around is a fairly constant reminder of the abandonment. Having him completely gone means you might think about it occasionally.

I know the difference here. I've had an irresponsible parent in the home, not in the home but still around, and completely out of the picture. Completely out of the picture for me was a little more difficult than it would be in this case, since I actually knew him and had to wonder if he was dead. However, it was still the most emotionally stable situation. And, during that time, I did practically forget about my father, even having known him for most of my life. He really just didn't enter my thoughts that much.

Edit: I also saw how the various incarnations of our relationship with our father affected my mother. Believe it or not, the most stable situation for her was also the period of time in which we didn't have any clue where he was. He was completely out of the picture. When he was *supposedly* making child support payments, she relied upon them, and when the check bounced, her finances were affected - and this with a woman who had always had near-perfect credit. When she didn't expect them, we still did just fine, without the worry of an irresponsible person screwing it all up. And not having to deal with him at all was the best situation for her. Strangely enough, even as a young teen, I could tell. Children are perceptive, they can figure these things out.

Understand that in the case of this document, there is no reason to believe their mother is less likely to tell them their father is a deadbeat,

Then she isn't concerned with the well-being of her children.

no reason to believe their mother is going to feel LESS financial strain because of the father and every reason to believe the mother is going to feel MORE financial strain because of the father

Of course there is a reason. If she doesn't have to depend on the undependable, she is less likely to end up in financial straits. If she isn't expecting responsibility from the irresponsible, she is less likely to be caught in a bind where she actually needs that money. If her plan for taking care of her children doesn't include an undependable monetary source, she is less likely to end up in financial strain.

no reason to believe that the child will feel less abandoned by a father that doesn't want him/her but pays for their child than by a father who signed a document called a 'paper abortion'

I have every reason to believe this. I've lived it.

Let's pretend like a man who does not want to support a child (would sign this document) is EXACTLY THE SAME as a man who would not meet his obligations once they arrived.

People have to take responsibility for their actions. If he signs it and then wants custody later - tough titty.

I would assume you are aware of the vast number of men, and women for that matter, who feel they are not ready to have a child. A vast number of potential parents go through a traumatic time when they feel the child would be better off without them. Some women get abortions and then regret them for this very reason. To suspect no men would do the same is to simply deny reality.

I never said no men would do this. And the result of their actions would be that they have no recourse to correct it, same as for a woman. Meanwhile, that woman has already found a way to take care of her child.

You set the time frame of the document during the time when a woman can still get an abortion so that a woman can still choose to get an abortion if the man chooses to sign the document then, astonishingly, claim that it wouldn't be used to coerce a woman into having the surgery.

In case you haven't been following the discussion, I set the cut-off for the "paper abortion" at that point. Thus, the woman can take that into account when planning. I also pointed out that I think both parents should be able to "put the child up for adoption" at birth. One parent or the other can assume full custody at this point, or they can both go with adoption.

Sadly, you would give the irresponsible parent control of the situation and take it away from the responsible parent where it is presumed to preside currently.

You keep saying this, and yet everything I have said is exactly the opposite. I am placing FULL AND COMPLETE CONTROL in the hands of a responsible person who takes on the responsibility of childcare willingly.

The system you advocate requires no responsibility whatever from the woman. Instead it says that its ok for them to have irresponsible sex cause whatever happens, the man will always be held responsible and not them.
That is absolute nonsense. Of the two parties the women takes on the biggest responsibility prior to and during birth. After birth the mother is always no less obliged than the father. Women are already more responsible than men for the consequences of pregnancys, and yet you are accusing others who dont wish to allow men to be even less responsible, of putting all the responsibility onto one party?

But rather, there are situations in which they should be. If the guy irresponsibly goes around having sex with as many women as he can, then no he should not be allowed a paper abortion.
Why not? If the guy down the road who lost his virginity on prom night and had the bad luck to get his date pregnant first time round the block can have a paper abortion why not Mr Share a Lot?


3. They are not treated equal in such matters. The woman gets all the power and the man is left out in the cold with no power or say whatever most of the time.
Where? I know where I live this is not the case, and I know that in most modern 'Westernised' societies this is not the case. As an example, in my country a person who is legally recognised as parent has rights and obligations. Both are to contribute to the child's well-being, and both (unless there is some pressing reason otherwise) have the right (and I would suggest an obligation) to participate in their child's life, and a right to participate in 'life decisions' (such as schooling). The law primarily recognises the rights of the child and always acts to optimise the child's well-being (although obviously this intended result is not what always occurs since laws are applied in practise by imperfect human beings) and it isthis principal that is the most important principal courts are expected to consider when deciding on issues relating to the care and custody of minors.
The two parents are equal to each before the law, however the child's interests and wellbeing has precedence over that of either and/or both parents should there be some confliction between the interests of either parent (or both parents) and the child.
If you live somewhere the courts deal with child custody/care issues significantly differently than the way described above, (can you please state where you live and describe how the law is different and) it seems likely that rather than 'paper abortions' the issue that needs addressing is a counterproductive prioritising of principals in family law.

To Zagat regarding post 321
I agree on most of that. Except that the law is actually contradictory when it comes to the issue of whether the preborn are persons or not.
You'll need to be more specific than this. For example it is not the case where I live. Is this the case throughout your own country or only in certain jurisdictions, and how did it come to be the case, and when did it come to be the case? As it is not the case where I live, I cant comment usefully without further information.

In the case of a woman wanting an abortion it is not a person. But in all other cases, it is by law, a person. For example, when a pregnant woman is killed the murderer is charged with two murders: the woman's and the child's.
That's not universally the case. I can actually recall a specific case within my own country's justice system, in which a driver who crashed into a parked car resulting in a late term miscarriage and could not be charged with unlawfully causing the death of a human, but only with charges relating to his unsafe operation of the vehical and the subsequent harm to the women who suffered a miscarraige as a result.

Even in cases where the woman survives but the child doesn't, the killer can still get the death penalty for killing a person cause the law considers the preborn child to be a person.
The thing about law is that it's about taking general rules and applying them to particular fact situations. What you describe isnt true where I live, I dont know quite where it is true in your case, or even if it is true as per your description. I believe I have the Roe vs Wade decision lying about the place somewhere, but I have no idea about how why or when a non-born person is considered to be a legally recognised human being, so I cant really comment on the relationship between the law you are referring to and abortion law.

2. Loopholes that allow for abuse should be closed.
The problem is the extent to which doing so is possible. The law can only do so much. It cannot predict every possible circumstance, and even if it could, it very probably could not use that information to construct a loophole free law that was coherent and understandable or even able to be read in a single life time.


3. You most likely have a point but at least the idea of a paper abortion is a starting point for acknowledging there is a problem that needs to be addressed. Rather than, as some people have insisted, pretend the system is fine and there are no problems with it.
No matter how problematic the farm has become, milking the bull is not a starting point to anywhere that one would sensibly wish to go...

It is possible to acknowledge problems without supporting paper abortions, and it seems unlikely to me that paper abortions would result in any significant improvement, yet not unlikely that they would result in significant additional problems. I dont think they'd make anything better, I do think they could easily make things worse, and at best the effort of putting them in place is effort that could be spent doing something useful rather than something that at best is non-productive and at worse is counter-productive.

You might have heard that it's better to do something than do nothing. If you place your faith in such an idea though, you will not be well served. Just like with talking: sometimes it's better to say nothing and be suspected of idiocy than to speak and remove all doubt....with actions sometimes it's better to do nothing at the risk of not making things any better (right now), than it is to do something sure to make things worse.

Nice strawman. No, I said there is a big difference between having the scumbag around and not having him around. Having him around is a fairly constant reminder of the abandonment. Having him completely gone means you might think about it occasionally.

I know the difference here. I've had an irresponsible parent in the home, not in the home but still around, and completely out of the picture. Completely out of the picture for me was a little more difficult than it would be in this case, since I actually knew him and had to wonder if he was dead. However, it was still the most emotionally stable situation. And, during that time, I did practically forget about my father, even having known him for most of my life. He really just didn't enter my thoughts that much.

Edit: I also saw how the various incarnations of our relationship with our father affected my mother. Believe it or not, the most stable situation for her was also the period of time in which we didn't have any clue where he was. He was completely out of the picture. When he was *supposedly* making child support payments, she relied upon them, and when the check bounced, her finances were affected - and this with a woman who had always had near-perfect credit. When she didn't expect them, we still did just fine, without the worry of an irresponsible person screwing it all up. And not having to deal with him at all was the best situation for her. Strangely enough, even as a young teen, I could tell. Children are perceptive, they can figure these things out.

Shocker. This is really about you and one relationship. I had no idea. Your experience is the only experience that matters. /sarcasm.

I love how you pretend like children will just forget about their father if he signs this document.
Nice strawman.
Let's see if it's actually a strawman.

And it changes it because there is no father in the picture to be dissapointed by. As far as the child is concerned, he doesn't even exist. Thus, you can't be disappointed by his lack of interest.

Oops! It's not a strawman when you said it. I guess when you said they can't be disappointed by the father and that he doesn't exist to the child that you meant they would remember their father but only sometimes. Uh-huh. Do I need to give you the definition of strawman?

Then she isn't concerned with the well-being of her children.

I agree. That would be true regardless of whether he signed the document or not. Of course, you pretend it's only true if he signs the document.

Of course there is a reason. If she doesn't have to depend on the undependable, she is less likely to end up in financial straits. If she isn't expecting responsibility from the irresponsible, she is less likely to be caught in a bind where she actually needs that money. If her plan for taking care of her children doesn't include an undependable monetary source, she is less likely to end up in financial strain.

If he's undependable then she would be wise to not depend on him. Still you assume that there is no chance the father would step up. You again equate not wanting children with unwilling or unable to pay child support. Not entirely the same. Undependable != doesn't want children.

I have every reason to believe this. I've lived it.

Your father signed the 'paper abortion'? Wow, I didn't realize. Also, I know this is shocking when looking at liklihood we can't exactly rest on one experience now can we?

People have to take responsibility for their actions. If he signs it and then wants custody later - tough titty.

Yep, and screw the kid.

I never said no men would do this. And the result of their actions would be that they have no recourse to correct it, same as for a woman. Meanwhile, that woman has already found a way to take care of her child.

Yep, and screw the kid.

In case you haven't been following the discussion, I set the cut-off for the "paper abortion" at that point. Thus, the woman can take that into account when planning. I also pointed out that I think both parents should be able to "put the child up for adoption" at birth. One parent or the other can assume full custody at this point, or they can both go with adoption.

Yep, and screw the kid.

You keep saying this, and yet everything I have said is exactly the opposite. I am placing FULL AND COMPLETE CONTROL in the hands of a responsible person who takes on the responsibility of childcare willingly.

The responsible person already can allow the irresponsible parent the option of inclusion in the child's life. Quick question: In your document does the responsible parent have any say? The difference is that your document takes the responsible parent's choice out of it. Your failure to acknowledge this does not change this.

Shocker. This is really about you and one relationship. I had no idea. Your experience is the only experience that matters. /sarcasm.

I like how you actually, you know, read everything I say. My own experience is obviously the one I know best. But, as I said, I've seen the experiences of others as well. I've watched others go through the experience of having irresponsible and unloving fathers - and some of them had that experience from birth. Through all of it, I've come to the conclusion that the best thing for a child with an irresponsible parent is for that parent to be out of the picture - gone.

Don't pretend that your own conclusions aren't partially based on your own experience. Our conclusions are always drawn at least partially from our own lives.

Oops! It's not a strawman when you said it.

The two quotes are not equivalent, but I'm sure that you knew that.

I guess when you said they can't be disappointed by the father and that he doesn't exist to the child that you meant they would remember their father but only sometimes.

You can't remember something you never knew. As far as the child is concerned, the father doesn't exist, in much the same way that his great-great-great grandfather doesn't exist. There is no person to remember. The child knows that there must have been a great-great-great grandfather. Several of them actually. The child might even wish he had known that person. But there is no actual memory of that person. There was never a point at which the child expected love from that person and was not given it (ie. no disappointment).

You turned that into, "The child won't even know they have a father at all," which is, of course, ludicrous. In other words, you created a strawman.

I agree. That would be true regardless of whether he signed the document or not. Of course, you pretend it's only true if he signs the document.

Hardly. Any parent who makes a habit of demonizing the other is not taking the well-being of their children into account. I have never said anything to suggest otherwise.

If he's undependable then she would be wise to not depend on him.

Exactly my point.

Still you assume that there is no chance the father would step up.

I assume no such thing. The father has the chance to step up, right up until he makes the decision not to. I'm not saying the mother can make him go away.

You again equate not wanting children with unwilling or unable to pay child support.

Nope, never did that either. I equate not wanting the responsibility for children with not wanting to pay for them or provide them emotional and pyschological support. Of course, the responsibility of having a child is to do these things.

Undependable != doesn't want children.

Nope, but undependable = shouldn't be given the responsibility of parenthood.

Yep, and screw the kid.

At that point, the child is still better off without him, unless it is still early in infancy. There is no reason to disrupt a child's life by introducing a person who happens to have decided they actually want to be there, and could decide to leave again at any time.

Yep, and screw the kid.

What part of, "the woman has already found a way to take care of her child" do you not understand? The kid isn't getting screwed. They are provided for. They are loved.

Yep, and screw the kid.

Once again, you have yet to show how the kid is screwed at all. All you have done is scream about denial of support (support that would almost certainly be denied by that person anyways) as if the money of the biological parent has some magical property that makes it different from all money.

The responsible person already can allow the irresponsible parent the option of inclusion in the child's life.

That all depends on where you are. In some places, the state seeks child support for the woman whether she wants it or not.

Quick question: In your document does the responsible parent have any say?

The responsible parent, from the moment the document is signed gets all of the say.

The difference is that your document takes the responsible parent's choice out of it. Your failure to acknowledge this does not change this.

Hardly. Their choice is still there. They decide to take care of the child, as any responsible parent would. It is a voluntary choice that they make. I never said that one parent's decision would remove the parental rights of the other, now did I?

1. You again are arguing that that is always the case. You continue to deny that other people have experiences that are different from that. Do you think the world revolves around you or something? Not everyone has the same experience.

You mix between arguing deserve equal say in matters regarding children and suggesting that they are unlikely to step up (which is what I was arguing.

3. They are not treated equal in such matters. The woman gets all the power and the man is left out in the cold with no power or say whatever most of the time.

Really? Most of the time. I would like to see some evidence of this. I suspect this is a bit of hyperbole.

4. Yet you've done nothing to prove your point except engage in name calling and flamebaiting. Your idea of equality is to give the woman total power over both man and child and to allow neither of the latter any say at all.

Really? When did I ever call anyone a name. Quote me.

I give a woman NO power over a man. I give a woman power over her body. Once a child is in the picture the mother and father have exactly EQUAL rights in my scenario. In fact earlier in this post you claim that my belief that the mother and father have equal rights is not accurate. Can't have it both ways, my friend. Either I am claiming rights are and should be equal or I'm not.

I'll quote myself - "A better reason why men and women should have equal say in the legal and moral matters of a child, along with an equal part in raising the child, is because it's in the best interest of the child, it's the healthiest situation."

Seems like I am arguing that parents should have equal responsibility for the child and equal parts in raising the child. I'd like you to show me where I advocate anything other than that. Quote me. You know how to use quote tags, don't you?

5. Fortunately, in America such things are not forced upon people. Under your system, people would not be free to make such decisions voluntarily. In fact, they would have no personal freedoms at all. What you advocate is a dictatorship run by women.

Really? Women decide child support? I didn't realize that women decided it. Care to show some evidence? Women and men have equal responsibility to the child. Your failure to recognize this does not make it so.

Again see my quote. I know you're having difficulty with this, but women do not make all financial decisions regarding the child. The only one advocating taking someone out of the financial and care decisions regarding the chiid is you, with your paper abortion. It would be the first standard legal document currently available that allows one parent the right to make a decision about the care of a child without the consent of the other parent. Oddly, my dislike for such a document suggests a dictatorship run by women to you. Perhaps you should look up the word dictatorship.

Your father signed the 'paper abortion'? Wow, I didn't realize. Also, I know this is shocking when looking at liklihood we can't exactly rest on one experience now can we?

And as for this:

No, he didn't sign the "paper abortion", but he did effectively sign away all rights to my brother and I. What little responsibility the state placed upon him, he rarely lived up to. Thus, I have seen what it is like to have an irresponsible parent doing the "check-writing".

And then he disappeared from our lives for quite a while. Thus, I have seen what it is like to have an irresponsible parent simply out of the picture. And, like I said, the only thing that made this difficult was the fact that I had known him in the first place - had loved him in the first place - and had to wonder if his disappearance meant that he was dead. Even after he resurfaced, I voluntarily cut him out of my life for several years longer.

I've seen others deal with the nonexistant father as well. A good friend of mine had a biological father who was simply never in the picture. He was supposed to pay child support, of course, but never did. After his mother remarried, his stepfather wanted to adopt he and his sister and be voluntarily responsible for them, but the biological father, for quite a while, couldn't be found to ask. You want to talk about denying children support. Here we had a perfectly willing father who couldn't get legal recognition. If their mother had died, he would have had no legal recourse to take care of them. He couldn't put them on his insurance (which was very good btw - he was a fireman).

Strangely enough, all of my friends who have been adopted by a stepparent, effectively cutting their biological parent out of the picture, have been happier for it. There's just something about having parents that are, you know, willing to be parents that seems to improve the situation. Even those who have had no stepparent, but who have had an irresponsible parent completely or mostly leave their lives entirely - have all said they were better off for it. Go figure.

Seems like I am arguing that parents should have equal responsibility for the child and equal parts in raising the child.

You know, until you start arguing against it and saying how most situations are better off with one parent having primary custody and the other only partial.

The quote is only a page or so back. It isn't showing up on my page right now. But you flat-out stated that the situation that ends up is generally best for the child and admitted that it is almost never equal custody.

Really? Women decide child support?

In practicality, they often do, although not really in legality. The custodial parent decides whether or not to pursue child support in the first place. If it is not paid, they decide whether or not to pursue legal action to get it. If the paying parent asks, and the custodial parent agrees, the paying parent may pay less (or more) without the custodial parent reporting it.

I like how you actually, you know, read everything I say. My own experience is obviously the one I know best. But, as I said, I've seen the experiences of others as well. I've watched others go through the experience of having irresponsible and unloving fathers - and some of them had that experience from birth. Through all of it, I've come to the conclusion that the best thing for a child with an irresponsible parent is for that parent to be out of the picture - gone.

Don't pretend that your own conclusions aren't partially based on your own experience. Our conclusions are always drawn at least partially from our own lives.

I'm not advocating putting my experiences into law. I'm advocating keeping the decisions in the hands of the more responsible parent. If a responsible parent wishes to remove a 'dangerous' parent from the situation it is already possible to legally do so. That way it's not based on generalized experiences, but instead actual circumstances of the situation they are dealing with.

The two quotes are not equivalent, but I'm sure that you knew that.

Ha. The father does not exist as far as the child is concerned is somehow different then me saying that you claim the child will forget he has a father? How are they different? Forget implies he sometime knew and forgot and doesn't exist means the child is not and never was aware of the parent? Yours is a more drastic statement than mine. To claim otherwise is nonsense.

You can't remember something you never knew. As far as the child is concerned, the father doesn't exist, in much the same way that his great-great-great grandfather doesn't exist. There is no person to remember. The child knows that there must have been a great-great-great grandfather. Several of them actually. The child might even wish he had known that person. But there is no actual memory of that person. There was never a point at which the child expected love from that person and was not given it (ie. no disappointment).

Hmmm... this would make sense if we pretended like you made no other statements. However, let's add one in there.

Having him around is a fairly constant reminder of the abandonment. Having him completely gone means you might think about it occasionally.

So which is it, they might think about it occasionally or they don't exist? They never knew so they couldn't forget but they think about what occasionally, something they never knew. Let's point out I didn't say they forget their father, I said forget that they have a father. Certainly if they were ever aware they had a father they can forget it. Apparently you're struggling with this concept.

You turned that into, "The child won't even know they have a father at all," which is, of course, ludicrous. In other words, you created a strawman.

Yes, how could I turn 'to the child the father doesn't exist' into 'they don't know they have a father'. Yep, it's nutty to equate those two statements. Unless of course your read English well.

Hardly. Any parent who makes a habit of demonizing the other is not taking the well-being of their children into account. I have never said anything to suggest otherwise.

So then how would a child find out about the status of the child support unless the mother tells them? Last I checked the custodial parent is also the custodian of the child support.

Exactly my point.

Mine too. However, her lack of dependence on him doesn't make not ever receiving child support an advantage. I get bonuses on occasion, but I don't depend on them. I, however, would not wish them away even if they are inconsistent. However, your document doesn't prevent only inconsistent child support but also the consistent child support of anyone who does not wish to be a father.

I assume no such thing. The father has the chance to step up, right up until he makes the decision not to. I'm not saying the mother can make him go away.

I am talking about stepping up upon the birth. I've made this point several times. Let's pretend though like I wasn't talking about that, right? And no, you're taking the mother completely out of the decision regardless of what she views to be best for the child. You are putting the decision in the hands of someone you admit is irresponsible.

Nope, never did that either. I equate not wanting the responsibility for children with not wanting to pay for them or provide them emotional and pyschological support. Of course, the responsibility of having a child is to do these things.

Unwilling - Not willing; hesitant or loath

Um, how is that different than not wanting? And who cares if they initially want to do it, they are responsible for the child and often they step up to their responsibilities once the child arrives. Your document makes this impossible. Again, the point is whether he wants to take the responsibility, the point is whether he will. You keep making it sound like the father will necessarily not step up and care for the child simply because he doesn't want the child. The document you propose makes it so if a man does not want a child he signs away all responsibility before there is a child. The existence of the child may and often does change one's mind. Obviously, if the father becomes willing to care for the child it is in the best interest of the child that he does so. Your document would make this impossible.

Nope, but undependable = shouldn't be given the responsibility of parenthood.

Um, you missed the point. I was saying because he doesn't want children does not mean that he is necessarily undependable. You keep equating the two. As in, simply because he would willing to sign this document does not equate to he would not be willing to meet his responsiblities once the child arrives. To claim otherwise is to equate undependable and does not wish to be a father given the choice.

At that point, the child is still better off without him, unless it is still early in infancy. There is no reason to disrupt a child's life by introducing a person who happens to have decided they actually want to be there, and could decide to leave again at any time.

Um, actually, any parent could decide to leave at any time. The times when parents, male or female, are willing to leave a child they have begun a relationship with are rare.

Amusingly, even you admit that if 'it is still early in the infancy' the child would benefit from the father stepping up, which is exactly what I was referring to. THanks for agreeing.

What part of, "the woman has already found a way to take care of her child" do you not understand? The kid isn't getting screwed. They are provided for. They are loved.

You can guarantee this how? It's not true today, which is why we have child support. If mothers didn't need it or want it for their children then it wouldn't exist, now would it? You are taking that option away from the custodial parent and giving it to a parent you call irresponsible.

They aren't loved less because they have a child support check coming. They aren't provided for less because they have a child support check coming. They aren't getting screwed less because they have a child support check coming. In fact, many would argue that they are provided for less and getting screwed more when they get no child support.

Once again, you have yet to show how the kid is screwed at all. All you have done is scream about denial of support (support that would almost certainly be denied by that person anyways) as if the money of the biological parent has some magical property that makes it different from all money.

Almost certainly? I thought you weren't equating undependable and not wanting a child. Would you care to support your assertion that the father would 'almost certainly' not meet any of his responsibilities, particularly when ordered to do so by a court of law?

Also, it has the magical property of coming from a person responsible for the child's existence and not placing the responsibility on other sources. You keep talking about these other sources. Are you actually claiming that no single mother isn't short on financial resources because the father is not giving the support he should? Doesn't she also have access to these magical other sources? The only thing you are doing is cutting off one of the sources, the one other person on the planet responsible for the child's existence. You're not adding any sources, yet you pretend like a woman is financially worse off with the financial support of the father than without. Ridiculous and illogical.

That all depends on where you are. In some places, the state seeks child support for the woman whether she wants it or not.

Good, then you should have no problem showing me the laws in those states. I'd also be interested in knowing how the state becomes involved. They just show up at the door with paperwork to collect child support without anyone initiating the process. Again, you should have no problem showing your assertions to be true. I won't hold my breath though. I've asked you to show similar laws, but you seem to think you can just keep claiming these laws exist without showing them.

The responsible parent, from the moment the document is signed gets all of the say.

The document has a lot of effect on the care for the child. It's a fairly important document with a profound effect, and you give the decision to the irresponsible parent as you call them. You keep trying to gloss over this fact, but it doesn't change that it's true. In fact, you didn't address it at all.

Hardly. Their choice is still there. They decide to take care of the child, as any responsible parent would. It is a voluntary choice that they make. I never said that one parent's decision would remove the parental rights of the other, now did I?
Way to avoid the point. Let's try again. In the case of a responsible, custodial parent and a irresponsible, non-custodial parent currently who makes the financial and care decisions for the child? Currently the responsible parent can allow the irresponsible parent to sign away his/her rights if the responsible parent so wishes, thus including the responsible parent in the decision. Your document allows for the same effect only removing the responsible parent from the decision.

Obviously, I am not talking about the responsible parent's choice to care for the child, but the responsible parent's choice of whether to include the irresponsible parent in the care of the child. In both the current law and your law, the irresponsible parent is included. Your law excludes one parent from that decision. Do you know which one? I do.

You know, until you start arguing against it and saying how most situations are better off with one parent having primary custody and the other only partial.

No, I didn't. I said in the situations where that occurs there are circumstances that make this in the best interest of the child. Shall I present a quote. It's still equal. It's like saying that because people pay different taxes that the state doesn't start with equal assumptions of each person. We each start with equal tax requirements and circumstances change how much taxes we actually end up paying. That's the natural order of things. Would you prefer that circumstances were not considered in determining custody? Instead, regardless of the interests of the child, all parents have equal custody?

The quote is only a page or so back. It isn't showing up on my page right now. But you flat-out stated that the situation that ends up is generally best for the child and admitted that it is almost never equal custody.

I didn't say almost never, actually. But I did say that it often ends up not being equal custody. That doesn't change that it doesn't start out equal and then get modified based on circumstances. That doesn't change that parents are given equal rights. It's like saying because I live in Illinois and you live in Georgia (see I got it right this time) that we don't have equal voting rights simply because we vote in different elections. If our situations were identical we would have identical rights. If two parents have identical situations then they are given equal custody. Indentical situations are obviously rare, but occasional they are equivocal and still result in equal custody. However, when the situations are not equivocal neither is the custody. That doesn't amount to unequal right or access.

In practicality, they often do, although not really in legality. The custodial parent decides whether or not to pursue child support in the first place. If it is not paid, they decide whether or not to pursue legal action to get it. If the paying parent asks, and the custodial parent agrees, the paying parent may pay less (or more) without the custodial parent reporting it.

Wow, more inconsistency. The custodial parent decides whether or not to pursue child support?

That all depends on where you are. In some places, the state seeks child support for the woman whether she wants it or not.

It's okay, I agree with your statement if we add a word - the custodial parent generally decides whether or not to pursue child support? Now, do you know why the custodial parent is charged with pursuing child support? Becuase it is necessary for the custodial parent to make decisions on behalf of the child. In essense, it is the child who pursues child support or someone acting on behalf of the child. Now, you know as well as I this has nothing to with the sex of the custodial parent and everything to do with the fact that they have custody of the child. Also, the fact is that the non-custodial parent can approach the court and offer court-monitored child support, so long as they haven't signed away their rights. So in essense if either parent decides it is in the interest of the child that they receive child support, they can make it happen.

The only time neither parent has a say in child support that I've ever been shown is when one or both parents or the child receive state benefits.

And as for this:

No, he didn't sign the "paper abortion", but he did effectively sign away all rights to my brother and I. What little responsibility the state placed upon him, he rarely lived up to. Thus, I have seen what it is like to have an irresponsible parent doing the "check-writing".

But not that a 'paper abortion would have made things better. So you've shown only one thing, that parents who do not live up to their responsibilites suck. I agree.

And then he disappeared from our lives for quite a while. Thus, I have seen what it is like to have an irresponsible parent simply out of the picture. And, like I said, the only thing that made this difficult was the fact that I had known him in the first place - had loved him in the first place - and had to wonder if his disappearance meant that he was dead. Even after he resurfaced, I voluntarily cut him out of my life for several years longer.

You can't compare this to an alternate situation, obviously. That's why the experiences of one person are hardly useful. In fact, generally, before we enshrine something in law we need far more evidence than a couple of anecdotes.

I've seen others deal with the nonexistant father as well. A good friend of mine had a biological father who was simply never in the picture. He was supposed to pay child support, of course, but never did. After his mother remarried, his stepfather wanted to adopt he and his sister and be voluntarily responsible for them, but the biological father, for quite a while, couldn't be found to ask. You want to talk about denying children support. Here we had a perfectly willing father who couldn't get legal recognition. If their mother had died, he would have had no legal recourse to take care of them. He couldn't put them on his insurance (which was very good btw - he was a fireman).

Your document changes this how? It doesn't. The mother couldn't get the father to reliquish custody. If she wanted him to reliquish responsibilities, she could have done so at any time.

Strangely enough, all of my friends who have been adopted by a stepparent, effectively cutting their biological parent out of the picture, have been happier for it. There's just something about having parents that are, you know, willing to be parents that seems to improve the situation. Even those who have had no stepparent, but who have had an irresponsible parent completely or mostly leave their lives entirely - have all said they were better off for it. Go figure.

Yes, in this case, someone replaced the other parent. I whole-heartedly approve. However, in every case you list, the custodial parent had a say in whether or not the child was adopted by the step-father. Exactly what I'm endorsing. You're defending me. Thank you for doing so.

Are you actually claiming that these anecdotes are the only scenarios or even most scenarios? Could you please show something other than anecdotal support? I mean, we are talking about law here. Certainly, you are proposing the law be changed based on your anecdotal evidence?

EDIT: I just asked my brother-in-law - his father only paid child support and had no other role in his life. He was glad for the support as they would have been quite poor without it. It doesn't make him like his father more than if he'd not paid it, but he was happy to receive that much support at least.

Both of my half-brothers were adopted by step-parents, but because they were split to different families (my family and their father's family) they ended up seeing both families. So they are an unusual case. Both would have preferred the adoption never occured because then their father would have been required to give constistent support and both believe they would have ended up in my family because it was in their best interest. Not really pertinent, but just pointing out that there are lots of different circumstances and those circumstances require flexibility which by nature cannot be found with your 'paper abortion'.

What anecdotal evidence shows is that it is in the best interest of the child for the responible parent(s) be able to adjust the situation to make it best for the child. Your document takes the ability to adjust the situation out of their hands by not including them in the decision of the 'paper abortion'

And part of that relationship is the legal responsibilities. Thank you for making my point.
Unless your point changed along the way, I have not made it for you. Your point was legal obligations arising as a result of legally recognised parenthood could be opted out of, and pointed to adoption as being a mechanism that would allow this.
This is however not a correct description of what is occuring when parents adopt a child out. You are taking a secondary on flow effect of an existing provision, and then conflating a possible interpretation of that secondary effect with actual function and scope of the legal mechanism concerned.

Your assumption that the child would be harmed is exactly the problem here.
No it's not because such an assumption isnt held by me.
The fact is a paper abortion prejudices the interests of the child concerned. It does not appear to offer any benefit whatsoever to effected children whilst allienating them from their rights, prejudicing their interests, and subjecting the child to an increased risk of harms.

Millions of children are raised in single parent homes - and turn out wonderfully. Children are adopted into loving homes - and turn out wonderfully. There is nothing magical in the money that a biological parent has that makes it better than money from other sources.
How utterly irrelevent.
I dont believe that every single parent home that survived only on he income of the lone parent, and yet turned out wonderful children would have turned out children any less wonderful as a result of child support payments. I dont think their absence is a significant (much less deciding) factor in the wonderfulness of the result, nor do I think that a non-absence would have resulted in a less wonderful outcome.
There is nothing magical about that money; so it cannot cause a good home to go bad. I dont see any harm coming from it, but I can see the potential good. I see no benefit to the child of denying them any chance of pursuing their rights to be supported by their parents, while I do see the increased risks to the interests of the child stemming from the denial of their rights.

There are two problems here. First of all, you obviously didn't have such a parent, so you obviously don't know what is involved.
Obvious? How so?
Side note; are you comfortable with making the above comment to someone who it's not true of?

Seconf of all, a parent who is doing nothing but check-writing is eventually going to try to get away with not writing the check. If the custodial parent hasn't already assumed the full responsibility and determined a source of income that does not depend upon the check, someone is going hungry.
Assuming that the cheque wasnt the only way to not go hungry in the first place.
What you are saying only makes sense if there is some reasonable means of subsisting without the cheque, if that is the case those means can be employed should the cheque stop, if it's not the case then the effect of the cheque is people are hungry for a lesser period of time.
If the family cant support itself without the cheque then they are dependent on the cheque and so it's arrival is a necessity rather than a hinderence. If the family can support itself without the cheque then it improves the family's circumstance and well being while it is paid and leaves them either no worse off or better off than the family would have been if it was never paid.

And when the custodial parent pursues legal recourse in the situation, the scumbag parent tries to turn the child against them, not to mention generally not having the money to give anyways.
What?! Why pursue the parent then? Might it be because child support, rather than being something so harmful that only an idiot would pursue their legal right to, is actually something that is for many lone parents necessary enough (in providing for their child) to warrent legal recourse?

You cannot depend upon the irresponsible to be responsible. To do so would be irresponsible.
You cant depend on pessimistic cliches to put food on the table!
Are you trying to somehow get me to swallow the notion that additional income is financially detrimental?

The analogy was about whether or not most people would consider the action as acceptable. I could have compared it to torturing a zebra and the analogy would hold, since most people wouldn't find torturing a zebra to be an acceptable action.
The analogy is false because because it ignores important distinctions that matter more than overt facts it reasons from.
The numbers dont matter because legally 10000000000 typical bio abortions to every 1 paper abortion results in one outcome that is legally unacceptable. This is important because the mechanism for achieving the paper abortion would have to be the law. In the case of a single paper abortion the law unavoidably sees that interests it has a right and duty to protect are being harmed. In law, one paper abortion unacceptably compromises the rights dutys and obligations of the court and society in a way contrary to principals of natural justice, contrary to the interests of society as a body and to an individual whose interests the court is obliged to protect. So far as the law is able to see no number of typical bio abortions can add up to the harm of a single paper abortion. So even if we could prove that millions of woman a year will get a bio abortion but only 1 man a decade will get a paper abortion, this isnt relevent.

I'm not advocating putting my experiences into law.

Actually, I think you are. You grew up in a disadvantaged household and no one stepped up and helped provide for you. Thus, you seem to think that financial concerns are most important.

I'm advocating keeping the decisions in the hands of the more responsible parent.

And I am advocating putting all possible decisions regarding a child into the hands of the responsible parent. All of them.

If a responsible parent wishes to remove a 'dangerous' parent from the situation it is already possible to legally do so.

Something you have yet to provide any evidence for. And yet, I know for a fact that some places won't remove that person. The state seeks child support even if the custodial parent foregos it. A custodial parent can deny a physically dangerous parent access to visitation rights, if they can convince a court of the danger. They cannot remove that person from the child's life completely - not legally anyways.

Ha. The father does not exist as far as the child is concerned is somehow different then me saying that you claim the child will forget he has a father?

Yes. If I never knew my mother, she wouldn't exist to me. Sure, I would know that, biologically, I had a mother. But there would be no human being in that slot. There would simply be the nebulous idea that there must've been a womb in my past at some point. A womb, of course, is not a person. A person encompasses more than just a body. All I would know of is a body. The person, as far as I am concerned, would not exist.

It isn't that hard to understand, and I clearly explained it in my last post, although you never seem to understand the idea of, you know, clarification.

So then how would a child find out about the status of the child support unless the mother tells them?

Children are much more intelligent and empathetic than you give them credit for.

However, your document doesn't prevent only inconsistent child support but also the consistent child support of anyone who does not wish to be a father.

The type of people who would sign the document are the type of people who aren't going to pay up anyways. We aren't talking about, "I don't really want a child. I might help, but I don't really want a kid, so I'm gonna sign this paper." We're takling about, "I want no part of this whatsoever. I don't want a child. I don't want to help with a child. I don't want to pay for a child. I don't want to do any of these things and I don't think I should have to. I'm getting out now."

I am talking about stepping up upon the birth.

Something I've already allowed for earlier in the conversation.

Unwilling - Not willing; hesitant or loath

Um, how is that different than not wanting?

I don't want to go to work some days. But I'm willing to do it anyways. And I get up that morning, and I make the choice to go. Nobody forces me. I am willing to do it.

I don't want to pay taxes. Hell, I'd like to keep all my money to myself. However, I am willing to pay them. I see how it is my responsibility to pay them, and I will take that on.

See the difference?

You keep making it sound like the father will necessarily not step up and care for the child simply because he doesn't want the child.

No, dear, you are the only one equating "doesn't want the child" with "will not willingly take on responsibility for the child." Please try again.

Um, you missed the point. I was saying because he doesn't want children does not mean that he is necessarily undependable.

True. Of course, I never suggested otherwise. You are the only one equating "unwilling" and "doesn't want to."

Um, actually, any parent could decide to leave at any time.

Yes, but if one has done it before, you have more reason to believe they will again.

The times when parents, male or female, are willing to leave a child they have begun a relationship with are rare.

The times when anyone would sign this document are rare. The times when women get abortions are relatively rare. The times when children are given up for adoption are relatively rare. What's your point?

You can guarantee this how? It's not true today, which is why we have child support.

No, we have child support because society is lazy. Most of society doesn't give a shit about children. They care only about their own pocketbooks. They whine that that child isn't their responsibility because they didn't happen to produce it. A child, any child, is the responsibility of society as a whole. Our children are the future of our society, whether we personally had sex to create them or not. I have no patience for anyone who pawns off any child as, "not my responsibility." I'm sorry that I don't think that the responsibility for a child comes simply from being fertile.

They aren't loved less because they have a child support check coming.

No, but they are much, much more aware of the lack of love coming from someone they have reason to feel should provide it.

They aren't provided for less because they have a child support check coming.

Emotionally? Yes, they are. They need much more at that point, and a single parent can only give so much.

Almost certainly? I thought you weren't equating undependable and not wanting a child.

I'm not. The paper abortion isn't a matter of "I don't want a child." To assume it is is to assume that most people who don't want children are irresponsible scumbags who have no sense of responsibility. It is a matter of, "I will not take on responsibility for this child."

Would you care to support your assertion that the father would 'almost certainly' not meet any of his responsibilities, particularly when ordered to do so by a court of law?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yes, because being ordered to by a court of law makes all non-custodial parents pay child support. No one ever goes years without paying. That never happens. Court orders are magical entities that force an irresponsible person to be magically responsible.

Also, it has the magical property of coming from a person responsible for the child's existence and not placing the responsibility on other sources.

Ok, so you're one of those, "Not my responsibility," types. Apparently, the responsibility of taking care of a child should be predicated on nothing more than fertility.

Are you actually claiming that no single mother isn't short on financial resources because the father is not giving the support he should?

No, but I am claiming that there are plenty of other sources of money out there she could go to. There are many sources she probably would go to, if she weren't relying on the unreliable for her money.

Good, then you should have no problem showing me the laws in those states.

In GA, that's a bit difficult. These laws aren't made by the General Assembly. They are made by a committee which has been charged by the General Assembly with making these laws. They are not published along with the other laws. The idea behind it was apparently that laws take too long to get passed through the Assembly, so they made a committee with the power to make laws more quickly as they pertain to Children and Family Services. Of course, the result is that you can't search GA law for them - they aren't listed there. All I can give you is what I've seen of the law being enforced.

I'd also be interested in knowing how the state becomes involved.

In most of the cases I've seen (and most cases in which child support is being paid in general) were divorce cases. You can't really get a legal divorce without the state being involved. However, the law invoked in that case wasn't specific to divorce - it was specific to child support. It may not be as avidly enforced on unmarried parents, since they don't get a captive audience, but it is there.

The document has a lot of effect on the care for the child.

Only if the custodial parent and those around them don't live up to their resposibilities.

Way to avoid the point. Let's try again. In the case of a responsible, custodial parent and a irresponsible, non-custodial parent currently who makes the financial and care decisions for the child?

Mostly the custodial parent, but, simply by virtue of being included, so does the non-custodial parent.

Currently the responsible parent can allow the irresponsible parent to sign away his/her rights if the responsible parent so wishes, thus including the responsible parent in the decision.

You keep saying this, and yet provide ZERO evidence for it. I have personal experience at least of the laws I talk about. Where is your knowledge that this is so very possible coming from?

What a custodial parent *can* do is decide not to pursue legal action when the noncustodial parent skips town. They do not, however, generally have a way of completely removing them from the equation. And then, 10 years later when that parent shows up and decides they actually do want custody, everyone has to go through a big custody battle.

Obviously, I am not talking about the responsible parent's choice to care for the child, but the responsible parent's choice of whether to include the irresponsible parent in the care of the child.

A resposible parent would never include an irresponsible parent in the care of the child.


But not that a 'paper abortion would have made things better. So you've shown only one thing, that parents who do not live up to their responsibilites suck. I agree.


The fact that having him completely out of the picture made things better means that, well, having him completely out of the picture would have made things better. I'm sorry that you missed that point.


Your document changes this how? It doesn't. The mother couldn't get the father to reliquish custody. If she wanted him to reliquish responsibilities, she could have done so at any time.


I'm sorry, what part of "COULD NOT BE FOUND", did you not understand? If he could not be found, how exactly could she have gotten him to relinquish responsibilities at any time?


Wow, more inconsistency. The custodial parent decides whether or not to pursue child support?

I've never said otherwise.


The only time neither parent has a say in child support that I've ever been shown is when one or both parents or the child receive state benefits.

Or one parent says, "I don't want child support," and the court says, "Too bad, you're getting it."


Unless your point changed along the way, I have not made it for you. Your point was legal obligations arising as a result of legally recognised parenthood could be opted out of, and pointed to adoption as being a mechanism that would allow this.
This is however not a correct description of what is occuring when parents adopt a child out. You are taking a secondary on flow effect of an existing provision, and then conflating a possible interpretation of that secondary effect with actual function and scope of the legal mechanism concerned.

The entire purpose of putting a child up for adoption is relinquishing the legal obligations. To separate them is ludicrous.

Obvious? How so?
Side note; are you comfortable with making the above comment to someone who it's not true of?

Obvious because, if you had, you would know the effects of it. It's a bit like someone saying, "Falling out a third-story window onto concrete doesn't hurt at all." Unless you're awfully lucky or you have a very rare genetic disease that makes you unable to feel pain, if you fall out of a third-story window onto concrete, it's going to hurt like hell. Thus, if you say, 'No, it doesn't hurt." I'm going to say, "Obviously, you haven't fallen out of a third story window onto concrete."

Assuming that the cheque wasnt the only way to not go hungry in the first place.

Once again, this assumption that the money of a biological parent is somehow magically different from all other money and they can't possibly get money to eat in any other way.

If the family cant support itself without the cheque then they are dependent on the cheque and so it's arrival is a necessity rather than a hinderence.

If the family is dependent upon a check from an irresponsible person, then the head of the family is irresponsible.

[quyote]
What?! Why pursue the parent then? Might it be because child support, rather than being something so harmful that only an idiot would pursue their legal right to, is actually something that is for many lone parents necessary enough (in providing for their child) to warrent legal recourse?[/quote]

Once again, any parent who relies upon the unreliable to take care of their child is failing their child. Any parent who expects responsibility from the irresponsible and makes that a mainstay of their finances is irresponsible themselves.


Are you trying to somehow get me to swallow the notion that additional income is financially detrimental?

No, the income is not detrimental. The inclusion of the irresponsible parent in the child's life is.


The numbers dont matter because legally 10000000000 typical bio abortions to every 1 paper abortion results in one outcome that is legally unacceptable. This is important because the mechanism for achieving the paper abortion would have to be the law. In the case of a single paper abortion the law unavoidably sees that interests it has a right and duty to protect are being harmed. In law, one paper abortion unacceptably compromises the rights dutys and obligations of the court and society in a way contrary to principals of natural justice, contrary to the interests of society as a body and to an individual whose interests the court is obliged to protect. So far as the law is able to see no number of typical bio abortions can add up to the harm of a single paper abortion. So even if we could prove that millions of woman a year will get a bio abortion but only 1 man a decade will get a paper abortion, this isnt relevent.

All of this makes the incredibly silly assumption that the type of person who would sign the document in the first place would actually offer the support we would legally require of them just because we say so. This is highly unlikely. It's like assuming that an alcoholic is goign to refraign from drinking and driving just because it is illegal. It is like saying that a junkie is going to decide not to go buy heroin because it is illegal.

If we never rely upon this person, then we won't have to worry about the persons' irresponsibility.

Let's take an example of something here, something that could happen. A woman has a child. She decides to keep it. Her boyfriend was a scumbag, she's left him, and she knows he is going to take no part in this child's life. But she lists him on the birth certificate and pursues child support anyways, because we tell her that is what she should do. He pays, every now and then. Most often, the check bounces or doesn't even arrive. But it is considered part of her household income. She can't get any other aid, because it puts her above that threshold. She can't afford the legal fees or the time off of work to appear in court to try and get his wages garnished, and it wouldn't work anyways, since he's being paid under the table and reports no income. Here she is, living below the poverty line, because we told her that society didn't want to help her and that she should rely on the unreliable iinstead. Her child simply, "isn't our responsibility." She can't really improve upon her situation, because she's actually below the point at which government aid might, just might, allow her to try and get a better job.

Option two. The guy tells her he doesn't want any part of this parenting thing. She says fine. He signs away all rights and responsibilities. She still needs aid, but she gets it. She's a responsible person. She doesn't want to rely on the government, so she takes what little she can and looks into night courses. It's difficult for a while. She has to take her child into class with her sometimes and the teacher gives her a hard time. But she makes it through, gets a good job, gets off government aid and ends up making it on her own. Meanwhile, the asshole is completely out of her life, and her child's. The child never has to see her struggling because the check bounced (or didn't arrive).

Amusing. Many of your claims are counterintuitive and thus require a little bit of support, which you've offered none of rather than some anecdotal evidence, evidence you yourself would not accept in any other thread.

Let's touch on a couple of these subjects.

Currently a couple can agree to absolve one of the parents of their responsibilities of the child in exactly the same way your document works (in some places states override this statement if you seek state aid, but that is because the state is being asked to replace the responsibilities of one of the parties). Your document works in exactly the same way only it removes the mother and the child's representative (also the mother) from the decision. You claim that this is somehow not done in interest of the father but instead in interest of the child, yet you remove the only person capable of acting in the child's interest (the party being asked to care for that child) from the decision. Counterintuitive, so you're gonna have to show something more than anecdotal evidence. Proof please.

You remove the mother from the decision yet you claim she gets to make ALL the decisions. Not just counterintuitive, but plain wrong. You denied her the ability to get child support from the father of the child without her making a decision regarding this. She is currently involved in this decision and you are removing her from it. Thus you are decreasing the decision she gets to make not increasing them. Your claim otherwise is ludicrous. Don't bother with proof. Logic shows it to be false.

You claim the state seeks child support in cases where it is not involved yet you've show no evidence for it. You can't show evidence for a negative, so you're gonna have to prove this one or expect us to consider it a phantom of your imagination. Proof please.

The type of people who would sign the document are the type of people who aren't going to pay up anyways.
Evidence please. Show that there will not be fathers who signed this document and then regretted it. Much like mothers who have abortions and then regret it. The difference in the two situations is that in the latter situation there is no child that benefits from the parent's change of heart. Evidence of your assertion please.

You make the assertion that a child's home is better off financially without child support than with the child support of a parent that is court-ordered. This is counterintuitive. Evidence please.

You make the assertion that a child's home is better off without a parent that during the pregnancy decides however briefly that the child is better off without him and then recants upon meeting the child. This is counterintuitive. Evidence please.

Basically, you keep making claims and pretending like they're obvious so that you don't have to support. Support or quit making them.

You made claim about adoptions being permitted without the father, yet you haven't shown one law that shows this to be true. I showed laws that require father consent in adoption (four out of the four states I checked, in fact). I posted a link, show I'm wrong.

You make claims about child support and it's effect on children. Certainly studies have been done. Show that what you claim is true. That children raised in homes with absent fathers without child support are better off than children raised in homes with absent fathers with child support. Your "I think" claims are not evidence.

You are the one advocating taking the choice in this situation away from the parent that is taking custody of the child. You are forcing your opinion that the child benefits on that parent, so you are going to have to do a little work here. You pretend like we are forcing our opinion on the parent, yet we are the ones offering choice to the parent. It's like arguing that pro-choice is pro-abortion, simply because we give the choice to the mother.

Even if one assumes that a mother cannot currently decide with the father that the child is better of without the father in the picture, if you were actually advocating allowing the choice to remain in the hands of the responsible parent, why wouldn't you allow the mother to be involved in the choice rather than excluding her?

The intent of your 'paper abortion' is obvious. The scope is obvious. The effect is obvious. It eliminates a particular avenue support from the child and its caretaker. It eliminates the choice of the caretaker to decide whether that support is best for the child. It eliminates the choice of the caretaker to allow a father, that steps up at birth, to care for his child after birth, but who during the period the document was available thought the child would be better off without him. It prevents the caretaker from making a major decision that effects the child, and allows the non-caretaker to make that decision instead (a party you called irresponsible) and become locked into that decision regardless of what the caretake thinks is best for the child.

Actually, I think you are. You grew up in a disadvantaged household and no one stepped up and helped provide for you. Thus, you seem to think that financial concerns are most important.

My household included both my parents. My household is evidence that the insurance industry needs to be regulated and has nothing to do with this issue. More money in my household would have meant more money went to the hospitals. It would have had no effect on my household. I forgive you for your ignorance of the situation.

And I am advocating putting all possible decisions regarding a child into the hands of the responsible parent. All of them.

You keep bolding that. Does the 'paper abortion' regard the child and is that decision in the hands of the responsible parent? Oops.

Something you have yet to provide any evidence for. And yet, I know for a fact that some places won't remove that person. The state seeks child support even if the custodial parent foregos it. A custodial parent can deny a physically dangerous parent access to visitation rights, if they can convince a court of the danger. They cannot remove that person from the child's life completely - not legally anyways.

http://www.lanwt.org/txaccess/spanish/forms/faaf.pdf
In case you're wondering, what that means is that when the father signs that document the mother has so long as that document is on the books the opportunity to waive the father's rights for all time. A quote:

"I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT, AT ANY TIME UNTIL THIS AFFIDAVIT IS REVOKED, MY PARENTAL RIGHTS MAY BE TERMINATED FOR ALL TIME"

As you can see this is effectively your 'paper abortion' only it actually accepts that the custodial parent should make ALL the decisions instead of just claiming it when it is counter to the actual effect of the document.

Your turn:
You claim the state forces child support in cases where it is not giving support to the family. Still waiting for you to show me any law that allows this or explain how the state becomes involved in the first place.

Yes. If I never knew my mother, she wouldn't exist to me. Sure, I would know that, biologically, I had a mother. But there would be no human being in that slot. There would simply be the nebulous idea that there must've been a womb in my past at some point. A womb, of course, is not a person. A person encompasses more than just a body. All I would know of is a body. The person, as far as I am concerned, would not exist.

The father is not required to actually be known to the child simply because child support exists. Please demonstrate how the child MUST not know the father in the case he signs away the paternity and MUST know the father if the case he only offers financial support to the child.

Children are much more intelligent and empathetic than you give them credit for.

No, I give them credit. I believe that intelligence and empathy doesn't become less pronounced simply because they signed your 'paper abortion'.

The type of people who would sign the document are the type of people who aren't going to pay up anyways. We aren't talking about, "I don't really want a child. I might help, but I don't really want a kid, so I'm gonna sign this paper." We're takling about, "I want no part of this whatsoever. I don't want a child. I don't want to help with a child. I don't want to pay for a child. I don't want to do any of these things and I don't think I should have to. I'm getting out now."

Evidence please.

Something I've already allowed for earlier in the conversation.

Really. So if a guy signs this document and then comes back at birth and wishes to invoke his rights because it is in the interest of the child that he participate in the child's rearing, can he?

I don't want to go to work some days. But I'm willing to do it anyways. And I get up that morning, and I make the choice to go. Nobody forces me. I am willing to do it.

I don't want to pay taxes. Hell, I'd like to keep all my money to myself. However, I am willing to pay them. I see how it is my responsibility to pay them, and I will take that on.

See the difference?

You're using a different definition of willing than I was. It was my use, thus I set the usage. As I said, my usage meant reluctant/hesitant, not that they won't. Your inability to understand that words have more than one meaning and the person who uses the word sets the meaning is saddening. Next.

Now let's wait and see if you'll offer any evidence. My guess is no.

Many of your claims are counterintuitive

"I don't agree with them so they must be counterintuitive."

Gotcha.

Never mind, on further reading, it is, "I intentionally twist them and pretend not to understand them, therefore they must be counterintuitive.

Currently a couple can agree to absolve one of the parents of their responsibilities of the child in exactly the same way your document works

I'm still waiting for evidence of this.

Your document works in exactly the same way only it removes the mother and the child's representative (also the mother) from the decision. You claim that this is somehow not done in interest of the father but instead in interest of the child, yet you remove the only person capable of acting in the child's interest (the party being asked to care for that child) from the decision. Counterintuitive, so you're gonna have to show something more than anecdotal evidence. Proof please.

Wait, the custodial parent is the only person capable of acting in the child's interest? Really??@!?!?!?!??!! Then why do we have laws about how a custodial parent should take care of their child and what they cannot do? Obviously, a custodial parent is the only one capable of acting in the child's interest, right? Or could it be, just maybe, because society as a whole - through the government - is also capable of acting in the child's best interest, we make laws that regulate what parents do?

You remove the mother from the decision yet you claim she gets to make ALL the decisions

She gets to make every single parental decision concerning the child. That is *all* the decisions.

You claim the state seeks child support in cases where it is not involved yet you've show no evidence for it.

If you would like to call the committee that makes laws concerning Child and Family Services in question in GA, you can go ahead and do so. Like I said, these things aren't part of the general legal code in GA. There's not much I can do for you other than to point you in their direction.

Meanwhile, you have likewise failed to provide any support for your assertion to the contrary. Since I know from personal experience that you are flat-out wrong, I don't really care if you believe me or not. I know you're wrong.

Evidence please. Show that there will not be fathers who signed this document and then regretted it.

Sure, as soon as you show me that there has never been a parent who gave up their child for adoption and then regretted it.

The difference in the two situations is that in the latter situation there is no child that benefits from the parent's change of heart.

You have provided no evidence that any child would benefit from such a change of heart. Indeed, there is quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. That's why, once a parent gives a child up for adoption, they can't come back and say, "I changed my mind, I want back in." We've found that disrupting the child's life that way can be rather detrimental. So, if the biological parent decides they do want the child back after all, we say, "Too bad."

You make the assertion that a child's home is better off financially without child support than with the child support of a parent that is court-ordered. This is counterintuitive. Evidence please.

I never said any such thing. I said that a child's home is better off *emotionally* without child support that is court-ordered.

I also pointed out that, in the case of someone unwilling to pay child support, court orders often mean shit. And the custodial parent doesn't get the money anyways. Thus, it is possible (even probable in the case of someone so irresponsible they would use such a document) for a person to be better off financially without court-ordered child support, as it is necessary to find a more reliable source of income if extra income is necessary.

You make the assertion that a child's home is better off without a parent that during the pregnancy decides however briefly that the child is better off without him and then recants upon meeting the child. This is counterintuitive. Evidence please.

Once again, I have made no such assertion. Please try again.

Basically, you keep making claims and pretending like they're obvious so that you don't have to support. Support or quit making them.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

You made claim about adoptions being permitted without the father, yet you haven't shown one law that shows this to be true.

I never claimed the law allows it (except in the case where hospitals allow women to bring infants in with no questions asked - and that is a suspension of the law in the best interest of the child moreso than a change in the law). I simply pointed out the fact that these laws are, from a practical point of view, unenforceable. Any mother can claim to not know who the child's father is. If the father in question doesn't know about the child, he has no reason to try and come forward. Thus, it ends up happening, one way or another.

You make claims about child support and it's effect on children. Certainly studies have been done. Show that what you claim is true. That children raised in homes with absent fathers without child support are better off than children raised in homes with absent fathers with child support. Your "I think" claims are not evidence.

"Obviously, if it is an issue, there must have been studies done."

Why don't you show me evidence to the contrary. Prove to me the opposite of everything I have seen throughout my entire life - that keeping an unloving parent around in any capacity is better for a child than a single parent household without that person involved at all. Surely, if children are better off with unloving parents in the picture than in single-parent (or remarried parent) households that don't receive child support, you have studies?

It eliminates the choice of the caretaker to allow a father, that steps up at birth, to care for his child after birth, but who during the period the document was available thought the child would be better off without him.

Not really. It removes any rights he has to the child, but the only way he could be prosecuted for trying to help is if the mother sought such prosecution - just like the only way he can be prosecuted for *not* helping is if the mother sought prosecution. Funny, that. If he came forward and wanted to help, and he seemed in earnest, there is no reason to believe he wouldn't be allowed to, unless the mother decided that it was not in the best interest of the child.


My household included both my parents. My household is evidence that the insurance industry needs to be regulated and has nothing to do with this issue. More money in my household would have meant more money went to the hospitals. It would have had no effect on my household. I forgive you for your ignorance of the situation.

If you are seriously going to deny that your obsession with financial concerns in this case has no relations whatsoever to your own experiences, I'm afraid I'll just have to laugh at you. Our experiences affect our opinions on subjects, whether the experience is directly related or not.

Does the 'paper abortion' regard the child and is that decision in the hands of the responsible parent?

It regards the child only in its relationship to another person. If a grandfather wants to disown a grandchild, does the mother get a say in the decision? It affects the child.


http://www.lanwt.org/txaccess/spanish/forms/faaf.pdf

Looks great until......Wait, what's this disclaimer at the end???

Father's Affidavit of Waiver of Interest in Child should only be used if another man is asking to assume the
rights and responsibilities of the father and you wish to give up any claim to the child.

OOPS!! This isn't a decision made by the biological mother and father to absolve the father of his rights and responsibilities. It is a decision made by the biological mother, father, and a new, adoptive father. This is not a method by which a mother can release a father from his responsibilities to the child. This is a method by which another man can adopt the child from the biological father. I never denied that this was possible.


Evidence please.


Common sense?

If you are willing to take on the responsibility, you aren't going to sign a form saying, "I won't take on this responsibility. I resolve myself of it." If you didn't really want a child, but do want to help take care of it, you aren't going to sign a form saying, "I am not going to be a part of this child's life." Now, this assumes that most people aren't going to sign a form that does the exact opposite of what they intend, but I don't think that's a horrible assumption.


You're using a different definition of willing than I was. It was my use, thus I set the usage.

Incorrect. I am the one who started talking about unwilling parents - which you tried to turn into "reluctant" parents. Thus, you are the one trying to use a different definition than that originally brought into the conversation.


Now let's wait and see if you'll offer any evidence. My guess is no.

You mean like the complete lack of evidence you have offered? You mean like the "evidence" that didn't turn out to be what you said it was?

On the issue of evidence and intentions:

Note that I'm not really trying to convince you, Jocabia. I know better. I'm pretty fairly convinced that you and I will both walk away from this thread completely convinced that the other is wrong. At this point, all I am doing really is telling you (and others) exactly why I would support such a measure if it were suggested in the law. I have no expectations that it will be, not because I think it is a bad idea, but because I think certain portions would be rather difficult to enforce, and because so many people take the, "Not my responsibility," attitude towards children.

The difference between you and I in this discussion has not been a difference in evidence. You have provided no more evidence for your assertions than I. When you have provided "evidence", it has generally been evidence for something different than what I was asking. You have assumed your assertions to be true. I'm not saying there's something wrong with that. We're talking about something that has never been put into play. Thus, any view on what effects it will have is pure opinion. It is rather obvious that we look at it from different angles, pulling in "evidence" from those differing viewpoints.

The difference has not been disparate intentions, not in the big picture. You think what you have to say is "in the best interest of the child", and I do as well. You think the best interest of the child is served by forcing biological parents, no matter how irresponsible, to take part in a child's life, even if only financially, unless they are shown to be a direct danger to the child. I disagree. I think a child, any child, is the responsibility of all of society. None of this "not my responsibility" business. It would certainly be a better world if biological parents were always responsible and able to take care of their children without direct help from outside their friends and family. But that is not the reality, and I am not going to pretend it can be. I would say that your hardships as a child were not due solely to a problem in insurance companies, but due to a failing of society. If your family was unable to provide for you, then society should have done so.

No, the difference between you and I in this discussion has been that, throughout it all, you have sought more to insult me than to consider, even for a second, my views. You have sought more to tell me what my intentions are, rather than ask me. You have sought more to twist my words into something they are not, instead of actually looking at them. If you continue in this direction, I really have no reason to talk to you about this issue, or any issue for that matter.

And you haven't only done it to me. Whittier said some things that I wouldn't agree with in a million years. And I pointed out the problems with much of what he said. But I didn't, as you did, jump straight to telling him how much he hates women and children. Maybe I'm crazy, but until shown a direct reason to believe otherwise, I tend to think that most people, no matter how misguided I may think them, do have the best interest of those involved in an issue at heart. *shrug*

Look ma, no evidence.

"I don't agree with them so they must be counterintuitive."

Gotcha.

Never mind, on further reading, it is, "I intentionally twist them and pretend not to understand them, therefore they must be counterintuitive.

Uh-huh. Just keep claiming you don't need evidence. You sound like, oh, so many, you have argued against. In the world of debate, if you're arguing against the status quo, you better come with some evidence.

I'm still waiting for evidence of this.

I gave it. Unfortunately, you don't understand that "should" is a recommendation.

Wait, the custodial parent is the only person capable of acting in the child's interest? Really??@!?!?!?!??!! Then why do we have laws about how a custodial parent should take care of their child and what they cannot do? Obviously, a custodial parent is the only one capable of acting in the child's interest, right? Or could it be, just maybe, because society as a whole - through the government - is also capable of acting in the child's best interest, we make laws that regulate what parents do?

Do those laws remove the custodial parent from the equation altogether? Nope, not unless they are a danger to the child. Otherwise, the custodial is included in EVERY decision for the child. Name one law that removes the custodial parent from a decision-making process where there is not SUBSTANCIAL evidence it is in the interest of the child to not allow an interested party to make be involved in the decision. Name any law. Of course, that would be evidence which you are determined not to supply.

She gets to make every single parental decision concerning the child. That is *all* the decisions.

*watches as she evades the point again* Is the support of a child a parental decision that concerns the child? Is the place of the biological father in the life of a child a parental decision that concerns the child? Yes, to both. You can stand in the rain and yell at me that it's sunny, but I'm still watching you get all wet (you shouldn't have worn white cotton).

If you would like to call the committee that makes laws concerning Child and Family Services in question in GA, you can go ahead and do so. Like I said, these things aren't part of the general legal code in GA. There's not much I can do for you other than to point you in their direction.

So I have to prove that it doesn't exist? Shall I find a thread where you declared that one cannot prove a negative? Admit it. You're full of crap.

Meanwhile, you have likewise failed to provide any support for your assertion to the contrary. Since I know from personal experience that you are flat-out wrong, I don't really care if you believe me or not. I know you're wrong.

Really? I just showed a document that says a father's rights and responsibilities can be permanently severed. See here I thought this was a debate where we actually try to support our points. Let's all just point that we know we're right and we can be done.

Sure, as soon as you show me that there has never been a parent who gave up their child for adoption and then regretted it.

In that case, the support for the child that was removed was replaced by another source. With your 'paper abortion' support is only removed, it is not replaced by any other source, unless you're claiming that the remaining custodial parent wasn't already in place to care for the child.

You have provided no evidence that any child would benefit from such a change of heart. Indeed, there is quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. That's why, once a parent gives a child up for adoption, they can't come back and say, "I changed my mind, I want back in." We've found that disrupting the child's life that way can be rather detrimental. So, if the biological parent decides they do want the child back after all, we say, "Too bad."

I don't have to show evidence for my opinion since I don't wish for my opinion to be law. I wish to allow the custodial parent to decide if the child would benefit. That is their role as the person who makes legal decisions on behalf of the child.

I never said any such thing. I said that a child's home is better off *emotionally* without child support that is court-ordered.

Really? Short-term memory loss, first signs of aging.

Of course there is a reason. If she doesn't have to depend on the undependable, she is less likely to end up in financial straits. If she isn't expecting responsibility from the irresponsible, she is less likely to be caught in a bind where she actually needs that money. If her plan for taking care of her children doesn't include an undependable monetary source, she is less likely to end up in financial strain.

LALALA. That's a pretty clear claim that the home is less likely to be financially strained without the child support of the father who signs this document. Keep changing your claims. Maybe you'll find one that isn't plainly ridiculous.

I also pointed out that, in the case of someone unwilling to pay child support, court orders often mean shit. And the custodial parent doesn't get the money anyways. Thus, it is possible (even probable in the case of someone so irresponsible they would use such a document) for a person to be better off financially without court-ordered child support, as it is necessary to find a more reliable source of income if extra income is necessary.

Really? People don't take the law into account when deciding to do something? Are you sure? Why do we post speed limit signs? It clearly won't effect what speed people drive. Why do people who are speeding slow down when they see a cop? Um, maybe because we attempt not to run afoul of the law. Apparently, now the people who would sign these documents aren't just irresponsible, they're criminals. Not just criminals, but criminals who completely ignore the law even when there is no chance they won't be caught. You're gonna have to help me with that little leap of logic.

Once again, I have made no such assertion. Please try again.

Really? If you made no such assertion then why would you create a document that removes the parent from the child's life before they were born with no legal ability to retract that document. As you read, current documents actually encourage a parent to reconsider their decision (thus the six month period). They also require the consent of the other parent.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Really. I linked to all of the state adoption laws and to documents that allow fathers to absolve themselves of responsibility to the child.

I never claimed the law allows it (except in the case where hospitals allow women to bring infants in with no questions asked - and that is a suspension of the law in the best interest of the child moreso than a change in the law). I simply pointed out the fact that these laws are, from a practical point of view, unenforceable. Any mother can claim to not know who the child's father is. If the father in question doesn't know about the child, he has no reason to try and come forward. Thus, it ends up happening, one way or another.

Really? Hospitals are not required to follow state law? What state? What hospitals? Give me an example and I'll call them. I just asked my mother a former nurse in both Florida and Illinois and both states require the hospitals to adhere to state guidelines. Of course, that's a big ol' DUH. You're going to have to forgive me if I'm not buying that hospitals are exempt from adhering to state law.

"Obviously, if it is an issue, there must have been studies done."

Why don't you show me evidence to the contrary. Prove to me the opposite of everything I have seen throughout my entire life - that keeping an unloving parent around in any capacity is better for a child than a single parent household without that person involved at all. Surely, if children are better off with unloving parents in the picture than in single-parent (or remarried parent) households that don't receive child support, you have studies?

So now I have to prove that custodial parents deserve a say in decisions that effect the care of their child? I'm advocating not changing the law. I'm not claiming it is an issue. You are advocating a change in the law. You are claiming this is an issue. You are advocating allowing the law to remove the entity that is charged with acting in the interests of the child legally (the custodial parent) so you're really the one who's going to have to show evidence. You really should get out of the rain, you're gonna catch cold and that shirt's not particularly opaque.

Not really. It removes any rights he has to the child, but the only way he could be prosecuted for trying to help is if the mother sought such prosecution - just like the only way he can be prosecuted for *not* helping is if the mother sought prosecution. Funny, that. If he came forward and wanted to help, and he seemed in earnest, there is no reason to believe he wouldn't be allowed to, unless the mother decided that it was not in the best interest of the child.

Oh, so NOW it's up to the mother to include the father in the child's life? What if the mother dies? What if the mother is incapacitated? Why is the child's advocate included in the decision now, but not earlier?

If you are seriously going to deny that your obsession with financial concerns in this case has no relations whatsoever to your own experiences, I'm afraid I'll just have to laugh at you. Our experiences affect our opinions on subjects, whether the experience is directly related or not.

I'm not obsessed with financial concerns. I simply don't ignore them or pretend they don't exist. I leave it to the custodial parent to weigh the financial concerns of the child against any other concerns and come up with a course of action that best benefits the child. The only one denying the custodial parent that ability is you.

It regards the child only in its relationship to another person. If a grandfather wants to disown a grandchild, does the mother get a say in the decision? It affects the child.

The grandfather is not making a legal decision. His decision has no legal effect on the child. If he were make a legal decision that legally affected other parties, those parties should have advocates in the process. You have removed those advocates from the process.

Looks great until......Wait, what's this disclaimer at the end???

Father's Affidavit of Waiver of Interest in Child should only be used if another man is asking to assume the
rights and responsibilities of the father and you wish to give up any claim to the child.

OOPS!! This isn't a decision made by the biological mother and father to absolve the father of his rights and responsibilities. It is a decision made by the biological mother, father, and a new, adoptive father. This is not a method by which a mother can release a father from his responsibilities to the child. This is a method by which another man can adopt the child from the biological father. I never denied that this was possible.

Ha, someone doesn't know what "should" means. Pssst... in legal documents if they want to require it's use only in certain situations they same "may only be used". They use the word "should" because the state does not endorse removing a parent of a child without a suitable replacement.

Here I'll help you with the logic. If it's only used where there is another claimant that is planning to take custody then there would be no reason to put all that language in there that allows the father to retract the statement if the mother does not accept it within a certain amount of time.

Common sense?

Yes, because your common sense has served you so well so far. I'll take this as "I don't wish to provide evidence of any kind in this thread and I'll just keep saying that what I say must be true because I said so."

If you are willing to take on the responsibility, you aren't going to sign a form saying, "I won't take on this responsibility. I resolve myself of it." If you didn't really want a child, but do want to help take care of it, you aren't going to sign a form saying, "I am not going to be a part of this child's life." Now, this assumes that most people aren't going to sign a form that does the exact opposite of what they intend, but I don't think that's a horrible assumption.

Really? Would you sign a document that allowed you to never pay taxes again? Would anyone sign that document that would actually pay their taxes in the absense of that document? People are funny that they often attempt to follow the law. Weird concept, no?

Incorrect. I am the one who started talking about unwilling parents - which you tried to turn into "reluctant" parents. Thus, you are the one trying to use a different definition than that originally brought into the conversation.

Damn, you sure did. Unlike you, I can accept when I'm wrong. You should try it. It's quite freeing. Say it with me, "My name is Dempublicents and I abuse logic."

You mean like the complete lack of evidence you have offered? You mean like the "evidence" that didn't turn out to be what you said it was?

Really? Complete lack of evidence. You mean like posting a link to ALL of the adoption laws of EVERY state. Laws that falsified your ridiculous claim that a father's consent is not required in adoption. I'll post that link again.

http://laws.adoption.com/statutes/state-adoption-laws.html

How about the link that I provided for child support laws in the California as an example?

http://www.childsup.cahwnet.gov/faq.asp

What is Child Support?

Both parents have a legal duty to provide financial support for their children. The court may order either or both parents to make regular payments to cover a child's living and medical expenses. This periodic payment is called child support.

How about the link to the document you claimed does not exist that allows a father to legally absolve himself of rights to the child with the consent of the mother?

http://www.lanwt.org/txaccess/spanish/forms/faaf.pdf

Now, would you like to show what links you have provided for the legal proceedings you claim exist? How about any links at all? Posts where evidence included more than what you claim? Let's see your list of evidence.

I'm done.

I told you that, if you could not be more civil, I have no reason to talk to you. You have proven yourself incapable of civility.

On the issue of evidence and intentions:

Note that I'm not really trying to convince you, Jocabia. I know better. I'm pretty fairly convinced that you and I will both walk away from this thread completely convinced that the other is wrong. At this point, all I am doing really is telling you (and others) exactly why I would support such a measure if it were suggested in the law. I have no expectations that it will be, not because I think it is a bad idea, but because I think certain portions would be rather difficult to enforce, and because so many people take the, "Not my responsibility," attitude towards children.

So you admit it can be abused (can almost always means would, not by everyone, but by some people)? Good to know. And you're not really trying to convince me? I believe that. People who are attempting to be remotely convincing offer evidence.

The difference between you and I in this discussion has not been a difference in evidence. You have provided no more evidence for your assertions than I. When you have provided "evidence", it has generally been evidence for something different than what I was asking. You have assumed your assertions to be true. I'm not saying there's something wrong with that. We're talking about something that has never been put into play. Thus, any view on what effects it will have is pure opinion. It is rather obvious that we look at it from different angles, pulling in "evidence" from those differing viewpoints.

Really, I gave some pretty extensive link to current adoption laws, current child support laws and the current ability to disolve the paternal relationship. Laws you claim don't exist or your claims are counter to. I guess links amount to no evidence. Where's your evidence?

When I have provided evidence? So you admit I've provided evidence (a minute ago I provided NO evidence according to you) so in order for the amounts of our evidence to be equal, then you would have to have provided some links of your own. Can you relink them please? I have yet to see ANY.

The difference has not been disparate intentions, not in the big picture. You think what you have to say is "in the best interest of the child", and I do as well. You think the best interest of the child is served by forcing biological parents, no matter how irresponsible, to take part in a child's life, even if only financially, unless they are shown to be a direct danger to the child. I disagree. I think a child, any child, is the responsibility of all of society. None of this "not my responsibility" business. It would certainly be a better world if biological parents were always responsible and able to take care of their children without direct help from outside their friends and family. But that is not the reality, and I am not going to pretend it can be. I would say that your hardships as a child were not due solely to a problem in insurance companies, but due to a failing of society. If your family was unable to provide for you, then society should have done so.

I think I am not in the position to decide what is in the best interest of the child. I think the custodial parent(s) ARE. The only one here making any law that assumes what is in the best interest of the child is you. You are taking decisions away from the child's advocate and rights away from the child and you are not giving ANY evidence as to why the state should do so.

Ha, I'm forcing parents to take part in their life? Really? I allow for the paternal rights to be severed just as you do, only I require for the custodial parent to be involved in the decision. Burn, strawman, burn.

My family was quite capable of providing for me. I don't lament my childhood at all. I'm 6 feet tall, 185 pounds, and about as healthy as they come. My sister is a different story. My parents were also capable of providing for my sister, but that capability was undermined by insurance companies that insisted that her problems were mental and that they were only obligated to pay for mental health care as a result. There claims were ludicrous, of course, as a physical medical reason was found for why my sister was having difficulty breathing, an obscure reason, no doubt, but certainly physical. Had we followed the money, my sister would be dead.

Child support or increases in governmental support of healthcare would not have changed a thing (actually it was Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago that saved my sister's life, a private hospital). The only thing that would have changed anything is insurance reform. Doctors should dictate care, not insurance providers. Government involvement in medical care generally makes it worse. It's not a financial problem is a problem of giving the power of making medical decisions to medical professionals and not politicians or CEOs.

No, the difference between you and I in this discussion has been that, throughout it all, you have sought more to insult me than to consider, even for a second, my views. You have sought more to tell me what my intentions are, rather than ask me. You have sought more to twist my words into something they are not, instead of actually looking at them. If you continue in this direction, I really have no reason to talk to you about this issue, or any issue for that matter.

Yes, because you never say anything insulting. I've never seen you insult anyone ever. I said that with a straight face. Yep, I can distort the truth too.

I considered your views. I used to believe that a 'paper abortion' was a good idea. Until I looked at the actual evidence, something you're unwilling to do. I don't pretend like women have all the power anymore. I don't pretend like access to abortion amounts to women being solely responsible for the child anymore (something you were smart enough to stop talking about). I don't pretend like custodial parents shouldn't be given as much say in the care of their child as possible with the only exceptions of when it can be proven that the child is benefitted by taking decisions out of the hands of the custodial parents.

And you haven't only done it to me. Whittier said some things that I wouldn't agree with in a million years. And I pointed out the problems with much of what he said. But I didn't, as you did, jump straight to telling him how much he hates women and children. Maybe I'm crazy, but until shown a direct reason to believe otherwise, I tend to think that most people, no matter how misguided I may think them, do have the best interest of those involved in an issue at heart. *shrug*

Whittier gave me a link to his views on the subject. I read all of his proposed laws. They would be disasterous. He has also several times claimed that child support laws amount to a dictatorship run by women and denying men all rights (shall I quote him). Not just false, but disparaging to women. Need links to other mysogynous statements? Some of his other suggestions are equally inconsiderate of children. Need links?

EDIT: I love evidence.

You also know that of all such mothers, teen mothers are the most likely to actually use the money for their kid. Unless of course, they are members of ethnic minorities such as hispanics or blacks who insist the money is for them.

Race apparently dictates, according to Whittier-, whether people are more likely to mistreat their children by misusing funds intended for them. Nothing racist about that?

I've met over 300 during my life who were either paying or recieving child support. Of those, 15% were using the money for their kids. The rest of the women were using the money to go clubbing while leaving their kids home alone starving and with holes in their clothes. And the state would not do anything cause in California, the woman can do what ever the hell she wants with the child support money cause its considered to be hers and not the childs. Its like the state considers it a due payment just for keeping the child around. Now if you don't have a problem with that, I have a problem with you.

85% of women are abusing their children by starving them and making them wear inadequate clothes while partying on child support payments? Nothing mysogynistic about that?

Need more or shall I continue?

How about some evidence that you are always civil, hmmm?

Do you need a little more fiber in your diet?

Maybe you are speaking another language?

Of course you don't - you're arguing with someone other than me with your strawman bullshit.

We could argue all day over whether or not this is a good thing, but to claim that it is equitable is truly idiotic.

I don't think the decision should belong to the parent because too many people will take the same tack you have, "Money = all, therefore it is better to force an unloving parent upon a child so long as they pay up. Never mind the damage it can do the child."

I can list about a dozen times where you accuse me of being obsessed with money over the interest of the child despite the fact that I keep claiming that the same decision you advocate is a good one so long as some is involved to actually consider the interests of the child, a child's advocate, most people that the custodial parent, the person you, by intent, left out of the decision.

Don't dish it out if you can't take it. I realize that we aren't supposed to flame and/or flamebait, but to be sarcastic and/or to call out ridiculous inconsistencies is a part of how we post. We are not required to pretend like every position is equal. We are not required to pretend like we think every poster is reasonable, particularly when evidence suggests otherwise.

I'm done.

I told you that, if you could not be more civil, I have no reason to talk to you. You have proven yourself incapable of civility.

HA! If you'd like I can quote the NUMEROUS times you been uncivil to myself in this thread and others. I don't pretend that my posts are never snarky. I'm quite self-aware. You, on the other hand, clearly are not.

Let's pretend like you left the thread because I wasn't being 'civil' rather than due to the thorough drubbing you got in being shown your claims that your claims that hospitals can ignore the law are unsupported and ludicrous, your claims that biological fathers need not give consent in adoption cases are ludicrous, your claims that child support is not a right of the child are ludicrous, your claims that the custodial parent gets to make all of the decisions if your document becomes law are ludicrous, your claims that the state requires child support in cases where it is not involved are unsupported, your psychological claims that you cite as basis for removing the rights of the child and the consent of the custodial parent are unsupported, etc.

Obvious because, if you had, you would know the effects of it. It's a bit like someone saying, "Falling out a third-story window onto concrete doesn't hurt at all." Unless you're awfully lucky or you have a very rare genetic disease that makes you unable to feel pain, if you fall out of a third-story window onto concrete, it's going to hurt like hell. Thus, if you say, 'No, it doesn't hurt." I'm going to say, "Obviously, you haven't fallen out of a third story window onto concrete."
I have not fallen out of a 3rd story building...

Once again, this assumption that the money of a biological parent is somehow magically different from all other money and they can't possibly get money to eat in any other way.
There is no such assumption what so ever. Merely the application of logic.
Either the lone parent cannot support household expences without child support or they can.
If they can (cover household expences without child support), then the money (in the hands of a responsible parent) would be used in such a way that only recieved income was actually budgeted for.
If however for whatever reason (including parental irresponsibilty), the lone parent is unable to earn enough income, then how does definately not ever getting contributions necessarily better than the occasional payment.

If the family is dependent upon a check from an irresponsible person, then the head of the family is irresponsible.
And so?
Even if I believed your broad generalisation (and as it happens I dont), it's a red herring.

Once again, any parent who relies upon the unreliable to take care of their child is failing their child. Any parent who expects responsibility from the irresponsible and makes that a mainstay of their finances is irresponsible themselves.
No one is talking about relying on anyone to take care of anyone except the parent who has care of the child.
Any parent who does not to the best of their ability pursue the interests of their child is irresponsible to some degree or other. That is neither here nor there since it doesnt demonstrate either way what the results of child support vs non-child support are.

No, the income is not detrimental. The inclusion of the irresponsible parent in the child's life is.
What inclusion?
We are talking about a parent that would if they could sign away any right to see their off spring. Why would they do any more than a write a cheque, (in those cases when they did even that much) post it and out of sight, out of mind till next month?
Either the child ought to see/interact with their parent, or they ought not. If interacting with their parent promotes the well-being of the child, then interested parties will try to have this happen, if however such interaction is harmful to their child's interests or well-being, then interested and legally accountable parties have a duty to act on the child's behalf.

All of this makes the incredibly silly assumption that the type of person who would sign the document in the first place would actually offer the support we would legally require of them just because we say so.
No it doesnt.
This is highly unlikely. It's like assuming that an alcoholic is goign to refraign from drinking and driving just because it is illegal.
No it is not. It's like assuming that just because some of those who would drink and drive if it was legal will also do so when it is illegal, we should still have laws that prohibit drunk driving, along with appropriate enforcement proceedures and provisions.
Unless I am to assume that only laws no one will break are not silly, I am forced to reject your argument.
It is like saying that a junkie is going to decide not to go buy heroin because it is illegal.
I dont know how you got to such a conclusion. Because I am suggesting that something ought to be the law, you conclude is that I am assuming everyone will obey that law; I have made no comment whatsoever regarding my views on the likely voluntary compliance rate.

If we never rely upon this person, then we won't have to worry about the persons' irresponsibility.
So?

Let's take an example of something here, something that could happen. A woman has a child. She decides to keep it. Her boyfriend was a scumbag, she's left him, and she knows he is going to take no part in this child's life. But she lists him on the birth certificate and pursues child support anyways, because we tell her that is what she should do.
Sorry 'we' is you and who else?

He pays, every now and then. Most often, the check bounces or doesn't even arrive. But it is considered part of her household income. She can't get any other aid, because it puts her above that threshold.
Well here is the problem right here.
This problem can be made to 'go away' without 'paper abortions' yet it will not go away as a result of 'paper abortions'.
The problem is the state is not doing it's bit.
The state obliges a parent to pursue the interests of their child, including their financial interests.
A parent should be obliged in such a case to pursue child support, either through a private arrangement if appropriate, then/or by making an application to an appropriate state/court/federal department.
Once the state/society intervenes (at the application of a parent), they sort it out. They pay the custodial parent their child support payments, they pursue the liable parent for non-payment, and they also are responsible for discovering, investigating and dealing with fraud (for instance non-declaration of income).
This means that the child support income is uninterrupted and correctly reported. If there is a great deal animosity in a particular instance, parents need not deal with each other, and if for some reason or other a payment from the father is late this wont cause needless friction.
The state would then have an interest in pursuing liable parents when they were in arrears (it would be the state's money), and furthermore it seems that they have a better chance of getting the money. They are certainly better resourced in man power, equipment, information, and dollars than the average lone parent.

She can't afford the legal fees or the time off of work to appear in court to try and get his wages garnished, and it wouldn't work anyways, since he's being paid under the table and reports no income.
Too many problems...none of them would go away because of paper abortion, none cant be made to go away without.
Legal aid is obviously not working for a start.
Further it shouldnt be necessary. The state (in setting child support) has in effect taken a position the child's best interests are served by "X". Keeping in mind that the state claims that it has a duty to specially protect the interests referred to, the example you are describing is absurd. You need not try to prove that the example is possible (or even that it has actually occurred).
That's the problem, your example isnt unlikely or unrealistic, yet it is entirely absurd.
But I dont believe that the suggested 'paper abortion' is a solution.

Here she is, living below the poverty line, because we told her that society didn't want to help her and that she should rely on the unreliable iinstead.
I reckon this 'we' crew is a bit on the shifty side.

Her child simply, "isn't our responsibility." She can't really improve upon her situation, because she's actually below the point at which government aid might, just might, allow her to try and get a better job.
Paper abortions are not necessary to make this problem go away, nor can can they make the problem go away.

Option two. The guy tells her he doesn't want any part of this parenting thing. She says fine. He signs away all rights and responsibilities. She still needs aid, but she gets it.
What if she doesnt say 'fine'?
What if she doesnt sign away rights that are not her's to sign-away?

She's a responsible person.
If she agreed to this paper abortion, I have serious doubts about her responsibility level....

She doesn't want to rely on the government, so she takes what little she can and looks into night courses.
WTF?!
The State is assuming rights under a particular principal then acting against that principal. I dont see how a paper abortion will solve this problem at all.

It's difficult for a while. She has to take her child into class with her sometimes and the teacher gives her a hard time.
Unacceptable!
Not only is taking her child with her interfering in her ability to gain value from the classes, it is unfairly interfering with the ability of other students, and unfairly making the teachers job harder both practically (disruption), and 'politically/socially' (she likes student and doesnt want to be a hard ass but if admin find out.....), it's utterly unfair to put her on the spot like that.

But she makes it through, gets a good job, gets off government aid and ends up making it on her own. Meanwhile, the asshole is completely out of her life, and her child's. The child never has to see her struggling because the check bounced (or didn't arrive).
Firstly, a paper abortion isnt necessary (nor sufficient) to bring about this result.
Secondly, both of the outcomes you describe are undesirable.
For every problem you claim the paper abortion fixes or attempts to address, there appears to be a better solution. At best the paper abortion is a superficial add-on.

My, what a load of crock :rolleyes:
Of course the man can speak easy here, he doesn't have to carry out and bear the child, which is both a serious pain :mad:
The woman should always have free choice for abortion, no matter what!


well that proposes a huge ethical question. Should we permit women to be sexdriven sluts and be allowed to kill innocent unborn children(yes im pro life deal with it) just so she can continue to lead what most people would call a "questionable lifestyle". I have no problem with people being promiscuous sex addicks, i dont neccessarilly agree with it, but people use abortion as a sort of get out of jail free card. if your not prepared to accept the consequenses of your actions, then dont do it. its a tragedy that a child should have to die to suit you life style.

no dont get me wrong, in the event that child birth would propose significant health problems to the mother, i completely understand the abortion, but just because u were stupid, slept around with no use of contracentives, and got pregnant, doesn not give you the right to kill an unborn child. and dont tell me "the fedus isnt human" look alright its gonna be a human, its not gonna suddenly become a tree. its pretty safe to say itll become a human if its allowed to come to term. now i know that some people cant afford contraceptives. in that case dont have sex. oh wait god forbid i ask you to control you hormones, well just kill an unborn child...

now in the instance of rape... well as much as i understand the abortion, i encourage the women to look at it from a positive side of view... through an act of evil, good can be created. that life can grow and prosper and become great.

unplanned parents, its a shame that a baby is no longer a miracle but is now a mistake... i encourage you to see that even though you werent planning on it, you have the chance to raise a child. but if ure gona kill a child because it just your life style, you shouldnt be allowed to have an abortion, you should have made the right choice and taken steps so that this choice wouldnt have been had to made, funny how people can afford abortions and not condoms. this country can needs a little personal responisbility

I have not fallen out of a 3rd story building...

Good, I'm pretty sure it hurts like hell.


]There is no such assumption what so ever. Merely the application of logic.
Either the lone parent cannot support household expences without child support or they can.

And there is no reason to assume that the extra money they need should come from an unreliable source.

And so?
Even if I believed your broad generalisation (and as it happens I dont), it's a red herring.

You think it is responsible to rely upon someone who cannot be relied upon for your child's well-being? Well, ok, if you say so......

No one is talking about relying on anyone to take care of anyone except the parent who has care of the child.

If a parent needs extra help, and your solution is, "child support from the non-custodial parent," then everyone is relying upon that person in order to provide care for the child.

What inclusion?

The fact that the person is still, even in a limited capacity, in the child's life. Direct interaction is not necessary for inclusion.

No it doesnt.

Yes, it does. Your entire argument is, "The custodial parent needs that money. Therefore, child support should be sought." It assumes that, if child support is sought, it will be received. If you aren't assuming that, then you are still leaving the child without adequate support. You are simply paying lip service to trying to provide for it.

So?

So, if we really care about making sure the child is taken care of, we shouldn't rely on someone who cannot be relied on to provide monetary support. What you are proposing is that, since society doesn't want to be a part of it, we should instead basically tell the woman, "We know you need more income every month. Here's a chance that you might, sometimes, get some of it. Ok, we're done. Let's go get a beer. Oh yeah, if you don't get it, and you can actually find the time and the money, you can let us know and we'll try to do something about it - if it isn't too hard, that is."

Sorry 'we' is you and who else?

The society that says, "We don't want this responsibility. Therefore you must take it." I'm not really a part of that, since I don't advocate the position. But I am a part of society.

Well here is the problem right here.
This problem can be made to 'go away' without 'paper abortions' yet it will not go away as a result of 'paper abortions'.
The problem is the state is not doing it's bit.

Exactly my point. But wait, how does the state "do its bit" if the father is making no reported income (this is more common than you may think)? How does the state "do its bit" if the father can't be found? You know what they do? They put out a warrant for the guy. Great. He's skipped the state. Meanwhile, the woman's finances still show his contribution as a part of it. Chances are, she still can't get aid.

And all this assumes that she is actually capable of putting in all the claims in the first place.

The state obliges a parent to pursue the interests of their child, including their financial interests.

Certainly. So what do you do if it is "Go file these papers and lose your job - currently your only source of income, or leave it be and have some money, albeit not enough"?

Meanwhile, even if she does manage to get all the paperwork through. Even if it only means a one or two month loss of income, the child still has to watch all of this, still gets emotionally and psychologically damaged by it - damage that would have been avoided if he were out of the situation in the first place.

That's the problem, your example isnt unlikely or unrealistic, yet it is entirely absurd.

Generally, absurd has something to do with unlikely and unrealistic.

But I dont believe that the suggested 'paper abortion' is a solution.

That is your opinion. I do.

I reckon this 'we' crew is a bit on the shifty side.

You mean the society that, as you advocated, says, "We don't want any responsibility for the child. As taxpayers, we shouldn't have to be a part of it at all, even if it is necessary"?

If she agreed to this paper abortion, I have serious doubts about her responsibility level....

I don't. The option itself is exactly what I would give any man who impregnated me. "Either be a part of this child's life, or go the hell away right now and I'll take care of my own child."

WTF?!
The State is assuming rights under a particular principal then acting against that principal. I dont see how a paper abortion will solve this problem at all.

Acting against what principle? The child has a right to support. Since the general source - the custodial parent - cannot fully provide it, society can and should provide that support, at least until it is no longer necessary.

Unacceptable!
Not only is taking her child with her interfering in her ability to gain value from the classes, it is unfairly interfering with the ability of other students, and unfairly making the teachers job harder both practically (disruption), and 'politically/socially' (she likes student and doesnt want to be a hard ass but if admin find out.....), it's utterly unfair to put her on the spot like that.

Hardly. I've actually been in a class with a woman that occasionally had to bring her infant child in. It was never a problem at all, for her or for us (or for the professor). And this wasn't even in a tech school or something like that. It was in a university level class. Of course, this is a point that is off-topic.

Secondly, both of the outcomes you describe are undesirable.

Really? The second outcome, in which a child is fully provided for and the mother actually gets to a point where she is living above the poverty level and providing for her child on her own is undesirable? Wow. So what is desirable exactly?

For every problem you claim the paper abortion fixes or attempts to address, there appears to be a better solution.

You haven't provided a practical one. You've pointed out a lot of shoulds, but nothing that actually fits with what government actually *does* or what a person in this situation would actually be going through.

well that proposes a huge ethical question. Should we permit women to be sexdriven sluts and be allowed to kill innocent unborn children(yes im pro life deal with it) just so she can continue to lead what most people would call a "questionable lifestyle". I have no problem with people being promiscuous sex addicks, i dont neccessarilly agree with it, but people use abortion as a sort of get out of jail free card. if your not prepared to accept the consequenses of your actions, then dont do it. its a tragedy that a child should have to die to suit you life style.


given that the right to abortion isnt the topic of this thread, that getting an abortion IS accepting the consequences of your actions, and that women who get abortions are, by and large, not sexdrivensluts ....

do you really want THAT woman to be forced to have children? isnt it better that she just abort the embryo well before it develops into a child?

*snip*

Look, still no evidence.

You've pointed out a lot of problems in the system that your document does NOTHING to address. You're spinning and trying to make it sound like these things are related. There is obvious link to show that the people who would illegally avoid child support are the only ones who would legally avoit it. Would you like to actually propose something that corrects the system rather than removes it? It's like pointing out that the welfare system is flawed so we should remove it in order to make people not rely on it. Actually, Zagat may have proposed a MUCH better solution. The state pays child support and the father pays child support to the state. That way if the payments are unreliable it only affects the state. See how that is a solution that actually addresses the problem rather than making some document that exasperates the problem by completely removing a means of support the child has a right to, yes, a right, as I pointed out in my link.

*snip*

Exactly. She is using examples to support her document and they are examples the document does nothing to address unless these ridiculous cretins she describe happen to be responsible enough to sign a 'paper abortion' while being irresponsible enough to behave in the ways she decribes.

The law currently allows a mother to encourage a man to give up his rights and responsibilities in the even he actually is like she describes. The only thing is that this 'paper abortion' doesn't only remove the men who are like she describes, it also removes men who are not but simply will opt-out of their obligations if the option is there. The assumption that only people who would sign this document are people who have absolutely no respect for the law is unsupported and ridiculous.

Good, I'm pretty sure it hurts like hell.
Probably in most cases, although I'd hedge my bets by suggesting that if you land head first there is a chance you might not feel any pain at all .......... ever again.
And there is no reason to assume that the extra money they need should come from an unreliable source.
Aha. A reliable source is better than an unrealiable source, just as an unrealiable source is better than no source.

You think it is responsible to rely upon someone who cannot be relied upon for your child's well-being? Well, ok, if you say so......
Actually I didnt say so. I do not think that if a parent is relying to some extent on someone who is not consistently reliable, that it is necessarily true that the parent is irresponsible.

If a parent needs extra help, and your solution is, "child support from the non-custodial parent," then everyone is relying upon that person in order to provide care for the child.
That isnt my solution. I have never suggested that child support from non-custodial parents be relied on as the sole mechanism of providing for a child's well-being.

The fact that the person is still, even in a limited capacity, in the child's life.
Is meaningless if it is without effect.
Direct interaction is not necessary for inclusion.
And inclusion is not a problem unless the effect of the inclusion is detrimental to a child.

Yes, it does. Your entire argument is, "The custodial parent needs that money. Therefore, child support should be sought."
No it is not. Nowhere have I suggested that child support ought to be sought (or granted) because the custodial parent needs money.

It assumes that, if child support is sought, it will be received.
No it doesnt.

If you aren't assuming that, then you are still leaving the child without adequate support. You are simply paying lip service to trying to provide for it.
Ok, good thing I'm not assuming that then...

So, if we really care about making sure the child is taken care of, we shouldn't rely on someone who cannot be relied on to provide monetary support.
I'm scratching my head trying to figure out where you are going astray.
I have not stated that a child's well being should be dependent on someone who cant be depended on.

What you are proposing is that, since society doesn't want to be a part of it, we should instead basically tell the woman, "We know you need more income every month. Here's a chance that you might, sometimes, get some of it. Ok, we're done. Let's go get a beer. Oh yeah, if you don't get it, and you can actually find the time and the money, you can let us know and we'll try to do something about it - if it isn't too hard, that is."
Woah, way off base...how did you wind up way the heck out there?

The society that says, "We don't want this responsibility. Therefore you must take it." I'm not really a part of that, since I don't advocate the position. But I am a part of society.

[QUOTE]Exactly my point. But wait, how does the state "do its bit" if the father is making no reported income (this is more common than you may think)?
The state actively works to detect, investigate, and prosecute child support fraud (why do I feel like I have typed this before...?) in order to protect it's own interests.

How does the state "do its bit" if the father can't be found?
The state actively seeks out defaulting liable parents in order to protect it's own interests.

You know what they do? They put out a warrant for the guy. Great. He's skipped the state. Meanwhile, the woman's finances still show his contribution as a part of it. Chances are, she still can't get aid.
Hang on, I thought we were discussing the effects of my proposals...?
That being so, your conclusions are erroneous.

In the solution I am proposing the role of the state should be to determine child support contributions, and to administer child support transactions (apon application of either parent) so as to effect the primary intention/s of the child support order.

Certainly. So what do you do if it is "Go file hese papers and lose your job - currently your only source of income, or leave it be and have some money, albeit not enough"?
Nothing I have suggested would result in such an outcome.

Meanwhile, even if she does manage to get all the paperwork through. Even if it only means a one or two month loss of income, the child still has to watch all of this, still gets emotionally and psychologically damaged by it - damage that would have been avoided if he were out of the situation in the first place.
A solvable issue under the status quo, a non-issue under my proposal.

Generally, absurd has something to do with unlikely and unrealistic.
Right, a little vague (in my earlier post) perhaps...
In your post you describe give a possible outcome example (of current state practises) that is absurd, but is not unlikely or unrealistic. In fact if you pushed me to come down one way or the other, I'd guess that situations of the kind your example describes are not uncommon.
So it appears the state's current provisions and proceedures generate absurd outcomes.
I think we both can agree that is 'not a good thing', my point is that I dont see how a paper abortion will solve this problem....

That is your opinion. I do.
How?

You mean the society that, as you advocated, says, "We don't want any responsibility for the child. As taxpayers, we shouldn't have to be a part of it at all, even if it is necessary"?
You keep going astray somewhere. I have not advocated any such thing, in fact my proposal requires the state take on extra burdens and responsibilities.

I don't. The option itself is exactly what I would give any man who impregnated me. "Either be a part of this child's life, or go the hell away right now and I'll take care of my own child."
Acting against what principle?
The principal that the state has particular interests, rights and obligations with regards to the interests of minors.

The child has a right to support. Since the general source - the custodial parent - cannot fully provide it, society can and should provide that support, at least until it is no longer necessary.
Er no. The state should ensure the necessary support. The state should oblige non-custodial parents to contribute according to their means and currently makes determinations to this effect.
The state should also act to bring the intention of the determination into effect.
Where the above provisions are insufficient to meet the child's needs, the state ought to be responsible for ensuring that the child is adequated provided for.

Hardly. I've actually been in a class with a woman that occasionally had to bring her infant child in. It was never a problem at all, for her or for us (or for the professor). And this wasn't even in a tech school or something like that. It was in a university level class. Of course, this is a point that is off-topic.
I'm glad everyone was 'down with that' it doesnt mean that it is a desirable situation. As far as I am concerned such a lack of support for parents in this situation is unacceptable even without the practical implications.

Really? The second outcome, in which a child is fully provided for and the mother actually gets to a point where she is living above the poverty level and providing for her child on her own is undesirable? Wow. So what is desirable exactly?
Desirable is being able to cover the household costs and attend classes and not have to take baby with you. Desirable is the state acting to effect it's own rulings.

You haven't provided a practical one. You've pointed out a lot of shoulds, but nothing that actually fits with what government actually *does* or what a person in this situation would actually be going through.
I have provided a solution and you have not shown how it is practical....

given that the right to abortion isnt the topic of this thread, that getting an abortion IS accepting the consequences of your actions, and that women who get abortions are, by and large, not sexdrivensluts ...


forgive me i didnt mean to suggest that all women who get abortions are sexdriven sluts... but it is one demographic. and how... may i ask... is getting an abortion accepting consequences of your actions. Accepting the consequences would be realizing that you slept around and got pregnant, okay now ive got raise a kid. instead of oh gosh... im pregnant...oh well one night in the abortion clinic and then its back to the bed post...


do you really want THAT woman to be forced to have children? isnt it better that she just abort the embryo well before it develops into a child?

one that woman wasnt FORCED to have a child... she chose to sleep around...she chose not to have proper protection... and shes reaping what she sews... as much as i hate to refer to a child as a negative thing...
now is the child better off? NO!!! its never getting the chance to be off... because ure sticking a needle through its brain and sucking it out with a vacum cleaner. if the woman was truely a responsable human being she would have the child and put it up for adoption, or she could keep it and clean up her lifestyle to suit the child..., but then again....who are we to ask people to be a little fucking responsable...

forgive me i didnt mean to suggest that all women who get abortions are sexdriven sluts... but it is one demographic. and how... may i ask... is getting an abortion accepting consequences of your actions. Accepting the consequences would be realizing that you slept around and got pregnant, okay now ive got raise a kid. instead of oh gosh... im pregnant...oh well one night in the abortion clinic and then its back to the bed post...

Clearly from someone who's never undergone an abortion or seen the effects.

one that woman wasnt FORCED to have a child... she chose to sleep around...she chose not to have proper protection... and shes reaping what she sews... as much as i hate to refer to a child as a negative thing...
now is the child better off? NO!!! its never getting the chance to be off... because ure sticking a needle through its brain and sucking it out with a vacum cleaner. if the woman was truely a responsable human being she would have the child and put it up for adoption, or she could keep it and clean up her lifestyle to suit the child..., but then again....who are we to ask people to be a little fucking responsable...

Women only get pregnant from not having proper protection? Women only get pregnant from sleeping around? Are you aware of any of the demographics of women that get abortions? Perhaps you should check them out.

Also, do you realize that at the point the embryo is aborted it rarely even counts as a fetus? Are you aware that there are no synapses at the point of most abortions? You're gonna be hard fought at convincing me they're 'murdering' a 'child'.

So you admit it can be abused (can almost always means would, not by everyone, but by some people)? Good to know. And you're not really trying to convince me? I believe that. People who are attempting to be remotely convincing offer evidence.



Really, I gave some pretty extensive link to current adoption laws, current child support laws and the current ability to disolve the paternal relationship. Laws you claim don't exist or your claims are counter to. I guess links amount to no evidence. Where's your evidence?

When I have provided evidence? So you admit I've provided evidence (a minute ago I provided NO evidence according to you) so in order for the amounts of our evidence to be equal, then you would have to have provided some links of your own. Can you relink them please? I have yet to see ANY.



I think I am not in the position to decide what is in the best interest of the child. I think the custodial parent(s) ARE. The only one here making any law that assumes what is in the best interest of the child is you. You are taking decisions away from the child's advocate and rights away from the child and you are not giving ANY evidence as to why the state should do so.

Ha, I'm forcing parents to take part in their life? Really? I allow for the paternal rights to be severed just as you do, only I require for the custodial parent to be involved in the decision. Burn, strawman, burn.

My family was quite capable of providing for me. I don't lament my childhood at all. I'm 6 feet tall, 185 pounds, and about as healthy as they come. My sister is a different story. My parents were also capable of providing for my sister, but that capability was undermined by insurance companies that insisted that her problems were mental and that they were only obligated to pay for mental health care as a result. There claims were ludicrous, of course, as a physical medical reason was found for why my sister was having difficulty breathing, an obscure reason, no doubt, but certainly physical. Had we followed the money, my sister would be dead.

Child support or increases in governmental support of healthcare would not have changed a thing (actually it was Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago that saved my sister's life, a private hospital). The only thing that would have changed anything is insurance reform. Doctors should dictate care, not insurance providers. Government involvement in medical care generally makes it worse. It's not a financial problem is a problem of giving the power of making medical decisions to medical professionals and not politicians or CEOs.



Yes, because you never say anything insulting. I've never seen you insult anyone ever. I said that with a straight face. Yep, I can distort the truth too.

I considered your views. I used to believe that a 'paper abortion' was a good idea. Until I looked at the actual evidence, something you're unwilling to do. I don't pretend like women have all the power anymore. I don't pretend like access to abortion amounts to women being solely responsible for the child anymore (something you were smart enough to stop talking about). I don't pretend like custodial parents shouldn't be given as much say in the care of their child as possible with the only exceptions of when it can be proven that the child is benefitted by taking decisions out of the hands of the custodial parents.



Whittier gave me a link to his views on the subject. I read all of his proposed laws. They would be disasterous. He has also several times claimed that child support laws amount to a dictatorship run by women and denying men all rights (shall I quote him). Not just false, but disparaging to women. Need links to other mysogynous statements? Some of his other suggestions are equally inconsiderate of children. Need links?

EDIT: I love evidence.



Race apparently dictates, according to Whittier-, whether people are more likely to mistreat their children by misusing funds intended for them. Nothing racist about that?



85% of women are abusing their children by starving them and making them wear inadequate clothes while partying on child support payments? Nothing mysogynistic about that?

Need more or shall I continue?

How about some evidence that you are always civil, hmmm?









I don't think the decision should belong to the parent because too many people will take the same tack you have, "Money = all, therefore it is better to force an unloving parent upon a child so long as they pay up. Never mind the damage it can do the child."

I can list about a dozen times where you accuse me of being obsessed with money over the interest of the child despite the fact that I keep claiming that the same decision you advocate is a good one so long as some is involved to actually consider the interests of the child, a child's advocate, most people that the custodial parent, the person you, by intent, left out of the decision.

Don't dish it out if you can't take it. I realize that we aren't supposed to flame and/or flamebait, but to be sarcastic and/or to call out ridiculous inconsistencies is a part of how we post. We are not required to pretend like every position is equal. We are not required to pretend like we think every poster is reasonable, particularly when evidence suggests otherwise.
Hold up there. I no where said that the fact that minority women were more likely to insist that the money was theirs was due soley to their race. In fact, I love how you take my words and interpret them to mean that "it's because of their race that they are like this". You didn't even bother to ask me for an explanation which you should have done since you obvious have a problem understanding what other people are saying. If it really matters to the topic at all, which I doubt, I believe most of the blame for some women in minority groups hold this view is most likely to be the fact they grew up in poverty and attended poorly funded and improperly staffed and equipped schools.
Now I am just waiting for you to make the claim that I said in the same comment, which you qouted, that the statement applies to all minority women.
As for the laws I proposed, I telegrammed you about the Canales amendment which you, in this very thread, claimed would overturn Roe V Wade. In your response telegram, you admitted that there is nothing in the amendment that would overturn Roe V Wade. Shall I post the telegrams here? I would think that the fact women might be concerned that some Supreme Court justices will overturn a right they hold fundamental to themselves, would mean that they would support an amendment that would pretty much set that right in stone by physically adding it to the US Constitution.
Ironically, after admitting that it won't overturn Roe versus Wade, you still oppose it but the best you come up with is "it's poorly written". When I drafted that thing, I carefully, very carefully considered the interests of all parties. And you know well, if it was going to be reflective of my view of abortion it would be very very different.
The amendment itself, is a compromise solution. A reasonable compromise at that. At least that was the conclusion reached by several pro choice groups who had agreed to support it if it ever came up. Even the pro-lifers were ready to support it. The only reason the pro-lifers changed their minds on it was that the pro-lifer politicians found out the pro-choice politicians were supporting it and they chose to oppose it, not because it hurt their side or cause, but just because the opposing side found it acceptable. A lot of pro-life political groups are not truely interested in the interests of the unborn child. They, like some pro-choice groups, are only using the issue as a weapon to attack the other side with. The only difference is that PL's appeal to concerns about the child's rights and PC's appeal to concerns about the rights of women. But when you read between the lines of what both sides are saying, they don't care about either and the whole politicizing of abortion is an unfortunate disrespect toward the people these two groups claim to be defending.
But hey, if you think its ok for people to be used like that, you're free to think so.
If you think that it's preferreable for a woman's right to choose and a child's reasonable right to life should be left to a judge instead being inscribed in stone, well more power to you. Except that judges can, and have on occasion reversed important rulings before.

forgive me i didnt mean to suggest that all women who get abortions are sexdriven sluts... but it is one demographic. and how... may i ask... is getting an abortion accepting consequences of your actions. Accepting the consequences would be realizing that you slept around and got pregnant, okay now ive got raise a kid. instead of oh gosh... im pregnant...oh well one night in the abortion clinic and then its back to the bed post...

how is it not? that it isnt the choice you would force on her doesnt mean it isnt dealing with it. it is, in fact, dealing with it quite decisively. she was pregnant, now she isnt.



one that woman wasnt FORCED to have a child... she chose to sleep around...she chose not to have proper protection... and shes reaping what she sews... as much as i hate to refer to a child as a negative thing...
now is the child better off? NO!!! its never getting the chance to be off... because ure sticking a needle through its brain and sucking it out with a vacum cleaner. if the woman was truely a responsable human being she would have the child and put it up for adoption, or she could keep it and clean up her lifestyle to suit the child..., but then again....who are we to ask people to be a little fucking responsable...

she wasnt forced to get pregnant. she, under your scenario, would be forced to have a child. a child she doesnt want and probably wont be much of a mother to.

most abortions are done at less than 8 weeks, there is no needle to the brain. that is a late-term abortion that is only done out of dire medical necessity. after all, what sexdriven slut wants to lose her figure just so she can abort a baby at 32 weeks?

and no, you cant force anyone to act the way you think they should. a baby shouldnt be the punishment you get when you dare to have sex.

but really, this thread isnt about this. start a new one, or read through one of the 100,000 threads that are actually about "should abortion be a woman's choice?"

i wont respond to you in this thread again.

Hold up there. I no where said that the fact that minority women were more likely to insist that the money was theirs was due soley to their race. In fact, I love how you take my words and interpret them to mean that "it's because of their race that they are like this". You didn't even bother to ask me for an explanation which you should have done since you obvious have a problem understanding what other people are saying. If it really matters to the topic at all, which I doubt, I believe most of the blame for some women in minority groups hold this view is most likely to be the fact they grew up in poverty and attended poorly funded and improperly staffed and equipped schools.
Now I am just waiting for you to make the claim that I said in the same comment, which you qouted, that the statement applies to all minority women.

Ah, I see. You said minority women but you really meant impovershed women? Why didn't you just say poor women?

What if I said something like this - "Almost everyone can read, unless you're black." - But I really meant because black people are more likely to go to an inadequate school because they are poor. The obvious conclusion is that I'm either racist or a REALLY bad communicator.

Now you basically say the words poor and "hispanic or black" are interchangeable. You chose really unfortunate wording assuming what you are saying is true. Lest anyone forget, let me quote you -

You also know that of all such mothers, teen mothers are the most likely to actually use the money for their kid. Unless of course, they are members of ethnic minorities such as hispanics or blacks who insist the money is for them.

Yep, I can see how you meant "unless you're poor" when you said, "unless, of course, they are members of ethnic minorities". How could anyone come to the conclusion I did? Oh, I know. By reading the statement.

As for the laws I proposed, I telegrammed you about the Canales amendment which you, in this very thread, claimed would overturn Roe V Wade. In your response telegram, you admitted that there is nothing in the amendment that would overturn Roe V Wade. Shall I post the telegrams here? I would think that the fact women might be concerned that some Supreme Court justices will overturn a right they hold fundamental to themselves, would mean that they would support an amendment that would pretty much set that right in stone by physically adding it to the US Constitution.

Ironically, after admitting that it won't overturn Roe versus Wade, you still oppose it but the best you come up with is "it's poorly written". When I drafted that thing, I carefully, very carefully considered the interests of all parties. And you know well, if it was going to be reflective of my view of abortion it would be very very different.The amendment itself, is a compromise solution. A reasonable compromise at that. At least that was the conclusion reached by several pro choice groups who had agreed to support it if it ever came up. Even the pro-lifers were ready to support it. The only reason the pro-lifers changed their minds on it was that the pro-lifer politicians found out the pro-choice politicians were supporting it and they chose to oppose it, not because it hurt their side or cause, but just because the opposing side found it acceptable. A lot of pro-life political groups are not truely interested in the interests of the unborn child. They, like some pro-choice groups, are only using the issue as a weapon to attack the other side with. The only difference is that PL's appeal to concerns about the child's rights and PC's appeal to concerns about the rights of women. But when you read between the lines of what both sides are saying, they don't care about either and the whole politicizing of abortion is an unfortunate disrespect toward the people these two groups claim to be defending.
But hey, if you think its ok for people to be used like that, you're free to think so.

If you think that it's preferreable for a woman's right to choose and a child's reasonable right to life should be left to a judge instead being inscribed in stone, well more power to you. Except that judges can, and have on occasion reversed important rulings before.

SECTION 4: THE STATES SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO ENACT AND ENFORCE ALL NECESSARY LAWS ENCOURAGING OR RESTRICTING ABORTION WIHTIN THEIR BORDERS, AS SHALL SEEM TO THEM TO BE IN THEIR BEST INTEREST.

I was tired when I wrote that telegram and I was wrong; it does overturn Roe v. Wade. This portion allows the states to restrict abortion however a state decides, exactly how it was before Roe v. Wade. I would definitely like to see what pro-choice advocacy group supported this amendment. I wish to email them and ask.

Roe v. Wade took abortion decisions away from the States and gave them back to the woman. Your goal is -

9. Give power over abortion back to the states where it belongs.

10. I propose the following amendment to accomplish some of these goals:

We don't need judges to overturn important decisions, you'll do it for them.

Oh, and let me add a little tidbit that amuses me -

SECTION 5: THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE INOPERATIVE UNLESS IT SHALL HAVE BEEN RATIFIED AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION BY CONVENTIONS IN THREE-FOURTHS OF THE STATES, WITHIN ONE HUNDRED YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE SUBMISSION HEREOF TO THE STATES BY THE CONGRESS

You do realize that while you can limit how long this submission is to be considered before ratified, but you cannot set the terms of ratification, as they are set by the constitution, yes? A good constitutional lawyer should have looked this over for you.

Aha. A reliable source is better than an unrealiable source, just as an unrealiable source is better than no source.

Who said anything about having no source? You people seem to assume that I am against helping the custodial parent just because I don't think the help should come from one specific irresponsible person.

Actually I didnt say so. I do not think that if a parent is relying to some extent on someone who is not consistently reliable, that it is necessarily true that the parent is irresponsible.

What happened to a parent, you know, being obligated to do everything they can for their child? If a child were dying of cancer, would a responsible parent get the medication from a reliable source, or an unreliable one?

That isnt my solution. I have never suggested that child support from non-custodial parents be relied on as the sole mechanism of providing for a child's well-being.

Last I checked, your argument for a biological parent providing child support was, "The taxpayers are 'innocent' and shouldn't have to pay for it." Feel free to correct me if that was someone else, but I seem to remember you saying it.

Is meaningless if it is without effect.

Which it isn't.

And inclusion is not a problem unless the effect of the inclusion is detrimental to a child.

Which it is.

No it is not. Nowhere have I suggested that child support ought to be sought (or granted) because the custodial parent needs money.

Well, I'm confused. If the custodial parent has plenty of money to raise the child, then what is the purpose of seeking child support in the first place? Revenge? Punishment?

Ok, good thing I'm not assuming that then...

Ok then. So you are paying lip service to trying to support the child. If you aren't assuming that the payments are actually going to be coming in and be helpful, what exactly is the point of requiring them?

The state actively works to detect, investigate, and prosecute child support fraud (why do I feel like I have typed this before...?) in order to protect it's own interests.

Yes, yes. And they cure cancer and bring the easter bunny to all children too. The thing is, the state is beurocratic enough. Without a complete overhaul in government, the things you are proposing are completley impractical. You are essentially suggesting that the government keep tabs on and even, to a point, control the finances of all parents (at least those who are unmarried). Do you really think this is feasible?

Desirable is being able to cover the household costs and attend classes and not have to take baby with you.

Well, if we're going to go that far, desirable is never ending up in a situation where you have an infant to care for that you can't care for on your own. Desirable is never having an unplanned pregnancy in the first place.

When a bad situation occurs, there is going to be some struggle to get out of it. The point is that the outcome in this case is desirable. In the end, the woman can adequately take care of both herself and her child without a lot of struggle. Did she have to struggle to get there? Yes, but there's really no way around that.

Desirable is the state acting to effect it's own rulings.

And as soon as you provide a practical and cost-effective way for the state to monitor the finances of all parents, they might put it into place (if it doesn't get ruled a breach of privacy).

I have provided a solution and you have not shown how it is practical....

It is your job to show how it is practical, not mine.

Forgive me i didnt mean to suggest that all women who get abortions are sexdriven sluts... but it is one demographic.

Perhaps, but an incredibly tiny one if it is. Do you know how many women who get abortions are *gasp* married and *gasp* already have children? Look up the demographics before you assume stupid things.

and how... may i ask... is getting an abortion accepting consequences of your actions.

It is looking at the consequence (pregnancy) and deciding what to do about it. The only way to not deal with the consequences would be to go, "No, really, I'm not pregnant, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not."

Now, you may not find it to be an acceptable method of accepting the consequences of your actions, but it certainly is one.

Accepting the consequences would be realizing that you slept around and got pregnant, okay now ive got raise a kid. instead of oh gosh... im pregnant...oh well one night in the abortion clinic and then its back to the bed post...

You make so many silly assumptions about those who have abortions. Let me list some of the fallacies here:

1) Women only have unwanted pregnancies if they "slept around". The media loves to act like extreme promiscuity is the norm, but it really isn't. Most people who get abortions are in a relationship with someone. Many who get abortions are even married.
2) Women come to the decision to have an abortion lightly. They do not. It is an agonizing decision for most women who become pregnant without planning it - whether they decide to carry to term or abort.
3) Women who do end up with unplanned pregnancies because of promiscuity or lack of birth control go right back to their old habits. They generally do not. Women who have abortions are usually adamant about the use of birth control - multiple methods generally - even if they were a little slack about it before. They're also usually very choosy about their partners.

one that woman wasnt FORCED to have a child... she chose to sleep around...she chose not to have proper protection...

4) Women who have abortions were not using protection. Wrong again, bucko. Most women who get abortions were using at least one method of birth control.

if the woman was truely a responsable human being she would have the child and put it up for adoption,

Do you really think that bringing a child into the world with the express purpose of dumping it off on someone else's doorstep is "responsible"?

or she could keep it and clean up her lifestyle to suit the child...

5) Women who get abortions need to "clean up [their] lifestyle[s]". Most women who get abortions aren't living the party life. Many are married. Many already have children. I don't know where you are getting these silly stereotypes.

Ah, I see. You said minority women but you really meant impovershed women? Why didn't you just say poor women?

What if I said something like this - "Almost everyone can read, unless you're black." - But I really meant because black people are more likely to go to an inadequate school because they are poor. The obvious conclusion is that I'm either racist or a REALLY bad communicator.

Now you basically say the words poor and "hispanic or black" are interchangeable. You chose really unfortunate wording assuming what you are saying is true. Lest anyone forget, let me quote you -



Yep, I can see how you meant "unless you're poor" when you said, "unless, of course, they are members of ethnic minorities". How could anyone come to the conclusion I did? Oh, I know. By reading the statement.



SECTION 4: THE STATES SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO ENACT AND ENFORCE ALL NECESSARY LAWS ENCOURAGING OR RESTRICTING ABORTION WIHTIN THEIR BORDERS, AS SHALL SEEM TO THEM TO BE IN THEIR BEST INTEREST.

I was tired when I wrote that telegram and I was wrong; it does overturn Roe v. Wade. This portion allows the states to restrict abortion however a state decides, exactly how it was before Roe v. Wade. I would definitely like to see what pro-choice advocacy group supported this amendment. I wish to email them and ask.

Roe v. Wade took abortion decisions away from the States and gave them back to the woman. Your goal is -

9. Give power over abortion back to the states where it belongs.

10. I propose the following amendment to accomplish some of these goals:

We don't need judges to overturn important decisions, you'll do it for them.

Oh, and let me add a little tidbit that amuses me -

SECTION 5: THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE INOPERATIVE UNLESS IT SHALL HAVE BEEN RATIFIED AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION BY CONVENTIONS IN THREE-FOURTHS OF THE STATES, WITHIN ONE HUNDRED YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE SUBMISSION HEREOF TO THE STATES BY THE CONGRESS

You do realize that while you can limit how long this submission is to be considered before ratified, but you cannot set the terms of ratification, as they are set by the constitution, yes? A good constitutional lawyer should have looked this over for you.
1. Minority women are poor women in most cases.
2. You do realize that the state constitutions protect a woman's right to choose at the state level? The states can't ban abortion without violating thier own constitutions which can't be changed with out a vote of the people. And I hope you do realize that women make up the majority of voters at the state level.
3. There is already precedent for putting such terms into the amendment:
18th: Section 3.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress
20th: Section 6.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.
21st: Section 3.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
22nd: Section 2.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

These sections not only dictate the how long an amendment can be considered but also the terms required for it to be passed. All amendments cited above passed and are currently enforceable parts of the US Constitution.
Of course, if the time limit expires, it is only a matter of resubmission by Congress to the states. If the issue is important enough that is.

1. Minority women are poor women in most cases.

Doesn't change that you used minority as the reasoning and not poor. If you were talking about poor women then wouldn't your statement be true regardless of race.

Oh, and the statement is false. Minority women who have no significant other present AND who have children are nearly equally like to poor or not. White women with not significant other present AND who have children have a 30% poverty rate. Both rates are significant portions of their population, enough so that if your were actually referring to impovershed women that you left a large portion of those women out of your statement. In fact since white women women outnumber minorities so significantly it is far more likely that if one were impovershed AND had children AND the child's father was absent that it would be a white women. Your coverup of the intentions of your statement is very transparent. And in case others are reading this let's put up your statement again, shall we?

You also know that of all such mothers, teen mothers are the most likely to actually use the money for their kid. Unless of course, they are members of ethnic minorities such as hispanics or blacks who insist the money is for them.

Yep, your claim that this was actually about poverty and not about race makes one wonder why poverty wasn't mentioned and race was or it makes one simply not believe you.

2. You do realize that the state constitutions protect a woman's right to choose at the state level? The states can't ban abortion without violating thier own constitutions which can't be changed with out a vote of the people. And I hope you do realize that women make up the majority of voters at the state level.

Regardless of what the state's do, Roe v. Wade only served to move abortion arguments to the federal level AND of course chose a side. Overturning Roe v. Wade doesn't mean outlawing abortion. It means taking away the federal protection of a woman's right to choose. If it went back to the state level there would be states that would outlaw it either effectively or directly, just as before. Regardless, your amendment overturns Roe v. Wade and gives the states the opportunity to disallow a woman the right to choose.

EDIT: I'd like to point out is that Roe v. Wade declared the right to choose a natural right that is protected by the very nature of our freedom. When you take it to the states where they may or may not decide to protect that right you declare that right to not be a natural right that is protected by the very nature of our freedom but instead into a 'right' that is voted on. To pretend like making what happens to a woman's body subject to a vote isn't overturning Roe v. Wade is simply patently wrong.

3. There is already precedent for putting such terms into the amendment:
18th: Section 3.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States[/], as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress
20th: Section 6.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths [b]of the several Statesthin seven years from the date of its submission.
21st: Section 3.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions the several States provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
22nd: Section 2.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

These sections not only dictate the how long an amendment can be considered but also the terms required for it to be passed. All amendments cited above passed and are currently enforceable parts of the US Constitution.

You don't notice a difference in wording? There was a reason for the specific wording. I'm shocked you don't know.

In the early days of State Constitution-making, it was quite uncommon to submit the document to the People for their ratification by majority vote at the polls; the theory in the late 18th Century going into the early 19th was that a Constitutional Convention was as much a body representative of the People as the State's legislature itself and that there was, thus, no need to have the People ratify the work once such a drafting body had formally adopted the document and then proclaimed it the Constitution of the State. However, ever since the democratic waves of the so-called "Jacksonian Revolution" began to break upon the republican foundations of the several States of the Union in the early mid-19th Century, the concept of a drafting body not submitting a Constitution to the People for their approval as tantamount to ratification of the document has become quite the rare thing. The notes underneath a given date in this column should clarify not just when the document was ratified but also how it was ratified (that is, answer the question: was it submitted to the People by the drafting body or not?)
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/slg/explanation-constitution.phtml

Yes, I realize this is related to state constitutions and not the US, but it explains the point. Also, I pointed out your addition because I wanted you to admit that you wanted this amendment to ratified by politicians and not the people.

Of course, if the time limit expires, it is only a matter of resubmission by Congress to the states. If the issue is important enough that is.
Your lack of understanding of the effect of your own amendment, or at least your feigned lack of understanding of the effect, is rather scary if you're being serious, and moreso if your feigning.

i just thought id mention this since it was tossed out as if it were true

most minority women are not poor. they make on average less money than the national average and a higher percent of minority women are poor than white women.

but most are not poor.

i just thought id mention this since it was tossed out as if it were true

most minority women are not poor. they make on average less money than the national average and a higher percent of minority women are poor than white women.

but most are not poor.

If you consider him to be referring to minority women with children where the father is absent from the home, then the percentage of poverty among minorities (particularly black and hispanic) is almost exactly half. In other words, you're correct. It's not most. Also, it clearly has nothing to do with his statement that mentioned race but not poverty. Watching someone say something racist and then backpedal would be funny to me if it wasn't so dangerous.

Who said anything about having no source? You people seem to assume that I am against helping the custodial parent just because I don't think the help should come from one specific irresponsible person.
I am a person, not a multiplicity of people. I personally have not made the assumption you refer to.

What happened to a parent, you know, being obligated to do everything they can for their child?
Nothing 'happened' to it.

If a child were dying of cancer, would a responsible parent get the medication from a reliable source, or an unreliable one?
That would depend on the particular variables in a particular instance/circumstance.

Last I checked, your argument for a biological parent providing child support was, "The taxpayers are 'innocent' and shouldn't have to pay for it." Feel free to correct me if that was someone else, but I seem to remember you saying it.
That was never my argument.

Which it isn't.
Which it is.
Restating your view does not make it a fact. I dont believe that this mystery-effect you are alledging is in fact a necessary consequence of an absent parent paying child support.

Well, I'm confused. If the custodial parent has plenty of money to raise the child, then what is the purpose of seeking child support in the first place? Revenge? Punishment?
Regardless of the custodial parent's financial status, the purpose of child support orders is to maximise the well being of effected children.

Ok then. So you are paying lip service to trying to support the child. If you aren't assuming that the payments are actually going to be coming in and be helpful, what exactly is the point of requiring them?
The point of requiring the payments is to facilitate the payment of payments.


Yes, yes. And they cure cancer and bring the easter bunny to all children too. The thing is, the state is beurocratic enough. Without a complete overhaul in government, the things you are proposing are completley impractical. You are essentially suggesting that the government keep tabs on and even, to a point, control the finances of all parents (at least those who are unmarried). Do you really think this is feasible?
I see no reason to believe they are impractical and in fact I believe that what I propose is far more practical than either the current situation, or the current situation with the addition of a 'paper abortion' provision.

Well, if we're going to go that far, desirable is never ending up in a situation where you have an infant to care for that you can't care for on your own. Desirable is never having an unplanned pregnancy in the first place.

When a bad situation occurs, there is going to be some struggle to get out of it. The point is that the outcome in this case is desirable. In the end, the woman can adequately take care of both herself and her child without a lot of struggle. Did she have to struggle to get there? Yes, but there's really no way around that.
The example is a of a success story that consists of reaching the goal of 'getting by'. The example shows that in the circumstance described it is possible that a parent can actually 'beat the odds' through grit and determination and go on to one day be able to meet the costs of living!

And as soon as you provide a practical and cost-effective way for the state to monitor the finances of all parents, they might put it into place (if it doesn't get ruled a breach of privacy).
I dont see that coming up with some way of doing what is already being done is a necessary prerequisite....

It is your job to show how it is practical, not mine.
I have posited a solution that is arguably effective and pragmatic. Unless and until there is some suggestion of impracticality, what more is there to show?

No.

In the interest of equal protection of the law, men should have the right to decline to be responsible for any child provided that they declare such in a timely manner (so that the woman may weigh that in any decision about abortion). Because of the inherently unequal nature of men's and women's biology it is unfair in practice, though I must stress not in principle, to allow a man to force a woman to continue or end a pregnancy against her will. This, while unfortunate, is a reality. However, because the woman is assuming full control over her body it is fair, with perhaps an exception made for cases of a man raping a woman, to allow the man to decline to be bound to supporting a child that he, if he did have the legal right to choose, would have had aborted.

I haven't read through all of this, but if the woman does not want an abortion and the man does and clearly has this in legal writing (her consent unnecessary) when it is early enough in the pregnancy to get an abortion, he should not have to pay for child support.
Simply put, man wants abortion and the woman doesn't, he shouldn't have to pay for the child. That is how you protect the rights of both.
(The only problem left is if the man doesn't want an abortion and she does)

In the interest of equal protection of the law, men should have the right to decline to be responsible for any child provided that they declare such in a timely manner (so that the woman may weigh that in any decision about abortion).
What inequality/s of protection of law are you identifying as being addressed by such a right being granted, and how does the granting of the right you propose produce the benefit.
Because of the inherently unequal nature of men's and women's biology it is unfair in practice, though I must stress not in principle, to allow a man to force a woman to continue or end a pregnancy against her will. This, while unfortunate, is a reality.
:eek:
However, because the woman is assuming full control over her body it is fair, with perhaps an exception made for cases of a man raping a woman, to allow the man to decline to be bound to supporting a child that he, if he did have the legal right to choose, would have had aborted.
I cant make out if you are intending a this as a seperate claim, or if one is a premise of the other...:confused:
It seems to me that you are suggesting in the interest of equality of protection of law, a right be introduced that grants exclusive rights based on sex. Quite what current inequality of protection of law is being addressed is not apparent.
Contrary to your initial appeal to equality, in your last paragraph you then posit that when women assume the same rights as men, this makes it fair to grant men a whole other exclusive right.:confused:

What inequality/s of protection of law are you identifying as being addressed by such a right being granted, and how does the granting of the right you propose produce the benefit.

I cant make out if you are intending a this as a seperate claim, or if one is a premise of the other...:confused:
It seems to me that you are suggesting in the interest of equality of protection of law, a right be introduced that grants exclusive rights based on sex. Quite what current inequality of protection of law is being addressed is not apparent.
Contrary to your initial appeal to equality, in your last paragraph you then posit that when women assume the same rights as men, this makes it fair to grant men a whole other exclusive right.:confused:
His proposition does not create a new right for men so much as protects the already existing right to property. Specifically, it grants the man protection against taking his money for 18 years to pay for a child he didn't want and would have aborted had he been able.

Seeing as the man consented to sex but did not consent to having a child in the first place but that an unfortunate accident happened, I find it hard to put a damper on his right to property based on a decision that is ultimately not his.

His right are being infringed upon, no question about that. The question is whether the government has a significant public interest in limiting their right.
Be careful how you answer this as your argument can be used to force women to carry pregnancy to term.

His proposition does not create a new right for men so much as protects the already existing right to property. Specifically, it grants the man protection against taking his money for 18 years to pay for a child he didn't want and would have aborted had he been able.

Seeing as the man consented to sex but did not consent to having a child in the first place but that an unfortunate accident happened, I find it hard to put a damper on his right to property based on a decision that is ultimately not his.

His right are being infringed upon, no question about that.

THATS WHAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO SAY!!!

His proposition does not create a new right for men so much as protects the already existing right to property. Specifically, it grants the man protection against taking his money for 18 years to pay for a child he didn't want and would have aborted had he been able.

Seeing as the man consented to sex but did not consent to having a child in the first place but that an unfortunate accident happened, I find it hard to put a damper on his right to property based on a decision that is ultimately not his.

His right are being infringed upon, no question about that. The question is whether the government has a significant public interest in limiting their right.
Be careful how you answer this as your argument can be used to force women to carry pregnancy to term.
when you consent to sex you "consent" to the possiblity of pregnancy. that IS a logical outcome of having sex. even when you are using birth control, even when one or both of you have had a sterilization procedure. even when the woman lies and says she is using birth control when she is not. even when the man lies and says he is sterile from a teenaged case of the mumps.

the father has NO control over the pregnancy. its inside the mothers body. she has a limited amount of time to decide that she doesnt want to carry the pregnancy to term. after that time, only extreme medical cause will allow her to voluntarily terminate. this is a decision that can only be in the hands of the woman, its her body.

if the mother decides to continute the pregnancy,and if the pregnancy proceeds normally without miscarriage, the father receives the great benefit of having a child he has put nothing into but ejaculate.

the father has the same rights and responsibilities as the mother. he has equal custody and equal say in the life of the child. except for the inescapable differences in biology, the father has the same rights as the mother to this child. (he cant breastfeed so that may play a factor in the early months of the childs existance. maybe not, as many women choose not to breastfeed)

and, more importantly, the CHILD has rights. it has the right to support from both parents. child support goes to the CHILD not to the mother. if the mother feels she doesnt want to rely on the money from the deadbeat father, she can keep it in an account for the child to have when it gets older. if the mother is on state aid, the state should persue the father and force him to pay for his child. you and i should not pay for a child because its father cant be bothered to. (that is "father or mother" there are deadbeat mothers too who should be forced to pay for their children)

the only way either parent should be allowed to reneg on responsibility to care for their child is through legal means that occur after the child is born and is a legal person. to sign off rights and responsibilites to someone who doesnt legally exist yet doesnt make sense.

IMO, abortion as birth control is an abomination. Keep it to yourself or use birth control, period!

Abortion as a life-saving medical procedure is sometimes necessary, and as such it should never be outlawed, even by well-intentioned people who are trying to prevent the above.

And most parents, single or otherwise, just want what's best for their kids. OK? Can we agree on that???

I receive no child support, by choice. (a) I have plenty, and (b) my ex barely makes ends meet. In my view, accepting child support from my ex would do more harm than good. He'd need a second job to pay it comfortably, and if he did that, he'd never see our son. Them being able to spend time together is more important to me, and to our son, than the money would be.

Yes, child support is "for the child," but pretending it has no impact on the parents is ludicrous. Insofar as we can do so, I think we should work to make sure that we are ALL comfortable... parents AND children.

I think the best thing we can do for everyone is to give the judges in the family courts greater leeway and discretion in deciding how children are financially supported, so they can tailor each family's decision to their unique situation.

when you consent to sex you "consent" to the possiblity of pregnancy. that IS a logical outcome of having sex. even when you are using birth control, even when one or both of you have had a sterilization procedure. even when the woman lies and says she is using birth control when she is not. even when the man lies and says he is sterile from a teenaged case of the mumps.
So? Are you trying to tell me that the woman has to put up with the pregnancy all the way through because she "consented" to the possibility of pregnancy? Why should a woman has the choice of having the baby or not but the man has no say in the matter?

Yes biology tells us that the woman will bear the child and all that but can you give me a good reason why I should submit my right to property to a woman's will?


and, more importantly, the CHILD has rights. it has the right to support from both parents. child support goes to the CHILD not to the mother. if the mother feels she doesnt want to rely on the money from the deadbeat father, she can keep it in an account for the child to have when it gets older. if the mother is on state aid, the state should persue the father and force him to pay for his child. you and i should not pay for a child because its father cant be bothered to. (that is "father or mother" there are deadbeat mothers too who should be forced to pay for their children)

the only way either parent should be allowed to reneg on responsibility to care for their child is through legal means that occur after the child is born and is a legal person. to sign off rights and responsibilites to someone who doesnt legally exist yet doesnt make sense.
The child has the right to be supported. Period. end of the right. There is no such addition as "by both parents". If a woman knowingly bears to term a child despite the objection of the man, I don't know what justification you can possibly give that the man has to suffer financial hardship because of it.

I am a person, not a multiplicity of people. I personally have not made the assumption you refer to.


Nothing 'happened' to it.


That would depend on the particular variables in a particular instance/circumstance.


That was never my argument.


Restating your view does not make it a fact. I dont believe that this mystery-effect you are alledging is in fact a necessary consequence of an absent parent paying child support.


Regardless of the custodial parent's financial status, the purpose of child support orders is to maximise the well being of effected children.


The point of requiring the payments is to facilitate the payment of payments.



I see no reason to believe they are impractical and in fact I believe that what I propose is far more practical than either the current situation, or the current situation with the addition of a 'paper abortion' provision.


The example is a of a success story that consists of reaching the goal of 'getting by'. The example shows that in the circumstance described it is possible that a parent can actually 'beat the odds' through grit and determination and go on to one day be able to meet the costs of living!


I dont see that coming up with some way of doing what is already being done is a necessary prerequisite....


I have posited a solution that is arguably effective and pragmatic. Unless and until there is some suggestion of impracticality, what more is there to show?

Did you happen to notice that the state is too bureaucratic to be relied on in your solution but not to bureaucratic to be relied on in leiu of the non-custodial parent? Interesting that is.

His proposition does not create a new right for men so much as protects the already existing right to property. Specifically, it grants the man protection against taking his money for 18 years to pay for a child he didn't want and would have aborted had he been able.

But he's not able to get an abortion and now there's a child and the state recognizes the right of the child (I linked to it earlier) to receive support from his parents. The state does recognize the right to property but it does not trump all. Ever heard of taxes? We are expected to meet certain responsibilities by the state. One of them is caring for children we father. The state cannot grant you the right to prevent the child from coming into the world and once it exists it must be cared for. That is the equal responsibility of both parents.

Seeing as the man consented to sex but did not consent to having a child in the first place but that an unfortunate accident happened, I find it hard to put a damper on his right to property based on a decision that is ultimately not his.

His right are being infringed upon, no question about that. The question is whether the government has a significant public interest in limiting their right.
Be careful how you answer this as your argument can be used to force women to carry pregnancy to term.
Who's arguing for the woman? We're arguing for the child. In an abortion, no child exists. In a 'paper abortion' a child exists and to allow men to shirk their responsibility to a child they fathered, we infringe upon the rights of the child.

And when men's life and physical health is endangered by pregnancy then they will have an argument as to how unfair it is not to have access to an abortion.

So? Are you trying to tell me that the woman has to put up with the pregnancy all the way through because she "consented" to the possibility of pregnancy? Why should a woman has the choice of having the baby or not but the man has no say in the matter?

Yes biology tells us that the woman will bear the child and all that but can you give me a good reason why I should submit my right to property to a woman's will?

No child. The state has no right to interfere. Child. The state ensures that it is cared for. If a person acting as an agent of the child invokes its right to support from its parents, the state makes certain that its rights are protected. As a party not responsible for the fact it has needs, the child's rights trump the rights of a party that is responsible for the existence of the child.

The child has the right to be supported. Period. end of the right. There is no such addition as "by both parents". If a woman knowingly bears to term a child despite the objection of the man, I don't know what justification you can possibly give that the man has to suffer financial hardship because of it.

Good. If that is the end of the right, you should be able to show me where it states such a thing. Show me any governmental site or legal decision/law that says such a thing. Child support laws seem to disagree with you.

You're not actually arguing that because a woman has a womb, that she and she alone is held responsible for children by the state?

So? Are you trying to tell me that the woman has to put up with the pregnancy all the way through because she "consented" to the possibility of pregnancy? Why should a woman has the choice of having the baby or not but the man has no say in the matter?

Yes biology tells us that the woman will bear the child and all that but can you give me a good reason why I should submit my right to property to a woman's will?

no, i said what i said. that when you have sex you are "consenting" to the possibility of pregnancy. if a woman gets pregnant (with or without consent) she has to deal with that pregnancy. she cant NOT deal with it. she either aborts well before its a "baby" or she carries it to term (sometimes the decision is out of her hands due to spontaneous abortion or miscarriage).

she can terminate the pregnancy; she cant "kill a baby".

for example, she cant give it up for adoption before its born. no matter how firm her intentions how attached the proposed adoptive parents are, when that baby is born, the mother can decide she isnt willing to give the baby up (as can the father). that right extends for some period of time decided by the particular jurisdiction involved. sometimes as much as a month after the baby is born.

for example, if she opts for an abortion but the abortion is botched and she continues to be pregnant past the time when its legally possible to abort, she cant abort just because she wanted to before. she cant kill the baby once its born. she cant throw it away or walk away without legally providing for the child. there is no more "paper abortion" for her than there is for the father (the incidence of botched abortion leading to live birth must be vanishingly small but it is prominent in antiabortion propaganda)

the rights of the child kick in once the child is born and should not be unilaterally denied before the child even exists.



The child has the right to be supported. Period. end of the right. There is no such addition as "by both parents". If a woman knowingly bears to term a child despite the objection of the man, I don't know what justification you can possibly give that the man has to suffer financial hardship because of it.

the man has a relationship to the CHILD that is seperate from his relationship to the mother. and legally a child has the right to be supported by both parents. i dont know where you get the idea that its not. and the state has a stake in not wasting tax money supporting children who have parents who could contribute to its financial welfare.

a person who doesnt want to have to deal with pregnancy should stay away from sex. it leads to all sorts of unwanted consequences.

A man cannot force a woman to have (or not have) an abortion. That would be infringing upon her right to control her own body - and would be, in effect, a legalized form of slavery.

I am all for the idea of a "paper abortion", however, for a man. It would either have to occur within the same period of time a woman can get an elective abortion or, should she attempt to wait to tell him until after that period, he would get a period of, say, 3 months after he is informed. He could sign away all legal rights and responsibilities to the child. If the woman is to have the final say in whether or not a child is brought into this world (and she does - with no other way to do it), then she must accept full responsibility for the raising of that child, even if the father has said he will not be a part of it.

Does it still come out a bit one-sided on many counts? Of course it does! We cannot, for instance, give a man a way to have a child even if the woman does not want to, but a woman can have a child even if the man does not want one. But these are inequalities imposed by biology, not by law. There really isn't much we can do about it, other than keep the latter case from affecting the man's life..

I agree wholeheartedly. There must be some form of equality involved, and I think the way you proposed is the only way to do it. To say the woman has the right to choose whether or not to have the child, but the man has no say in whether or not he wants to be a father is rediculous. It's the woman's choice whether or not to take the child to term, since it's her body, but in most cases courts force the man to support the mother and child. Would someone like to argue that someone who will be financially affected for at least 18 years(probably more) should have no say in the matter at all?

I agree wholeheartedly. There must be some form of equality involved, and I think the way you proposed is the only way to do it. To say the woman has the right to choose whether or not to have the child, but the man has no say in whether or not he wants to be a father is rediculous. It's the woman's choice whether or not to take the child to term, since it's her body, but in most cases courts force the man to support the mother and child. Would someone like to argue that someone who will be financially affected for at least 18 years(probably more) should have no say in the matter at all?
the man has plenty of say. he consented to sex. he has equal say in the life of the child.

he doesnt just get the burden of 18 years of child support payments. he gets a CHILD who will be his child forever. he gets to raise this child, teach this child, love this child. he gets hugs and kisses and a child who squeals with joy as soon as he comes into sight. he has a son or daughter who will give him grandchildren some day.

a child is a BOON especially when HE gets the child at the cost of a teaspoonful of semen and SHE gets it at the risk of her health, life, figure, time, altered lifestyle and pain of childbirth.

As to whether a man should have to pay maintenance for a child he fathered ?

Well gentleman, you f***ed her. She didn't get pregnant by herself.

If you never want to have to pay child maintenance, under any circumstances, then go f*** yourselves :eek: Literally :)

As to whether a man should have to pay maintenance for a child he fathered ?

Well gentleman, you f***ed her. She didn't get pregnant by herself.

If you never want to have to pay child maintenance, under any circumstances, then go f*** yourselves :eek: Literally :)
Well, ladies, you f****ed him. He didn't get you pregnant by himself.

If you never want to have to pay child maintenance, under any circumstances, then go f*** yourselves :eek: Literally :)

Are you advocating that woman should not have the right to an abortion?

the man has plenty of say. he consented to sex. he has equal say in the life of the child.

he doesnt just get the burden of 18 years of child support payments. he gets a CHILD who will be his child forever. he gets to raise this child, teach this child, love this child. he gets hugs and kisses and a child who squeals with joy as soon as he comes into sight. he has a son or daughter who will give him grandchildren some day.

a child is a BOON especially when HE gets the child at the cost of a teaspoonful of semen and SHE gets it at the risk of her health, life, figure, time, altered lifestyle and pain of childbirth.
We are talking about the specific case where the man doesn't want the child but the woman does.

If the man wants the child, of course he will pay for it. If there is bad blood between the parents, of course there will be child support paid.

Good. If that is the end of the right, you should be able to show me where it states such a thing. Show me any governmental site or legal decision/law that says such a thing. Child support laws seem to disagree with you.

You're not actually arguing that because a woman has a womb, that she and she alone is held responsible for children by the state?
I shall ask the same of you. Would you be so kind as to show me a case law where it is stated that the child is entitled to child support by BOTH parents that ressemble what we are discussing here. (meaning not a divorce or someone who went away after a while but some case where the man didn'T want the child but the woman had it anywyas).

But he's not able to get an abortion and now there's a child and the state recognizes the right of the child (I linked to it earlier) to receive support from his parents. The state does recognize the right to property but it does not trump all. Ever heard of taxes? We are expected to meet certain responsibilities by the state. One of them is caring for children we father. The state cannot grant you the right to prevent the child from coming into the world and once it exists it must be cared for. That is the equal responsibility of both parents.
No taxation without representation.
Where is the representation of the man in the abortion decision?


Who's arguing for the woman? We're arguing for the child. In an abortion, no child exists. In a 'paper abortion' a child exists and to allow men to shirk their responsibility to a child they fathered, we infringe upon the rights of the child.

And when men's life and physical health is endangered by pregnancy then they will have an argument as to how unfair it is not to have access to an abortion.
My opinion is that we do not infringe upon the right of the child because there is no such right as to be supported BY BOTH PARENTS. As such we are arguing apples and oranges here.

no, i said what i said. that when you have sex you are "consenting" to the possibility of pregnancy. if a woman gets pregnant (with or without consent) she has to deal with that pregnancy. she cant NOT deal with it. she either aborts well before its a "baby" or she carries it to term (sometimes the decision is out of her hands due to spontaneous abortion or miscarriage).

she can terminate the pregnancy; she cant "kill a baby".

for example, she cant give it up for adoption before its born. no matter how firm her intentions how attached the proposed adoptive parents are, when that baby is born, the mother can decide she isnt willing to give the baby up (as can the father). that right extends for some period of time decided by the particular jurisdiction involved. sometimes as much as a month after the baby is born.

for example, if she opts for an abortion but the abortion is botched and she continues to be pregnant past the time when its legally possible to abort, she cant abort just because she wanted to before. she cant kill the baby once its born. she cant throw it away or walk away without legally providing for the child. there is no more "paper abortion" for her than there is for the father (the incidence of botched abortion leading to live birth must be vanishingly small but it is prominent in antiabortion propaganda)

the rights of the child kick in once the child is born and should not be unilaterally denied before the child even exists.
...


You do realize that you just argued against the right of women to abortion. So I ask again what is your objection to a paper abortion that cannot be used to justify denying women abortions?

You do realize that you just argued against the right of women to abortion. So I ask again what is your objection to a paper abortion that cannot be used to justify denying women abortions?
no canuck i did not

it is established by the supreme court ofthe united states ( i dont have any idea of canadian law) that there comes a time when an unborn child is just that, an unborn child, it THEN has "rights" or at least that the state has an interest in seeing that the pregnancy must be continued to birth unless there are good medical reasons to terminate

that starts to kick in somewhere around week 20 of pregnancy. before that there is not person, no baby, no child. just a woman who is pregnant and has the right to decide she does not want to suffer the detriments of it.

after 20 weeks the woman does not have the right to terminate without some cause.

as i argued, once that fetus is a person, NEITHER parent has the right to walk away. the child must be provided for in some legal manner following legal means and probably agreed upon by a judge with the child represented by its own guardian.

and surely even in canada, both parents are required to support their children. it is so common in the US that there really is no need to "prove it". i know any number of women who have had to sue the father of their children for support (or the state does it on their behalf) even to the extent of garnisheeing their wages, denying them a driver's license, seizing their bank accounts, seizing their incometax refunds and keeping them from getting a hunting license. even across state lines and even to the extent of the father risking jail time for nonsupport.

Nothing 'happened' to it.

If a person is unnecessarily relying on an unreliable source for money to take care of their children, no reasonable person can argue that they are doing everything they can for that child.

Restating your view does not make it a fact. I dont believe that this mystery-effect you are alledging is in fact a necessary consequence of an absent parent paying child support.

You don't have to believe it for it to be there.

Regardless of the custodial parent's financial status, the purpose of child support orders is to maximise the well being of effected children.

And it is only necessary if the custodial parent's financial status is such that they cannot take care of the child. To suggest that child support has any effect at all, no matter what the custodial parent's financial status is, is ludicrous.

I see no reason to believe they are impractica

Haven't worked with the government much, have you? Try it some time. Look at the amount of BS you have to go through just to do something simple - like register a car and keep it registered. Look at how many people are involved and what happens if, God forbid, there is anything that isn't exactly and completely by whatever book they hand the people lowest on the totem pole.

The example is a of a success story that consists of reaching the goal of 'getting by'. The example shows that in the circumstance described it is possible that a parent can actually 'beat the odds' through grit and determination and go on to one day be able to meet the costs of living!

Sometimes that is a struggle. The fact that we have government processes, even if they are a bit inefficient at times, to help people get there is a good thing. We're never going to have a situation where everyone starts out with plenty and no one has to struggle. Sorry.

I dont see that coming up with some way of doing what is already being done is a necessary prerequisite....

You think the government is currently monitoring the finances of every parent in such detail that they know every month whether or not a child support check has been written, received, cashed, and properly used?

Shall I get you a tinfoil hat?

I have posited a solution that is arguably effective and pragmatic.

Only if you ignore the way the government actually works.

it is established by the supreme court ofthe united states ( i dont have any idea of canadian law) that there comes a time when an unborn child is just that, an unborn child, it THEN has "rights" or at least that the state has an interest in seeing that the pregnancy must be continued to birth unless there are good medical reasons to terminate

Actually, to be a bit pedantic, the Supreme Court said no such thing. It said that it is permissable, if a state decides to do so, to disallow abortions in the 3rd trimester except for medical reasons because the government can show an interest in doing so. It says nothing about any rights of the fetus, only what the state may and may not do to protect it (if it so decides).

let me illustrate my points with a couple interesting examples

sperm donation and frozen embryos

a happy couple with fertility problems create several frozen embryos in an attempt to have their own children. one child is born but, sadly, the couple breaks up. the exwife now wants to be implanted with another of these frozen embryos so that her child with have a natural brother or sister. the husband disagrees. he doesnt want another child and he certainly doesnt want to be sending that bitch extra child support for a 2nd child. the court ruled that without the fathers permission, the exwife does not have the right to use the embryos. why? because they both have equal "ownership" of the embryos and equal say. without the trump card of the embryo already being inside the woman, she does not get extra say in what happens to it.

a single woman feeling the pressure of her biological clock decides to get pregnant without even having a steady boyfriend willing to be a father. she asks a friend to donate his semen so that she can get pregnant. he agrees with the proviso that he is NOT the childs father, he is just the sperm donor. she will never expect any money from him or any child support. she agrees. time passes, she has the child but falls on hard times. she has to turn to the state for welfare support of herself and her child. the STATE goes after the "spern donor" for the support of his child. the court rules that he must pay for this child no matter what the agreement he had with the mother. the childs right to support is more important than any agreement made between the parents before it was even conceived.

yes these are actual cases and actual rulings although, not being a lawyer, i may have gotten the legal rationale somewhat wrong.

Actually, to be a bit pedantic, the Supreme Court said no such thing. It said that it is permissable, if a state decides to do so, to disallow abortions in the 3rd trimester except for medical reasons because the government can show an interest in doing so. It says nothing about any rights of the fetus, only what the state may and may not do to protect it (if it so decides).
to be a bit pedantic back

thats why i added "or at least that the state has an interest in seeing that the pregnancy must be continued to birth unless there are good medical reasons to terminate"

You do realize that you just argued against the right of women to abortion. So I ask again what is your objection to a paper abortion that cannot be used to justify denying women abortions?

In abortion, the child never exists. It is not right to life is not taken because there is no person to have a right to life. In the case of the 'paper abortion' there is a person who has rights. In fact, the 'paper abortion' counts on their being a person since it has no effect in the event there is no child.

a single woman feeling the pressure of her biological clock decides to get pregnant without even having a steady boyfriend willing to be a father. she asks a friend to donate his semen so that she can get pregnant. he agrees with the proviso that he is NOT the childs father, he is just the sperm donor. she will never expect any money from him or any child support. she agrees. time passes, she has the child but falls on hard times. she has to turn to the state for welfare support of herself and her child. the STATE goes after the "spern donor" for the support of his child. the court rules that he must pay for this child no matter what the agreement he had with the mother. the childs right to support is more important than any agreement made between the parents before it was even conceived.

The child has a right to support whether it comes from him or not. In the event that such an agreement has truly been reached, he should be no more responsible for that child than the rest of society. There is no logical reason that the woman should not be granted government aid without seeking out the man in question.

thats why i added "or at least that the state has an interest in seeing that the pregnancy must be continued to birth unless there are good medical reasons to terminate"

Indeed. Sorry about that. Trigger finger. =)

I agree wholeheartedly. There must be some form of equality involved, and I think the way you proposed is the only way to do it. To say the woman has the right to choose whether or not to have the child, but the man has no say in whether or not he wants to be a father is rediculous. It's the woman's choice whether or not to take the child to term, since it's her body, but in most cases courts force the man to support the mother and child. Would someone like to argue that someone who will be financially affected for at least 18 years(probably more) should have no say in the matter at all?

Yes, equality. So I propose that if the woman dies during child birth we also kill the man. Equality, friend. We will also give the man stretch marks, damage all of his organs, make him sick, and all of the other effects of pregnancy. Equality, friend. The financial repercussions of a child are equal for both parents when a child exists.

Prior to the existence of the child a woman and only a woman has to deal with the damage and dangers of a pregnancy or an abortion. These dangers are unavoidable. These dangers afford her the ability to prevent the existence of the child. If a man wants a feigned ability to do this then I say with rights come responsibilities and lets place all of those physical damages and dangers on the man as well. You want fairness, no?

The child has a right to support whether it comes from him or not. In the event that such an agreement has truly been reached, he should be no more responsible for that child than the rest of society. There is no logical reason that the woman should not be granted government aid without seeking out the man in question.

yeah its kind of disturbing. if the woman hadnt landed on public support there never would have been a question of his not supporting the child. it was the agreement they made and she wasnt the one who took it to court.

the various states of the united states have decided that if they can get someone else on the hook for child support they will do so. EVEN cases where the husband finds out that his 5 year old child is not his biological child after the divorce and yet still has to pay child support because the state has decided that the time spent being a father is more important than the fact of non-fatherhood.

some of the cases make you shake your head but in general im in favor of both parents being on the hook for supporting their children.

I shall ask the same of you. Would you be so kind as to show me a case law where it is stated that the child is entitled to child support by BOTH parents that ressemble what we are discussing here. (meaning not a divorce or someone who went away after a while but some case where the man didn'T want the child but the woman had it anywyas).

Ever heard of child support law? Of course, you have. If you hadn't we wouldn't be discussing this. Now, has any court decision that you are aware of require a man to pay child support to his child against the will of the man? You know the answer. Come on, I know you do. The answer is yes. Why do you suppose this is so? Just to piss the guy off?

The child has rights and they don't change simply because the father does not want to recognize the child. That's why state's can order the establishment of paternity, or have you not heard of that?

Here, I'll show you a governmental entity that recognizes the right of the child to support from both parents.

http://www.oag.state.tx.us/child/rights.shtml

Under Texas law, a child has the legal right to receive financial support from both parents. A parent is entitled to pursue child support claims with the assistance of the Child Support Division of the Office of the Attorney General, a private attorney or a private collection agency.

There's Texas. I already showed California. How about New Jersey.
http://www.njchildsupport.org/

Your turn.

Oh, and for those who claim that mother and father aren't equal under the law in terms of parental rights and responsibilities -

Here's Oregon-
http://landru.leg.state.or.us/ors/109.html
109.030 Equality in rights and responsibilities of parents. The rights and responsibilities of the parents, in the absence of misconduct, are equal, and the mother is as fully entitled to the custody and control of the children and their earnings as the father. In case of the father’s death, the mother shall come into as full and complete control of the children and their estate as the father does in case of the mother’s death.

Show me a state where they are not considered under law to have equal rights and responsibilities.

I haven't read through all of this, but if the woman does not want an abortion and the man does and clearly has this in legal writing (her consent unnecessary) when it is early enough in the pregnancy to get an abortion, he should not have to pay for child support.
Simply put, man wants abortion and the woman doesn't, he shouldn't have to pay for the child. That is how you protect the rights of both.
(The only problem left is if the man doesn't want an abortion and she does)

The rights of both? You realize there are three beings with rights, yes? Child support is not an issue unless there is a child. That child has rights. How does your proposal protect the rights of the child?

If a person is unnecessarily relying on an unreliable source for money to take care of their children, no reasonable person can argue that they are doing everything they can for that child.



You don't have to believe it for it to be there.



And it is only necessary if the custodial parent's financial status is such that they cannot take care of the child. To suggest that child support has any effect at all, no matter what the custodial parent's financial status is, is ludicrous.



Haven't worked with the government much, have you? Try it some time. Look at the amount of BS you have to go through just to do something simple - like register a car and keep it registered. Look at how many people are involved and what happens if, God forbid, there is anything that isn't exactly and completely by whatever book they hand the people lowest on the totem pole.



Sometimes that is a struggle. The fact that we have government processes, even if they are a bit inefficient at times, to help people get there is a good thing. We're never going to have a situation where everyone starts out with plenty and no one has to struggle. Sorry.



You think the government is currently monitoring the finances of every parent in such detail that they know every month whether or not a child support check has been written, received, cashed, and properly used?

Shall I get you a tinfoil hat?



Only if you ignore the way the government actually works.
Aren't you arguing that the child is protected by relying on this government you describe as so unreliable rather than the father. So which is it, the government is a reliable source to lean on for protecting the mother and the child or it isn't? You can't have it both ways.

Well, ladies, you f****ed him. He didn't get you pregnant by himself.

If you never want to have to pay child maintenance, under any circumstances, then go f*** yourselves :eek: Literally :)

Are you advocating that woman should not have the right to an abortion?

You're missing it. When the child arrives she has EXACTLY the same responsibilities and rights as the father. Since the statement is only addressing those rights and responsibilities, it says nothing about abortion. You are correct in your implication that once the child arrives she should be held responsible for that child. So should the father.

Yes, equality. So I propose that if the woman dies during child birth we also kill the man. Equality, friend. We will also give the man stretch marks, damage all of his organs, make him sick, and all of the other effects of pregnancy. Equality, friend. The financial repercussions of a child are equal for both parents when a child exists.

Prior to the existence of the child a woman and only a woman has to deal with the damage and dangers of a pregnancy or an abortion. These dangers are unavoidable. These dangers afford her the ability to prevent the existence of the child. If a man wants a feigned ability to do this then I say with rights come responsibilities and lets place all of those physical damages and dangers on the man as well. You want fairness, no?

That is a twist which I also sense a lot of bitterness, but neither fairness nor equality.

I believe the proposal has set out the time limit for the man to 'abort' his responsibilities well before a woman's legal right to abort the fetus has expired, so what this does is allow the man a 'vote' in the situation while there is still time for the woman to make a well-informed decision. I don't believe any man should be able to force a woman to have a baby--and go through those dangerous risks and permanent changes to her body as mentioned above--under any circumstances, but the proposal simply lets the man say:

"I do not want this child. I do not want to care for this child. I honestly believe it should be aborted and from this day forward, since you still have the option to abort, I withdraw my financial support for this child--in fact, please save your body the stress and disfigurement and do not take the fetus to term. Should you choose, even after my withdrawl, to take the fetus to term, then all responsibilities for the child will be your's alone as you have chosen to accept them from this day forward."

This allows the man a vote, while the woman still has the choice to take the fetus to term, to force the woman to 'choose' whether or not she wants have the baby (but nothing about forcing her to have the baby) and in doing so also 'choose' at that point to take on any and all responsibilities for the child. Since she is still able to abort, she is at this point accepting full responsibility for her individual decision. She still has the right to choose, and she will be choosing between aborting a fetus, or having a baby with full responsibility required of her alone. Period. The third option of having the child and forcing him to make payments and accept responsibility has just been legally removed from the table.

Once the fetus is beyond the stage where it can be legally aborted, the option for the man to contest is completely withdrawn and he has to accept half of the responsibility for the child. At this point there is no longer a 'choice' for the woman to abort, and since he wouldn't have yet expressed his 'vote' she wouldn't be able to act on his information--ie: choose not to keep the baby if he wasn't going to pay for his half.

Honestly, abortion laws are not only on the books because of the damage a pregnancy can do to a woman's body. They are also there out of compassion for a destroyed life, or lives... that a child born to soon, in unwanted circumstances, could destroy the life of the mother because of her responsibilities and unpreparedness, and even the child's life as well because it wasn't wanted, or the mother just wasn't able to care for it properly at that time.

This proposal does not remove a woman's right to choose, it simply gives the man his own right to choose and realistically amends one of the woman's choices. With this proposal, all misunderstanding would thus be cleared up well before the option to abort has legally expired. Further, it does not force a woman to go through all of the unpleasant circumstances mentioned in the quoted post, it's actually a vote to avoid them altogether.

It's interesting.

no canuck i did not

it is established by the supreme court ofthe united states ( i dont have any idea of canadian law) that there comes a time when an unborn child is just that, an unborn child, it THEN has "rights" or at least that the state has an interest in seeing that the pregnancy must be continued to birth unless there are good medical reasons to terminate

that starts to kick in somewhere around week 20 of pregnancy. before that there is not person, no baby, no child. just a woman who is pregnant and has the right to decide she does not want to suffer the detriments of it.

after 20 weeks the woman does not have the right to terminate without some cause.

as i argued, once that fetus is a person, NEITHER parent has the right to walk away. the child must be provided for in some legal manner following legal means and probably agreed upon by a judge with the child represented by its own guardian.

and surely even in canada, both parents are required to support their children. it is so common in the US that there really is no need to "prove it". i know any number of women who have had to sue the father of their children for support (or the state does it on their behalf) even to the extent of garnisheeing their wages, denying them a driver's license, seizing their bank accounts, seizing their incometax refunds and keeping them from getting a hunting license. even across state lines and even to the extent of the father risking jail time for nonsupport.
But that's not what you said. You said:
the rights of the child kick in once the child is born and should not be unilaterally denied before the child even exists.

You are saying that men should not be able to shrug off their obligations to the unborn child because it not born yet. But you go on saying that women has every right to shrug off their responsibilities to the same unborn identity by having an abortion.

You are saying "think of the future children" when it comes to men's right to property but say "there is no children" when it come to the women's right to abortion.

So why the double standard?

In abortion, the child never exists. It is not right to life is not taken because there is no person to have a right to life. In the case of the 'paper abortion' there is a person who has rights. In fact, the 'paper abortion' counts on their being a person since it has no effect in the event there is no child.
Okay, let me ask you this. Say I sign a legal contract with the woman that she must not claim child care in the eventuality of becoming pregnant.

There is no child yet.

Let's say I sign that legal document while the embryo is still considered a mass of cells and not yet a foetus (say, when a woman can still have an abortion). Are you saying that the courts cannot accept these documents because there is a child coming?

I am signing a contract between two consenting adults while there is still no child in the picture. Do you think this kind of document is legally binding? And if not why?

But that's not what you said. You said:


You are saying that men should not be able to shrug off their obligations to the unborn child because it not born yet. But you go on saying that women has every right to shrug off their responsibilities to the same unborn identity by having an abortion.

It's not not yet born in the case of an abortion. It's never gone be born. There is a difference. There is NEVER a child in the case of an abortion. With a paper abortion, there is no effect unless there IS a child.

You are saying "think of the future children" when it comes to men's right to property but say "there is no children" when it come to the women's right to abortion.

So why the double standard?

Because in one case a child actually exists and in the other no child will ever exist. Can I sign a document putting my cousin's first child into slavery? I'm not violating the rights of a person, am I? Not yet, but once the child is born, I will be. Your document takes affect when the child is born and has effect throughout the childhood of the child (and likely beyond if you look at studies as to the effect of absent parents).

Ever heard of child support law? Of course, you have. If you hadn't we wouldn't be discussing this. Now, has any court decision that you are aware of require a man to pay child support to his child against the will of the man? You know the answer. Come on, I know you do. The answer is yes. Why do you suppose this is so? Just to piss the guy off?

The child has rights and they don't change simply because the father does not want to recognize the child. That's why state's can order the establishment of paternity, or have you not heard of that?

Here, I'll show you a governmental entity that recognizes the right of the child to support from both parents.

http://www.oag.state.tx.us/child/rights.shtml

Under Texas law, a child has the legal right to receive financial support from both parents. A parent is entitled to pursue child support claims with the assistance of the Child Support Division of the Office of the Attorney General, a private attorney or a private collection agency.

There's Texas. I already showed California. How about New Jersey.
http://www.njchildsupport.org/

Your turn.

Oh, and for those who claim that mother and father aren't equal under the law in terms of parental rights and responsibilities -

Here's Oregon-
http://landru.leg.state.or.us/ors/109.html
109.030 Equality in rights and responsibilities of parents. The rights and responsibilities of the parents, in the absence of misconduct, are equal, and the mother is as fully entitled to the custody and control of the children and their earnings as the father. In case of the father’s death, the mother shall come into as full and complete control of the children and their estate as the father does in case of the mother’s death.

Show me a state where they are not considered under law to have equal rights and responsibilities.
You got a point there. I'll give it to you.

I submit that these laws should be modified as they are unfair to the man who is being unfairly denied his right to property. In fact, I think a case could be argued that these laws are unconstitutional. But then, this is what this whole debate is about, innit?

Okay, let me ask you this. Say I sign a legal contract with the woman that she must not claim child care in the eventuality of becoming pregnant.

There is no child yet.

Let's say I sign that legal document while the embryo is still considered a mass of cells and not yet a foetus (say, when a woman can still have an abortion). Are you saying that the courts cannot accept these documents because there is a child coming?

I am signing a contract between two consenting adults while there is still no child in the picture. Do you think this kind of document is legally binding? And if not why?

Those contracts exist and, yes, they are legally binding. The reason being is that the custodial parent (at the time the contract becomes effective) is acting on behalf of the child as is the understood way of representing a child legally. The child is represented. In the 'paper abortion' the child is not represented. I already presented documents that allow a man to sign away his rights and responsibilities provided the custodian of the child (at the time the document takes effect) agrees. These documents are legal and should be. The child is represented in those cases.

Aren't you arguing that the child is protected by relying on this government you describe as so unreliable rather than the father. So which is it, the government is a reliable source to lean on for protecting the mother and the child or it isn't? You can't have it both ways.

I told you I was done conversing with you on this issue, but I will answer this, since it is such a great example of the fact that you don't actually bother to read what I say and simply make up your own version to try and make it sound inconsistent.

The custodial parent and child can and should be able to rely on society, via the government, for extra support if they need it.

What they cannot rely upon the government for is that the government will be able to monitor and automagically know when someone else is not paying child support and quickly rectify that.

See the difference? In one case, the government is making out the checks. In the other, Zagat expects the government to somehow monitor the finances of every parent (custodial and noncustodial) in order to ensure that every payment that is supposed to be made is made, and to act quickly to rectify it otherwise. According to Zagat, no custodial parent should ever have to fill out any paperwork if they aren't receiving money, the government should just know and fix it.

Now, how exactly would a government do this? Could it could completely invade the privacy of these citizens and watch every single transaction they make? Not really, unless it followed them around, since we have this thing called cash. And there's also the Constitution to worry about.

Could it automatically start garnishing wages the minute child support was ordered? Sure, so long as the noncustodial parent was getting paid regularly. You couldn't do it with a contractor or someone who does odd jobs without steady employment - they only report wages once a year. You couldn't do it with anyone getting paid under the table - they don't generally report income at all. Not to mention that such a system punishes the innocent much more than the guilty. What if the person paying child support needs a month or so to get finances in order? A custodial parent might grant that - but the paperwork to get it approved would be silly and, in some cases, might even be impossible to push through in time. What then? There isn't enough money in the account and someone gets sent to jail?

My point is that the government is a beurocratic system and it doesn't (and shouldn't) have the kind of control over people's finances that Zagat is proposing. Your false dichotomy is just that - a false dichotomy. I have never said that the government cannot be relied upon for support. I said it cannot be relied upon to guarrantee support from someone else.

It's not not yet born in the case of an abortion. It's never gone be born. There is a difference. There is NEVER a child in the case of an abortion. With a paper abortion, there is no effect unless there IS a child.



Because in one case a child actually exists and in the other no child will ever exist. Can I sign a document putting my cousin's first child into slavery? I'm not violating the rights of a person, am I? Not yet, but once the child is born, I will be. Your document takes affect when the child is born and has effect throughout the childhood of the child (and likely beyond if you look at studies as to the effect of absent parents).
Let me put it bluntly for you:

when someone is seeking a paper abortion there IS NO CHILD YET. You CANNOT argue that there is infringment upon the rights of the child if you do not recognize the same infringment are happening in the case of abortion.

Those contracts exist and, yes, they are legally binding. The reason being is that the custodial parent (at the time the contract becomes effective) is acting on behalf of the child as is the understood way of representing a child legally. The child is represented. In the 'paper abortion' the child is not represented. I already presented documents that allow a man to sign away his rights and responsibilities provided the custodian of the child (at the time the document takes effect) agrees. These documents are legal and should be. The child is represented in those cases.
Okay we seem to be having a trouble on the definition of paper abortion, then.

I see it as a document a man can sign expressing his wishes to abort a child and waive away any responsibilities and rights he might posses on a potential future child. I see this document is signed before an abortion is no longer an option.

What do you see paper abortion to mean?

Let me put it bluntly for you:

when someone is seeking a paper abortion there IS NO CHILD YET. You CANNOT argue that there is infringment upon the rights of the child if you do not recognize the same infringment are happening in the case of abortion.

A paper abortion, however, is only effective if the pregnancy results in a child. Otherwise, it is moot.

Thus, a paper abortion -- whenever effective -- does infringe on the rights of a born child.

You got a point there. I'll give it to you.

I submit that these laws should be modified as they are unfair to the man who is being unfairly denied his right to property. In fact, I think a case could be argued that these laws are unconstitutional. But then, this is what this whole debate is about, innit?

Unconstitutional? Your rights are only protected when they effect no one else. Your right to life isn't protected at the expense of the life of another necessarily. Your right to property isn't protected at the expense of another's property necessarily. When talking about rights that affect more than one party the needs of each party are weighed and the responsibility for each party to creating those needs are also weighed. Men and women took an equal part in creating a child (any type of birth control no matter how definitive is NEVER weighed into that responsibility) and are equally responsible for the created needs of the child. The child is the only party that cannot meet their own needs and the only party not responsible for this situation.

How is he 'unfairly' being denied his right to property? What's unfair about meeting your responsibilities? If I drive a car that kills a pedestrian and have to pay for that pedestrian, is it unfair that I'm being denied my right to property because I must do so? Should I not have to take responsibility for my actions, particularly when I no a possible outcome of driving a car is that I may injure or kill someone?

Now you say, but the woman knows a birth is a possible outcome as well. You're correct. She does. And in the event of a birth, both parents have EQUAL responsibility for the new person. In the event of the abortion, no other person's rights are abridged. In the event of a 'paper abortion' there is another person and that person has the right to support of both parents.

You got a point there. I'll give it to you.

I submit that these laws should be modified as they are unfair to the man who is being unfairly denied his right to property. In fact, I think a case could be argued that these laws are unconstitutional. But then, this is what this whole debate is about, innit?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

A paper abortion, however, is only effective if the pregnancy results in a child. Otherwise, it is moot.

Thus, a paper abortion -- whenever effective -- does infringe on the rights of a born child.
How so?

I want to know how it infringes on the rights of the child if it was signed in the case a fuckup happens during fucking. I'm not saying it doesn't, I'm just not seeing it.

Okay we seem to be having a trouble on the definition of paper abortion, then.

I see it as a document a man can sign expressing his wishes to abort a child and waive away any responsibilities and rights he might posses on a potential future child. I see this document is signed before an abortion is no longer an option.

What do you see paper abortion to mean?

Exactly that. However, the paper has no effect on whether the child actually comes to exist (and if it does it's coercive) and only become legally effective when a child arrives. It can't be compared to an abortion because an abortion does not ever involve a child.

But that's not what you said. You said:


You are saying that men should not be able to shrug off their obligations to the unborn child because it not born yet. But you go on saying that women has every right to shrug off their responsibilities to the same unborn identity by having an abortion.

You are saying "think of the future children" when it comes to men's right to property but say "there is no children" when it come to the women's right to abortion.

So why the double standard?
there is no double standard. if the woman has an abortion, there is no child. no child, no rights. so no ones rights were violated.

as dempublicents forced me to concede, the unborn child has no rights. not even the day before it is born. rights kick in when the child is born. if the child is never born, its rights cannot be violated.

the man's paper abortion ONLY kicks in IF there is a live birth. it would allow a man to unilaterally decide to abrogate rights and responsibilities that are shared by 2 people -- the father and his child. HE decides to void the rights of the child. the child has no representative in this, its interests are utterly ignored. this isnt right. in any other situation involving the child, its custody and its legal relationships, if there is going to be a change or a challenge, the courts oversee the rights of the child and sometimes even appoint a guardian ad litum (sp?) to make sure the best interests of the child are not being overlooked by the birth parents.

How so?

I want to know how it infringes on the rights of the child if it was signed in the case a fuckup happens during fucking. I'm not saying it doesn't, I'm just not seeing it.

Tell me what effect the document has if there is no child. Tell me during what time frame the document is effective and if there is ever a child effected by the document while the document is in effect. Tell me if this document infringes on the right of the child to support of both parents when a child is born.

Let me put it bluntly for you:

when someone is seeking a paper abortion there IS NO CHILD YET. You CANNOT argue that there is infringment upon the rights of the child if you do not recognize the same infringment are happening in the case of abortion.

What are you missing? Legal actions exist at the time they take effect and continute to be effective, not the time they are signed (though this in some cases one and the same). This document has effect when there is a child. Let me say that again, THERE IS A CHILD. An abortion does not and, by its very nature, cannot.

How is he 'unfairly' being denied his right to property? What's unfair about meeting your responsibilities? If I drive a car that kills a pedestrian and have to pay for that pedestrian, is it unfair that I'm being denied my right to property because I must do so? Should I not have to take responsibility for my actions, particularly when I no a possible outcome of driving a car is that I may injure or kill someone?

Now you say, but the woman knows a birth is a possible outcome as well. You're correct. She does. And in the event of a birth, both parents have EQUAL responsibility for the new person. In the event of the abortion, no other person's rights are abridged. In the event of a 'paper abortion' there is another person and that person has the right to support of both parents.
It is unfairly being denied because the man has no say in whether there is an abortion or not and then is being taxed a portion of his salary on something he has no say in.

It is unfair because the man has not accepted the responsibility of a child any more that the woman seeking an abortion has accepted the responsibility of a child when they had sex.

So how is it that a woman is not being denied her right to abortion but the man is being denied his right to property?

It is unfair. So I ask,again, what is the compelling societal interest that says that we can restrict the rights of men but not of women? Life is unfair and we deal with it. A way to deal with it would be these paper-abortions. It tries to restore the balance.

And with that, I bid you all a happy holiday as I am leaving work and will log off for some time.

How so?

I want to know how it infringes on the rights of the child if it was signed in the case a fuckup happens during fucking. I'm not saying it doesn't, I'm just not seeing it.

Again, the paper abortion is only effective -- it only has any meaning -- if the fucking results in a child being born. If there is no child, the paper abortion is moot. It isn't necessary and has no effect.

A child has a right to support from its parents. The paper abortion deprives the child of that right.

Simple enough?

It is unfairly being denied because the man has no say in whether there is an abortion or not and then is being taxed a portion of his salary on something he has no say in.

It is unfair because the man has not accepted the responsibility of a child any more that the woman seeking an abortion has accepted the responsibility of a child when they had sex.

So how is it that a woman is not being denied her right to abortion but the man is being denied his right to property?

It is unfair. So I ask,again, what is the compelling societal interest that says that we can restrict the rights of men but not of women? Life is unfair and we deal with it. A way to deal with it would be these paper-abortions. It tries to restore the balance.

And with that, I bid you all a happy holiday as I am leaving work and will log off for some time.

You are confusing two issues.

One is the fact that a woman has a constitutional right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy. You don't deny she has such a right. This right does not conflict with any property rights of the man.

The other is a child's right to support from both parents. Once a child is born, the state has a compelling interest in seeing that the child is supported by its parents.

Your cries of unfairness are hollow. A woman faced with a pregnancy must undertake significant costs and risks -- physically, emotionally, socially, financially -- whether or not she chooses to have the child or have an abortion. Your paper abortion costs a man nothing. He just gets to walk away. And, if there is a child, it is unfairly deprived of support from one of its parents.

I told you I was done conversing with you on this issue, but I will answer this, since it is such a great example of the fact that you don't actually bother to read what I say and simply make up your own version to try and make it sound inconsistent.

The custodial parent and child can and should be able to rely on society, via the government, for extra support if they need it.

Ah, I see. They can? Currently? Since you're talking about an unreliable government, do you perchance know of any cases where children were not able to be properly supported by society via the government? I do. Shouldn't you be advocating correcting this problem before allowing your 'paper abortion' document? And, of course, if you are advocating correcting those problems, one of which includes men who would never sign away their rights to the child but cannot be relied upon for support, then your arguments for the child benefiting from a 'paper abortion' adding financial stability melt away. You can't have it both ways.

What they cannot rely upon the government for is that the government will be able to monitor and automagically know when someone else is not paying child support and quickly rectify that.

Oh, I see. Now the government is required to do this automatically. Who proposed that it be automatic. I didn't see Zagat propose such a thing.

I already offered a solution. The government pays the support and then it is only one that has to worry about the father's unreliable nature. See how that addresses the problem without infringing on the rights of the child. I've submitted this already once and I believe Zagat has also argued this, but you ignore that this is, in effect, the exact same as your proposal, only in our proposal the father is still responsible for supporting the child.

See the difference? In one case, the government is making out the checks. In the other, Zagat expects the government to somehow monitor the finances of every parent (custodial and noncustodial) in order to ensure that every payment that is supposed to be made is made, and to act quickly to rectify it otherwise. According to Zagat, no custodial parent should ever have to fill out any paperwork if they aren't receiving money, the government should just know and fix it.

Now, how exactly would a government do this? Could it could completely invade the privacy of these citizens and watch every single transaction they make? Not really, unless it followed them around, since we have this thing called cash. And there's also the Constitution to worry about.

Could it automatically start garnishing wages the minute child support was ordered? Sure, so long as the noncustodial parent was getting paid regularly. You couldn't do it with a contractor or someone who does odd jobs without steady employment - they only report wages once a year. You couldn't do it with anyone getting paid under the table - they don't generally report income at all. Not to mention that such a system punishes the innocent much more than the guilty. What if the person paying child support needs a month or so to get finances in order? A custodial parent might grant that - but the paperwork to get it approved would be silly and, in some cases, might even be impossible to push through in time. What then? There isn't enough money in the account and someone gets sent to jail?

My point is that the government is a beurocratic system and it doesn't (and shouldn't) have the kind of control over people's finances that Zagat is proposing. Your false dichotomy is just that - a false dichotomy. I have never said that the government cannot be relied upon for support. I said it cannot be relied upon to guarrantee support from someone else.

It already does have the control over the parent's finances that Zagat is proposing. Your proposal would make a child more reliant on that control by removing fathers that are willing to disavow a child but not willing to go afoul of the law to do so (since if they were willing to go afoul of the law, they can disavow the child now).

How does your solution address these problems as they will certainly continue to exist even after the 'paper abortion' becomes available?

A paper abortion, however, is only effective if the pregnancy results in a child. Otherwise, it is moot.

Thus, a paper abortion -- whenever effective -- does infringe on the rights of a born child.

This is a technical song-and-dance game that is actually a distraction from the real issue.

The proposal is about a man withdrawing his responsibility for a 'child that will be born should the woman choose not to abort the fetus, and barring any miscarriage, unforeseen accident, act of god, etc. (Technical tangent arguments like these are where bureaucracy comes from... over-iterated statements becoming necessary as a result of people that intentionally try to cloud issues) The 'paper abortion' as it is called would be binding in the case of a specific pregnancy, could only be made after the woman becomes pregnant by the man who files for the 'paper abortion', and would no longer be an option for the man after 'real abortion' was no longer a legal option for the woman, period.

The proposal would allow the man to place a 'vote' on whether or not he even wants to 'have the fetus evolve into a child' in the first place (just as the woman physically has that choice now) He votes no by filing his withdrawl from any responsibilities for this fetus should it be allowed to develop into a child. The woman still has the choice to abort, or the choice to keep the child--with full knowledge that should she decide she wants to take the specific fetus to term--to 'become a child'-- then she has 'chosen' herself, alone, to 'create this child'. She has thus accepted full responsibility for the 'creation of said child'.

It is unfairly being denied because the man has no say in whether there is an abortion or not and then is being taxed a portion of his salary on something he has no say in.

He has a say. The woman has a later say, but at a great deal of cost. You do realize that fair does not mean equal. However, in her 'say' there is no one else's rights that need to be considered. No one else is involved. Someone else is only involved in the absense of the surgery. Those other people would be involved regardless of whether abortion is an option or not.

More importantly, you are denying a child something in order to grant a right to the father. You're going to have to show how the father has earned the right to infringe upon the rights of the child. The reason the child has the right to infringe upon the rights of the father are obvious.

It is unfair because the man has not accepted the responsibility of a child any more that the woman seeking an abortion has accepted the responsibility of a child when they had sex.

No, the man and the woman accepted responsibility for a child if one comes into being equally. As such the court and society find them equally responsible. A woman has an ability to avoid this responsibility without infringing on anyone else's rights (an ability afforded her by nature at a great cost). If you can find a way for a man to avoid this responsibility without infringing on the rights of another, more power to you. Until then, you have no case.

So how is it that a woman is not being denied her right to abortion but the man is being denied his right to property?

A woman is not infringing on anyone else's rights when she gets an abortion. They are not equivalent.

It is unfair. So I ask,again, what is the compelling societal interest that says that we can restrict the rights of men but not of women? Life is unfair and we deal with it. A way to deal with it would be these paper-abortions. It tries to restore the balance.

You have yet to show it as unfair. When another person is involved both parents are treated equally. In the event of a child, both parents are held equally responsible for creating that child through intercourse.

It attempts to restore a balance at the expense of the child and actually only further tips the scales. How many men die in childbirth? Yep. There's your unfairness for you.

And with that, I bid you all a happy holiday as I am leaving work and will log off for some time.

You still have yet to actually support your claims with any law or any true instance of unfairness.

For the record, I personally think abortion is wrong; not out of any religious sentiment, but because the fetus is a distinct being from conception. It the fetus didn't choose to be there and pays the price. But that doesn't matter.
I am male; my personal sentiments aside, I will never have to face that choice. We can evade the consequences easily; many do. Those who don't won't have to actually go though some 9 months of pregancy, face long discomfort, waiting to undergo labour, risking their lives for a child. Its easy to want a child when YOU don't have to go though that. Its easier for upper-class conservatives to be anti-abortion; they don't have to worry about being unable to afford a child, unable to care for it, or have to work every day, hard, to live, and have a pregancy jeprodize that.
I wish abortion didn't happen; I wish there was an alternative. Transpant the fetus, maybe. But the cold, hard fact is that it is the woman's body, and in the end, our bodies are the only thing which are truly ours.

This is a technical song-and-dance game that is actually a distraction from the real issue.

The proposal is about a man withdrawing his responsibility for a 'child that will be born should the woman choose not to abort the fetus, and barring any miscarriage, unforeseen accident, act of god, etc. (Technical tangent arguments like these are where bureaucracy comes from... over-iterated statements becoming necessary as a result of people that intentionally try to cloud issues) The 'paper abortion' as it is called would be binding in the case of a specific pregnancy, could only be made after the woman becomes pregnant by the man who files for the 'paper abortion', and would no longer be an option for the man after 'real abortion' was no longer a legal option for the woman, period.

The proposal would allow the man to place a 'vote' on whether or not he even wants to 'have the fetus evolve into a child' in the first place (just as the woman physically has that choice now) He votes no by filing his withdrawl from any responsibilities for this fetus should it be allowed to develop into a child. The woman still has the choice to abort, or the choice to keep the child--with full knowledge that should she decide she wants to take the specific fetus to term--to 'become a child'-- then she has 'chosen' herself, alone, to 'create this child'. She has thus accepted full responsibility for the 'creation of said child'.

False. You still abridge the rights of the child that exists during the time of effect of the document. You still fail to see that men and women both agree to be held responsible equally in the event a child results from abortion. When a women does not find out she is pregnant until after an abortion is no longer an option, we don't hold her less responsible for the child. You know why? Because the child IS and MUST be considered.

A woman is given no power to place responsibility on a man without his consent and a man should have no such power as well. A woman is not placing responsibility on a man in denying an abortion, she is merely deciding not to undergo surgery in order to end a man's and her responsibility to the child. Your argument would be similar to if the mother decided when the child was four years old to give the child up for adoption and the father said no, would he have sole responsibility for the child? Nope. Because he merely did not allow responsibility to be absolved he didn't place the responsibility on her in the first place.

This is a technical song-and-dance game that is actually a distraction from the real issue.

The proposal is about a man withdrawing his responsibility for a 'child that will be born should the woman choose not to abort the fetus, and barring any miscarriage, unforeseen accident, act of god, etc. (Technical tangent arguments like these are where bureaucracy comes from... over-iterated statements becoming necessary as a result of people that intentionally try to cloud issues) The 'paper abortion' as it is called would be binding in the case of a specific pregnancy, could only be made after the woman becomes pregnant by the man who files for the 'paper abortion', and would no longer be an option for the man after 'real abortion' was no longer a legal option for the woman, period.

The proposal would allow the man to place a 'vote' on whether or not he even wants to 'have the fetus evolve into a child' in the first place (just as the woman physically has that choice now) He votes no by filing his withdrawl from any responsibilities for this fetus should it be allowed to develop into a child. The woman still has the choice to abort, or the choice to keep the child--with full knowledge that should she decide she wants to take the specific fetus to term--to 'become a child'-- then she has 'chosen' herself, alone, to 'create this child'. She has thus accepted full responsibility for the 'creation of said child'.

This is a technical song-and-dance game that is actually a distraction from the real issue.

I've already explained why your alleged equity is anything but.

I'm already tired of this issue (which has been debated many times before in these forums).

For the record, I personally think abortion is wrong; not out of any religious sentiment, but because the fetus is a distinct being from conception. It the fetus didn't choose to be there and pays the price. But that doesn't matter.

For the record, there is no fetus at conception. In the case of most abortions there is no fetus.

I am male; my personal sentiments aside, I will never have to face that choice. We can evade the consequences easily; many do. Those who don't won't have to actually go though some 9 months of pregancy, face long discomfort, waiting to undergo labour, risking their lives for a child. Its easy to want a child when YOU don't have to go though that. Its easier for upper-class conservatives to be anti-abortion; they don't have to worry about being unable to afford a child, unable to care for it, or have to work every day, hard, to live, and have a pregancy jeprodize that.
I wish abortion didn't happen; I wish there was an alternative. Transpant the fetus, maybe. But the cold, hard fact is that it is the woman's body, and in the end, our bodies are the only thing which are truly ours.
Agreed.

This is a technical song-and-dance game that is actually a distraction from the real issue.

The proposal is about a man withdrawing his responsibility for a 'child that will be born should the woman choose not to abort the fetus, and barring any miscarriage, unforeseen accident, act of god, etc. (Technical tangent arguments like these are where bureaucracy comes from... over-iterated statements becoming necessary as a result of people that intentionally try to cloud issues) The 'paper abortion' as it is called would be binding in the case of a specific pregnancy, could only be made after the woman becomes pregnant by the man who files for the 'paper abortion', and would no longer be an option for the man after 'real abortion' was no longer a legal option for the woman, period.

The proposal would allow the man to place a 'vote' on whether or not he even wants to 'have the fetus evolve into a child' in the first place (just as the woman physically has that choice now) He votes no by filing his withdrawl from any responsibilities for this fetus should it be allowed to develop into a child. The woman still has the choice to abort, or the choice to keep the child--with full knowledge that should she decide she wants to take the specific fetus to term--to 'become a child'-- then she has 'chosen' herself, alone, to 'create this child'. She has thus accepted full responsibility for the 'creation of said child'.
and that would make sense if it were the case of a man, a woman and ......the grapefruit tree they were putting in their back yard

but a child has legal rights of its own. its right to support from its father has to be represtented in any discussion of "paper abortion". to have ONE party decide the whole issue before the other person even exists (and thus is completely unable to assert its own best interests) isnt right

its not an agreement between a man and a woman. if they are never married he owes HER nothing. its between a man and his CHILD and that child has rights that must be taken into consideration.

You are confusing two issues.

One is the fact that a woman has a constitutional right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy. You don't deny she has such a right. This right does not conflict with any property rights of the man.

The other is a child's right to support from both parents. Once a child is born, the state has a compelling interest in seeing that the child is supported by its parents.

Your cries of unfairness are hollow. A woman faced with a pregnancy must undertake significant costs and risks -- physically, emotionally, socially, financially -- whether or not she chooses to have the child or have an abortion. Your paper abortion costs a man nothing. He just gets to walk away. And, if there is a child, it is unfairly deprived of support from one of its parents.

By the way, feel free to point out any flaws in the legal arguments I've made. I'm certain they are there, but I'm also certain the basis for them is proper.

and that would make sense if it were the case of a man, a woman and ......the grapefruit tree they were putting in their back yard

but a child has legal rights of its own. its right to support from its father has to be represtented in any discussion of "paper abortion". to have ONE party decide the whole issue before the other person even exists (and thus is completely unable to assert its own best interests) isnt right

its not an agreement between a man and a woman. if they are never married he owes HER nothing. its between a man and his CHILD and that child has rights that must be taken into consideration.

To be fair, it can and often is decided before the child exists. There is no issue with this so long as the party that will be the custodian of the child (and thus makes legal agreements on behalf of the child) is acting in the interest of the child in making the decision.

The reason that people are allowed to change their mind in such matters up until the transfer of custody is because it is believed to be in the best interest of the child to get support from both natural parents, if available.

Cat-Tribe,

Here's a legal question for you:

When a legal form is put into circulation with the descriptor: "This form should only be used if X and Y," is that not generally a clear statement of the intent behind the form, such that a judge would rarely, if ever allow the form to be used if X and Y were not met?

To be fair, it can and often is decided before the child exists. There is no issue with this so long as the party that will be the custodian of the child (and thus makes legal agreements on behalf of the child) is acting in the interest of the child in making the decision.

The reason that people are allowed to change their mind in such matters up until the transfer of custody is because it is believed to be in the best interest of the child to get support from both natural parents, if available.
what kind of thing are you thinking of? the things that spring to my mind are either outside of the law (and thus liable to turn bad on you without much recourse) or not official until the child is actually born and it is reviewed with some kind of legal proceding.

so... a woman and her new boyfriend might decide to put HIS name on the birth certificate when it is in fact the child of her old boyfriend. its done fairly often but can cause lots of trouble down the road if the relationship doesnt work out

or a woman decides she wants to put her baby up for adoption. that decision and well as deciding WHO will get the baby is done before the child is ever born but not official until after it is born. either she or the father can change their minds. in the end the adoption is finalized by a court.

She's referring to the legal ability of a parent to allow another parent to dissolve their relationship with the child. She is intentionally not showing you the document so you can make an actual evaluation.

http://www.lanwt.org/txaccess/spanish/forms/faaf.pdf

There is the form. She claims that the suggestion of use at the end of the form is a requirement. I notice that it does say "may only be used" but instead "should only be used". Look over the entire document and make a decision rather than based on her rather incomplete description.



Dem, You're still the only person who has been in this thread for long who has neither offered nor accepted evidence. You claim that child support is enforced when no parent has ever sought enforcement and the state is not previously involved, yet, not shown any decisions or laws that evidence this. You claim the law does not assume equal rights and responsibilities for both parents despite being shown laws that state otherwise, and has shown no legal support for her argument. You claim that hospitals take children "no questions asked" in violation of state adoption laws (that I linked to and showed require the consent of BOTH parents). And interestingly, you are the same person that in other threads dogs those that disagree with you for not providing evidence.

You still fail to realize that a document whether or not it currently exists (it does) that includes a party on the part of the child when that child's rights are being infringed is in the best interest of the child. Your denial of its existence does not change the fact that such a document would be far more reasonable if one actually wanted to considered the child's rights.

what kind of thing are you thinking of? the things that spring to my mind are either outside of the law (and thus liable to turn bad on you without much recourse) or not official until the child is actually born and it is reviewed with some kind of legal proceding.

Adoption (yes, it goes into effect later, but it is completed while the child has not yet been born), for example. There is also the possibility of dissolving the relationship of the parent to the child if both parents agree.

so... a woman and her new boyfriend might decide to put HIS name on the birth certificate when it is in fact the child of her old boyfriend. its done fairly often but can cause lots of trouble down the road if the relationship doesnt work out

or a woman decides she wants to put her baby up for adoption. that decision and well as deciding WHO will get the baby is done before the child is ever born but not official until after it is born. either she or the father can change their minds. in the end the adoption is finalized by a court.
Not talking about fraudulant replacement. I'm talking about legal dissolution of the father's claim (both in rights and responsibilities) to the child.

The document does not take effect until the child is born. It is official. That is why laws are either in place or provisions in the document to address a change of heart. Often in adoption cases the document is offical beforehand so the adopting couple can start fulfilling the terms. The fact that the parents have an out up until the birth or slightly after doesn't make the document unofficial, it just makes that a considered provision.

EDIT: The point is that the document proposed would not be much different than other documents that are available for signing prior to the birth but taking effect at birth or later. Ever heard of a sperm donor and the documents one signs when accepting the sperm? The difference is that there is an agent of the child (the person who will have custody of the child at birth) participating in the signing of the document.

Hmmm...

I don't normally post a lot, but I think in this case I'll make an exception.

While I believe abortion (unless in extreme circumstances) is wrong, I believe that it should be an individual choice. I believe that if we give women the choice to abort no matter what, then we should give men the choice to waive financial responsibility-- no matter what. Simple enough, right?

What disturbs me the most is the people who support unrestricted abortion for women but don't support financial disassociation for men. This is a most disturbing double standard, and one that I can only attribute to the inherent sexism of each gender for itself.

For the people who support the aforementioned position, I pose this question: Why do you say that the child has no right to life, or at least no right that trumps a woman's right to control her own body, but say that the child's non-existant right to life trumps a man's right to financial independence? This may be one of the most disturbing mindsets I have ever encountered. I would put it on the order of 'do unto your neighbor as you would have done unto you, unless your neighbor is a [jew, catholic, black, muslim], in which case you are free to do whatever you want to them.'

Moving on: while I understand the 'biology makes the difference' argument for women choosing (and it is, in fact, an argument that I agree with), please keep in mind that 'biology' also limits women in almost every physical endeavor, especially militarily, but we still spend money making accomodations for them in the military.

So before you go parading the superiority and versatility of the female body when it comes to reproductive processes, please bear in mind that the 'biology' argument can be used against women for other reasons; it just isn't because we as a civilized people believed we had moved past that point.

Hmmm...

I don't normally post a lot, but I think in this case I'll make an exception.

While I believe abortion (unless in extreme circumstances) is wrong, I believe that it should be an individual choice. I believe that if we give women the choice to abort no matter what, then we should give men the choice to waive financial responsibility-- no matter what. Simple enough, right?

What disturbs me the most is the people who support unrestricted abortion for women but don't support financial disassociation for men. This is a most disturbing double standard, and one that I can only attribute to the inherent sexism of each gender for itself.

For the people who support the aforementioned position, I pose this question: Why do you say that the child has no right to life, or at least no right that trumps a woman's right to control her own body, but say that the child's non-existant right to life trumps a man's right to financial independence? This may be one of the most disturbing mindsets I have ever encountered. I would put it on the order of 'do unto your neighbor as you would have done unto you, unless your neighbor is a [jew, catholic, black, muslim], in which case you are free to do whatever you want to them.'

Moving on: while I understand the 'biology makes the difference' argument for women choosing (and it is, in fact, an argument that I agree with), please keep in mind that 'biology' also limits women in almost every physical endeavor, especially militarily, but we still spend money making accomodations for them in the military.

So before you go parading the superiority and versatility of the female body when it comes to reproductive processes, please bear in mind that the 'biology' argument can be used against women for other reasons; it just isn't because we as a civilized people believed we had moved past that point.
And where does the child fall in your little equation of fairness? There is no child to consider in an abortion. There is a child to consider in your dissolution of responsibilities. Or does the child not matter?

For the people who support the aforementioned position, I pose this question: Why do you say that the child has no right to life, or at least no right that trumps a woman's right to control her own body, but say that the child's non-existant right to life trumps a man's right to financial independence? This may be one of the most disturbing mindsets I have ever encountered. I would put it on the order of 'do unto your neighbor as you would have done unto you, unless your neighbor is a [jew, catholic, black, muslim], in which case you are free to do whatever you want to them.'


pay close attention

when a woman chooses to have an abortion NO CHILD EXISTS. neither legally nor biologically. she is carrying an embryo (or in some cases a fetus) that will probably if left intact grow into a child

a paper abortion is one party making the decision for 2 people without the interests of that second person being taken into consideration. a live child is deprived of its right to support by its father. its rights are not considered at all in this unilateral decision that took place before it was born.

see? in one case there is no child, in the other case there IS a child. big big difference.

My earlier assertion was based upon the premise that abortion is legal and the decision is strictly the woman's. Under that premise, the woman has the legal right to decide whether to abort the child and abdicate responsibility for raising the child or carrying the child and taking responsibility for it (we'll leave adoption out of this example for the sake of simplicity, but that would also fit under the category of abdicating responsibility). My assertion was simply that, under equal protection of the law, the man should have the right to choose to take or abdicate responsibility as well. This is still not entirely equal, but because the man has no say in whether the woman will bear the child he should have a say in whether or not he must take responsibility for that child if born. This, of course, is hingent upon the man legally declaring his choice not to support the child within a timeframe adequate to allow the woman to take that decision into consideration when weighing her own choice of abortion.

My earlier assertion was based upon the premise that abortion is legal and the decision is strictly the woman's. Under that premise, the woman has the legal right to decide whether to abort the child and abdicate responsibility for raising the child or carrying the child and taking responsibility for it (we'll leave adoption out of this example for the sake of simplicity, but that would also fit under the category of abdicating responsibility). My assertion was simply that, under equal protection of the law, the man should have the right to choose to take or abdicate responsibility as well. This is still not entirely equal, but because the man has no say in whether the woman will bear the child he should have a say in whether or not he must take responsibility for that child if born. This, of course, is hingent upon the man legally declaring his choice not to support the child within a timeframe adequate to allow the woman to take that decision into consideration when weighing her own choice of abortion.

The woman does not have the right to abdicate responsibility to the child. Both parents have the same rights and responsibilities to the child in the event a child exists. Abortion has no bearing on this fact, nor do condoms, birth control pills, the patch, etc. No matter what means are taken or not taken to prevent the birth of the child, the two people involved in creating the child are held equally responsible for the child. You wish to change that fact at the detriment of the child.

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Abberflack

For the people who support the aforementioned position, I pose this question: Why do you say that the child has no right to life, or at least no right that trumps a woman's right to control her own body, but say that the child's non-existant right to life trumps a man's right to financial independence? This may be one of the most disturbing mindsets I have ever encountered. I would put it on the order of 'do unto your neighbor as you would have done unto you, unless your neighbor is a [jew, catholic, black, muslim], in which case you are free to do whatever you want to them.'

pay close attention

when a woman chooses to have an abortion NO CHILD EXISTS. neither legally nor biologically. she is carrying an embryo (or in some cases a fetus) that will probably if left intact grow into a child

a paper abortion is one party making the decision for 2 people without the interests of that second person being taken into consideration. a live child is deprived of its right to support by its father. its rights are not considered at all in this unilateral decision that took place before it was born.

see? in one case there is no child, in the other case there IS a child. big big difference.

Oh, I think I do see. It is convenient to say it is not a child when it affects you, but other than that it is considered a child?

Besides validating my conviction that the vast majority of the human race is devolving into a band of ignorant, un-thinking anthropomorphs, you leave me wondering why this is so. Why isn't it a child? You expect me to blindly believe that assertion without providing a reason?:rolleyes:

Both parents have the same rights and responsibilities to the child in the event a child exists.
I believe that the quoted text is a valid representation of your counterargument. I would normally agree, but as long as the right to abortion exists in its present form in the United States the woman has sole say in the matter of whether or not a child exists once a pregnancy has commenced. Because the woman has the right to choose whether a fetus lives or dies and the man does not, the man should in turn have the right to forfeit any part in the child's life should the woman choose to bear the child, including all rights and responsibilities to that child. The fact is that as long as abortion is legal and the decision to have one rests with the woman, she will have superior rights to the man.

The ideal solution in my mind is to simply disallow abortions, but I do not believe that such a ban would be realistically desirable or feasible. One could also give father and mother equal say in the choice to have an abortion, but because the woman must carry the child that would create a violation of the woman's rights. So, we find ourselves berefit of a solution that is both ideologically and realistically sound. My proposition is nothing more than a compromise that attempts to protect the rights of both the man and woman to the greatest extent possible.

Oh, I think I do see. It is convenient to say it is not a child when it affects you, but other than that it is considered a child?

Besides validating my conviction that the vast majority of the human race is devolving into a band of ignorant, un-thinking anthropomorphs, you leave me wondering why this is so. Why isn't it a child? You expect me to blindly believe that assertion without providing a reason?:rolleyes:

What are you missing? It is a child at the time of birth. Of this, there is no debate. You are taking the rights away from that child, regardless of what you believe about abortion. Are you honestly claiming that the child should not be considered?

At the time of most abortions, it has no brain activity, it is not considered a fetus, it has not controlled movement, etc. If an embryo is a child, then why not a sperm and egg?

It really doesn't matter what you believe because the only person involved in the abortion decision is the woman who gets or does not get the surgery. You haven't shown otherwise.

In the case of birth there is NO ONE who argues that there is no child. In the event of a child, a child must be considered.

Now if you wish to show that there is a child at the time of abortion, that is another thread and if you do so successfully I would happily stand up for that child's rights as well.

I'd watch the flaming, friend. It's against site rules.

False. You still abridge the rights of the child that exists during the time of effect of the document. You still fail to see that men and women both agree to be held responsible equally in the event a child results from abortion. When a women does not find out she is pregnant until after an abortion is no longer an option, we don't hold her less responsible for the child. You know why? Because the child IS and MUST be considered.

(There is an edit further below--at first I missed your point about flubbed abortions, or pregnancies discovered when it's too late to abort-- that response is further down-- from here pretend I'm still responding to the point before the exception of 'a child that still results after an abortion' is made :)

Before abortion, we had no choice. The responsibility for the pregnancy, and child that inevitibly resulted, were equally distributed to both the mother and the father. Before abortion the choice was, as many would argue is still true today, whether or not to have sex in the first place, period... and that is a good point!

After abortion, which is a technology that forces rethinking of once-resolved issues, women have a choice. If the woman wants a child, but the man does not, she will have the child and force him to pay for it's care. If the man wants a child, but the woman does not, she will have an abortion and there is nothing he can say about that--and that is the way it should be, as it is her body, and you will never hear me saying a woman shouldn't have a right to choose.

A woman can say she wants an abortion because she doesn't want her body damaged, or reputation, or she may simply not want to pay for the care and responsibility of the child herself--the same reason that a potential father might want to express. You got a problem with that? Then she can just say "I don't want my body damaged"-- and IN NO WAY do I mean to trivialize the risks to a woman's body from pregnancy, if a woman doesn't want a child for any reason having to do with her own body then by all means she should be allowed to have an abortion-- but the reality is, not all woman who have abortions have done so simply because of the risks to her body. Many, and this happened in my own life due to a mistake between me and my girlfriend of the time when I was 20, choose to have an abortion because they simply aren't ready. They do not have the means to care for a child, it simply isn't time yet, or they plain and simply do not want it in the first place for endless potential reasons. My girlfriend just didn't want to ruin her life by having a child before she had finished college and would be unable to financially support her child and live the life she wanted to live. I had no problem with that. Part of me wanted to keep it, but I knew it was her choice. Since then, in my own history, my life really didn't truly begin until after I graduated from college. Almost all of the experiences I've had since then would not have happened had she not chosen to have an abortion. I have no regrets. In fact, I have less regrets now than I did then when I look back on all I've done since that time. My whole identity as I know it today simply would not have evolved.

Men, on the other hand, have no options at all after pregnancy--even though we now have the technology to uncreate what we have created, before it becomes a person. You're absolutely right, it is not our body, but it is our life that will also be severely affected, if not destroyed, by an untimely--but no longer necessarily mandatory--responsibility. Certainly a woman can go through extremely serious risk and trauma from having a child-- but with the technology available today, having the child, even after becoming pregnant, and going through that risk then is a choice that a woman makes.

The man has no such choice, and in no way do I suggest that a man should be able to force a woman to have an abortion either-- and he definitely shouldn't have the right to force a woman to keep a child against her will. I suggest none of these things as they both would be barbaric. I simply think, with the technology we have today, a man should be given the same 'extended window' of choice to commit to a potential child as a woman enjoys now.

We now have the opportunity to notify a woman who has become pregnant that, using our current technology, we simply wish to withdraw our part in our creation. We have the opportunity to make choices after pregnancy, and before birth, but we only grant these opportunities to a woman because of her body, which I fully support, but as a result, in addition we also grant women the freedom to be absolved of any other responsibility toward the future child that she so chooses, for any reason at all, simply by choosing to have an abortion.

I believe men should also be given these same opportunities. With the technology of abortion we have the opportunity to allow a man to openly state, before the pregnancy goes to full term, that he wants to withdraw his part in the creation of the child, and since it is not a child yet, and abortion is still an option--an option that is openly and freely available to her regardless, this is a reasonable request.

This does not make the man satan. He is simply pointing this fact out while there is still time for the woman to make an educated decision way before the child is born, and any ensuing legal drama that would consume the mother, father, and child later on could still be avoided. It is a realistic opportunity to officially express his opinion, file his decision with the government, and then allow the woman to still make her choice based on her feelings while taking his official opinion into consideration.

The man would be withdrawing his responsibility to the child, because we have the technology to stop the child from ever becoming a child in the first place. Should the woman decide to continue with the pregnancy--even after the man has filed his official withdrawal--and not 'uncreate her creation' she has, in effect, chosen to become the sole creator of this child, and therefore accept any and all responsibility. Before abortion man and woman had no choice, they both created the child whether they chose to or not. After abortion, men and woman have the choice to continue on and actually create the child-- if the man withdraws his responsibilities to create the child but the woman still decides to go on with the pregnancy--I'll say it again--she is choosing to become the sole creator of the child, knowing full well she could have stopped the pregnancy before it developed into a child after hearing the father wanted nothing to do with furthering the creation of the child. If she refuses to accept having a child without the financial support of the man to care for it, then she simply shouldn't have the child at all, by her decision--and at that point make the man responsible for all costs related to the abortion as the woman will have paid enough with her body already at that point. Otherwise she can have the child, but all ties to the father do not exist.

EDIT! Ok, I reread your point above regarding a child that still comes to term even after an attempted abortion, or a woman who doesn't know she's pregnant until after it's too late for an abortion--and I may have written a 'trigger finger' novel above then but... hehe.. I'm leaving it because I stand by all points above, but in the case you pointed out, there is a completely realistic exception. Well, as far as I'm concerned, it's back to the old school way of doing it then. There is no longer a 'choice' to be made, or, even though the choice was made by both of them certain realities got in the way, ie: the flubbed abortion, and both the mother and the father have to accept the fact that even though they had chosen to end the pregnancy, reality and nature intervened and gave them both a beautiful little baby-- whether they wanted it or not. ;) I'm sure if the man contested after filing his 'paper abortion' the woman could simply submit proof of the failed real abortion attempt from the doctor and that would end that discussion promptly. The man has to pay his half in that case, period.

A woman is given no power to place responsibility on a man without his consent and a man should have no such power as well. A woman is not placing responsibility on a man in denying an abortion, she is merely deciding not to undergo surgery in order to end a man's and her responsibility to the child.

As it stands now, a woman, by choosing not to abort, is forcing responsibility onto a man--even though we have the technology to avoid the situation. Before abortion, you were correct. After abortion, the line is blurred--as we are discussing now--and people should change, and they have changed, but so far only with regard to the woman. The woman has the choice to end her responsibility to the child through abortion--because it's her body, but she is also allowed many other reasons. The man has no such choice, and forcing abortion or completion of term on a woman is barbaric and wrong, but the issue of allowing a man to officially withdraw his responsibilities to the child while the woman still has a choice to go to term or have an abortion is on the table in this thread.

To decide to take a baby to term, while still having an ability to end the pregnancy legally, even though the man expressed complete withdrawl of responsibility and intention to care for the child, is to then accept complete responsibility for the actual creation of the child, though current policies don't see it this way. Before abortion, this was not even worthy of discussion.

Your argument would be similar to if the mother decided when the child was four years old to give the child up for adoption and the father said no, would he have sole responsibility for the child? Nope. Because he merely did not allow responsibility to be absolved he didn't place the responsibility on her in the first place.

I'm not sure what you meant here-- if you meant the child that was four years old was a child who had a father who had absolved responsibility while it was a fetus, or just any child born outside of the hypothetical situation brought up in this thread, so I can't comment. Sorry! :)

Oh, I think I do see. It is convenient to say it is not a child when it affects you, but other than that it is considered a child?

Besides validating my conviction that the vast majority of the human race is devolving into a band of ignorant, un-thinking anthropomorphs, you leave me wondering why this is so. Why isn't it a child? You expect me to blindly believe that assertion without providing a reason?:rolleyes:
geee. because its legally, biologically and in most cases religiously defined as "not a child". an embryo may well grow into a child but it is not one yet.

if you want to debate this, it doesnt belong in this thread. feel free to start a thread called "is an embryo a child" or to look at one of the 10,000 threads that already cover the subject.

I believe that the quoted text is a valid representation of your counterargument. I would normally agree, but as long as the right to abortion exists in its present form in the United States the woman has sole say in the matter of whether or not a child exists once a pregnancy has commenced. Because the woman has the right to choose whether a fetus lives or dies and the man does not, the man should in turn have the right to forfeit any part in the child's life should the woman choose to bear the child, including all rights and responsibilities to that child. The fact is that as long as abortion is legal and the decision to have one rests with the woman, she will have superior rights to the man.

There is no fetus at the time of most abortions, first of all.

You still do not consider the child. The child has a right to support from both parents. You have yet to show otherwise.

The responsibility to the child does not weigh in the measures not taken by each parent to prevent the birth. Are you sure you wish to start doing so? A girl is on the pill and using a spermicide, the man uses nothing. He has 90% responsibility for the child.

"But judge I was wearing two condoms and she was only on the pill. I shouldn't be held responsible."

Not relieving someone of their responsibilities simply because you have the ability to does not make you the new keeper of their responsibilities. Otherwise, all I'd have to do to relieve myself of my responsibilities as a father is suggest adoption. She disagrees, then it's her problem raising the kid. Ridiculous.

What rights does the mother have that the father does not? Both sexes have control over their bodies and what surgeries they wish to undergo. Of the two of them, only a women will ever be denied surgery because it infringes on the rights of another (in the third trimester). Of the two of them, only a woman will ever have her life endangered during pregnancy. Of the two of them, only the woman will undergo severe damage to her body in order to have a child. Of the two of them, only the woman must undergo periods and menopause. I fail to see these superior rights.

What rights is a woman trumping when she gets an abortion? There is no child, thus no father. There is no one else involved. You claim she didn't get an abortion so she forced the child on the father. So if a man doesn't wear a condom does he force the child on the mother. Doing so endangers her life, is it attempted murder?

The ideal solution in my mind is to simply disallow abortions, but I do not believe that such a ban would be realistically desirable or feasible. One could also give father and mother equal say in the choice to have an abortion, but because the woman must carry the child that would create a violation of the woman's rights. So, we find ourselves berefit of a solution that is both ideologically and realistically sound. My proposition is nothing more than a compromise that attempts to protect the rights of both the man and woman to the greatest extent possible.

The abortion does not dissolve a woman's responsibility to a child. There is no child. A woman has no way to dissolve her responsibility to a child without the consent of the other parent, just as a man does not. There rights are equal.

Your position is an attempt to protect the rights of the man and does not consider the rights of the child whatsoever. The child has rights regardless of your disregard for them.

Also, if we are going to compromise, why not reach a compromise on everything. Some women die in childbirth and from pregnancy. I propose that that an equal number of potential fathers die in childbirth as well. That's a lottery I don't want to win. All women go through immense physical trauma during pregnancy. I propose placing equal trauma on a man's body. The episiotomy is sure gonna suck for us. We're searching for equality here, no?

Women pay a terrible price for their access to abortion. If we're going to give men pretend abortions, let's give them pretend pregnancies. Who's with me?

(There is an edit further below--at first I missed your point about flubbed abortions, or pregnancies discovered when it's too late to abort-- that response is further down-- from here pretend I'm still responding to the point before the exception of 'a child that still results after an abortion' is made :)

Before abortion, we had no choice. The responsibility for the pregnancy, and child that inevitibly resulted, were equally distributed to both the mother and the father. Before abortion the choice was, as many would argue is still true today, whether or not to have sex in the first place, period... and that is a good point!

This is still the choice. If sex results in a child, both have an equal responsibility regardless of the birth control measures that exist and that were used or not used.

After abortion, which is a technology that forces rethinking of once-resolved issues, women have a choice. If the woman wants a child, but the man does not, she will have the child and force him to pay for it's care. If the man wants a child, but the woman does not, she will have an abortion and there is nothing he can say about that--and that is the way it should be, as it is her body, and you will never hear me saying a woman shouldn't have a right to choose.

The woman does not force a man to do anything. The rights of the child require the man to meet his responsibilities.

A woman can say she wants an abortion because she doesn't want her body damaged, or reputation, or she may simply not want to pay for the care and responsibility of the child herself--the same reason that a potential father might want to express. You got a problem with that? Then she can just say "I don't want my body damaged"-- and IN NO WAY do I mean to trivialize the risks to a woman's body from pregnancy, if a woman doesn't want a child for any reason having to do with her own body then by all means she should be allowed to have an abortion-- but the reality is, not all woman who have abortions have done so simply because of the risks to her body. Many, and this happened in my own life due to a mistake between me and my girlfriend of the time when I was 20, choose to have an abortion because they simply aren't ready. They do not have the means to care for a child, it simply isn't time yet, or they plain and simply do not want it in the first place for endless potential reasons. My girlfriend just didn't want to ruin her life by having a child before she had finished college and would be unable to financially support her child and live the life she wanted to live. I had no problem with that. Part of me wanted to keep it, but I knew it was her choice. Since then, in my own history, my life really didn't truly begin until after I graduated from college. Almost all of the experiences I've had since then would not have happened had she not chosen to have an abortion. I have no regrets. In fact, I have less regrets now than I did then when I look back on all I've done since that time. My whole identity as I know it today simply would not have evolved.

Men, on the other hand, have no options at all after pregnancy--even though we now have the technology to uncreate what we have created, before it becomes a person. You're absolutely right, it is not our body, but it is our life that will also be severely affected, if not destroyed, by an untimely--but no longer necessarily mandatory--responsibility. Certainly a woman can go through extremely serious risk and trauma from having a child-- but with the technology available today, having the child, even after becoming pregnant, and going through that risk then is a choice that a woman makes.

Men have no options during the pregnancy and, in return, their lives and bodies are not endangered. Women have options in regard to the pregnancy and none of them are the option the man has (to continue his life unfettered with no effect to his body). Newsflash: Men and women do not have the same options during pregnancy. Until you can give women the option to go out partying while the man pukes his guts out and pees twenty times an hour or ends up on three weeks of bed rest, then you can't really do anything to make them have similar options, now can you? I don't see you doing anything to equalize the inequity a woman faces in terms of pregnancy. Why does the man deserve such consideration, particularly at the expense of the rights of the child? Why with the advent of abortion should the rights of the child change? Is the child of less value now? Are the rights of the child less important?

The man has no such choice, and in no way do I suggest that a man should be able to force a woman to have an abortion either-- and he definitely shouldn't have the right to force a woman to keep a child against her will. I suggest none of these things as they both would be barbaric. I simply think, with the technology we have today, a man should be given the same 'extended window' of choice to commit to a potential child as a woman enjoys now.

This does not consider the rights of the child. It only considers something you deem to be unfair. Again, if you can find a way to remove the responsibilities of the father without infringing on the rights of anyone else, more power to you. Nature afforded women a method to do so. Men do not have that ability. Your solution does infringe on the rights of the child.

We now have the opportunity to notify a woman who has become pregnant that, using our current technology, we simply wish to withdraw our part in our creation. We have the opportunity to make choices after pregnancy, and before birth, but we only grant these opportunities to a woman because of her body, which I fully support, but as a result, in addition we also grant women the freedom to be absolved of any other responsibility toward the future child that she so chooses, for any reason at all, simply by choosing to have an abortion.

You can't withdraw your part in the creation. When your part of the creation stopped occurring within your body, you're ability to withdraw your part was ended. If a child results once you no longer have its creation under the control of your body, you have a responsibility to the child. Women have the exact same responsibility.

I believe men should also be given these same opportunities. With the technology of abortion we have the opportunity to allow a man to openly state, before the pregnancy goes to full term, that he wants to withdraw his part in the creation of the child, and since it is not a child yet, and abortion is still an option--an option that is openly and freely available to her regardless, this is a reasonable request.

Again, this ignores the needs of the child and pretends as if your claim is possible. The man has no ability to withdraw his part in the creation at that point. No document can give him that ability.

This does not make the man satan. He is simply pointing this fact out while there is still time for the woman to make an educated decision way before the child is born, and any ensuing legal drama that would consume the mother, father, and child later on could still be avoided. It is a realistic opportunity to officially express his opinion, file his decision with the government, and then allow the woman to still make her choice based on her feelings while taking his official opinion into consideration.

The man would be withdrawing his responsibility to the child, because we have the technology to stop the child from ever becoming a child in the first place. Should the woman decide to continue with the pregnancy--even after the man has filed his official withdrawal--and not 'uncreate her creation' she has, in effect, chosen to become the sole creator of this child, and therefore accept any and all responsibility. Before abortion man and woman had no choice, they both created the child whether they chose to or not. After abortion, men and woman have the choice to continue on and actually create the child-- if the man withdraws his responsibilities to create the child but the woman still decides to go on with the pregnancy--I'll say it again--she is choosing to become the sole creator of the child, knowing full well she could have stopped the pregnancy before it developed into a child after hearing the father wanted nothing to do with furthering the creation of the child. If she refuses to accept having a child without the financial support of the man to care for it, then she simply shouldn't have the child at all, by her decision--and at that point make the man responsible for all costs related to the abortion as the woman will have paid enough with her body already at that point. Otherwise she can have the child, but all ties to the father do not exist.

EDIT! Ok, I reread your point above regarding a child that still comes to term even after an attempted abortion, or a woman who doesn't know she's pregnant until after it's too late for an abortion--and I may have written a 'trigger finger' novel above then but... hehe.. I'm leaving it because I stand by all points above, but in the case you pointed out, there is a completely realistic exception. Well, as far as I'm concerned, it's back to the old school way of doing it then. There is no longer a 'choice' to be made, or, even though the choice was made by both of them certain realities got in the way, ie: the flubbed abortion, and both the mother and the father have to accept the fact that even though they had chosen to end the pregnancy, reality and nature intervened and gave them both a beautiful little baby-- whether they wanted it or not. ;) I'm sure if the man contested after filing his 'paper abortion' the woman could simply submit proof of the failed real abortion attempt from the doctor and that would end that discussion promptly. The man has to pay his half in that case, period.

Your 'novel' does not consider the rights of the child. You wish to abridge the rights of the child in order to correct an perceived inequity caused by nature. Your perceptions aside, the child has rights and you are denying those rights.

As it stands now, a woman, by choosing not to abort, is forcing responsibility onto a man--even though we have the technology to avoid the situation. Before abortion, you were correct. After abortion, the line is blurred--as we are discussing now--and people should change, and they have changed, but so far only with regard to the woman. The woman has the choice to end her responsibility to the child through abortion--because it's her body, but she is also allowed many other reasons. The man has no such choice, and forcing abortion or completion of term on a woman is barbaric and wrong, but the issue of allowing a man to officially withdraw his responsibilities to the child while the woman still has a choice to go to term or have an abortion is on the table in this thread.

To decide to take a baby to term, while still having an ability to end the pregnancy legally, even though the man expressed complete withdrawl of responsibility and intention to care for the child, is to then accept complete responsibility for the actual creation of the child, though current policies don't see it this way. Before abortion, this was not even worthy of discussion.

No, the woman does not force anything on the man. The man cannot reasonably expect that if the woman gets pregnant she will undergo a surgery to end that pregnancy or raise the child alone. To do so, places little value on the weight and effect of such a decision on a woman and NO VALUE on the rights of the child should one come into being.

The rights of the child convey certain responsibilities on the parents or their estates. The existence of an abortion does not change these rights or responsibilities. You fail to recognize that you cannot require a person to accept your proposal to end your responsibility or take on the responsibility alone. You can name NO OTHER scenario which such a thing is an option.

I'm not sure what you meant here-- if you meant the child that was four years old was a child who had a father who had absolved responsibility while it was a fetus, or just any child born outside of the hypothetical situation brought up in this thread, so I can't comment. Sorry! :)
What I mean is let's say my former girlfriend and I have a four-year-old together. I come up to my ex on the child's fourth birthday and say I want to put her up for adoption. Now the ex has the ability to dismiss the responsibilities we both have to the child by allowing us to find replacements for us (someone else to take on custody and care). Does her ability to dismiss my responsibilities and hers make the child now her sole responsibility if she chooses not to do so? If not, then why should it be so at the time an abortion is allowed? There is no pertinent difference in the scenarios. Why shouldn't you be allowed to dissolve your relationship to the child at any time in its life without the consent of the other parent (and without finding someone else to take on those responsibilities)?

You are correct, the debate about whether an embryo/fetus is or is not a child does not belong here.


I suppose that my real gripe is, why is that a woman would be allowed to essentially choose the fate of a man who does not want this child by subjugating him to paying for child support? We call it 'barbaric' when we suggest that a man have a say in whether or not the mother of his potential child carries the child to term, but we see no such problem when a woman forces the exact same consequences, sans nine months of physical trauma, on to the man? This is where the real contradiction lies. The arguments of 'well conception is a risk you take when engaging in sexual behaviour' simply cannot be used here, because it's the argument used against pro-choice people and has been hotly debated.

The response, of course, is that a woman who accidentally conceives after a night of frivolity did not mean to, so she should be able to terminate the effects of her ill-made decision. But doesn't this also apply to a man who conceives a child during the same scenario? Why is it that a woman would be empowered to force a child on to a man, while a man is not empowered to force the child on to the woman? Why can the mother destroy a child that the father may wish to keep, but the father cannot destroy a child the mother wishes to keep?

And fake pregnancies? I'd be more willing to endure a trivial nine months of serious discomfort than an entire life of losing money to a cause that I don't support. I've delt with worse.

However, I think your resources would be better spent figuring out a way to bring a child to term without the aid of a woman (or a man) than developing fake pregnancy pills.

Not relieving someone of their responsibilities simply because you have the ability to does not make you the new keeper of their responsibilities. Otherwise, all I'd have to do to relieve myself of my responsibilities as a father is suggest adoption. She disagrees, then it's her problem raising the kid. Ridiculous.?
I disagree. Though a suggestion is not adequate, a legal declaration should be.

What rights does the mother have that the father does not? Both sexes have control over their bodies and what surgeries they wish to undergo. Of the two of them, only a women will ever be denied surgery because it infringes on the rights of another (in the third trimester). Of the two of them, only a woman will ever have her life endangered during pregnancy. Of the two of them, only the woman will undergo severe damage to her body in order to have a child. Of the two of them, only the woman must undergo periods and menopause. I fail to see these superior rights.
That is because you are focusing on the physical aspects of pregnancy, which is not the issue. The issue is that the woman's decision whether or not to abort a fetus, one which the father has no say in, has a severe impact on the father's life.

What rights is a woman trumping when she gets an abortion? There is no child, thus no father. There is no one else involved. You claim she didn't get an abortion so she forced the child on the father. So if a man doesn't wear a condom does he force the child on the mother. Doing so endangers her life, is it attempted murder?
My response is that the would-be mother is infringing upon the right of the father to choose to have a child if she has an abortion against his will. This is not a legal argument, I realize that. It is an ideological one. I sense that there is a fundamental difference of opinion between us here, so I will not pursue this particular matter further.

The abortion does not dissolve a woman's responsibility to a child. There is no child. A woman has no way to dissolve her responsibility to a child without the consent of the other parent, just as a man does not. There rights are equal.
Once again we disagree. The woman is dissolving her responsibility to the child by choosing not to have the child. If she chooses to have a child, she must take responsibility for it. If she chooses to have an abortion, no such responsibility exists. The father, however, does not have a choice in the matter.

Your position is an attempt to protect the rights of the man and does not consider the rights of the child whatsoever. The child has rights regardless of your disregard for them.
The child's rights do not take precedence over the father's and mother's rights. If a father chooses to forfeit responsibility for the child and the mother chooses to bear the child despite that, the responsibility falls upon her to support that child or put it up for adoption.

Also, if we are going to compromise, why not reach a compromise on everything. Some women die in childbirth and from pregnancy. I propose that that an equal number of potential fathers die in childbirth as well. That's a lottery I don't want to win. All women go through immense physical trauma during pregnancy. I propose placing equal trauma on a man's body. The episiotomy is sure gonna suck for us. We're searching for equality here, no?

Women pay a terrible price for their access to abortion. If we're going to give men pretend abortions, let's give them pretend pregnancies. Who's with me?This is a logically flawed argument and completely beside the point, so I won't even respond to it.

I suppose that my real gripe is, why is that a woman would be allowed to essentially choose the fate of a man who does not want this child by subjugating him to paying for child support? We call it 'barbaric' when we suggest that a man have a say in whether or not the mother of his potential child carries the child to term, but we see no such problem when a woman forces the exact same consequences, sans nine months of physical trauma, on to the man? This is where the real contradiction lies. The arguments of 'well conception is a risk you take when engaging in sexual behaviour' simply cannot be used here, because it's the argument used against pro-choice people and has been hotly debated.

The response, of course, is that a woman who accidentally conceives after a night of frivolity did not mean to, so she should be able to terminate the effects of her ill-made decision. But doesn't this also apply to a man who conceives a child during the same scenario? Why is it that a woman would be empowered to force a child on to a man, while a man is not empowered to force the child on to the woman? Why can the mother destroy a child that the father may wish to keep, but the father cannot destroy a child the mother wishes to keep?

the woman does not force responsibility on the man. the man has no responsibility to her. the only thing she can "force" on him is continued childlessness.

the CHILD forces responsibility on the man. he has the legal responsibility to support his child and the right to make decision in the childs life.

same as the woman

the CHILD forces responsibility on the man. he has the legal responsibility to support his child and the right to make decision in the childs life.
Thank you Ashmoria, this argument also works. I should make clear that on this point in my mind it isn't so much a matter of what or who is making the father responsible as it is that he is made responsible, potentially against his will.

What do you mean? By choosing to carry a child the father doesn't want, the mother forces him to pay child support for the child.

I don't understand your logic; because the mother is the only person who can make the decision to abort, that decision directly influences the other party involved- the father.

Thank you Ashmoria, this argument also works. I should make clear that on this point in my mind it isn't so much a matter of what or who is making the father responsible as it is that he is made responsible, potentially against his will.

one could also say "the state" eh? after all the child isnt capable of taking it to court before it can even hold its head up off the bed.

many things are forced on us either by the state or by nature. thats just the way life is. if you really really really object to having a child, the only way to be sure is to abstain from sex. birth control lessens the chance of having an unwanted child but its far from perfect.

i do also object to this notion of child as a bad thing. few people who actually have children regret them. i have never met anyone who wished they had had an abortion rather than the existing child. (not that such people dont exist, i just have never met any)

I disagree. Though a suggestion is not adequate, a legal declaration should be.

Once again this gives no consideration for the child.

That is because you are focusing on the physical aspects of pregnancy, which is not the issue. The issue is that the woman's decision whether or not to abort a fetus, one which the father has no say in, has a severe impact on the father's life.

But the physical aspects are part and parcel to the decision the woman is granted and has to make. You want one, you should be willing to accept the other.

My response is that the would-be mother is infringing upon the right of the father to choose to have a child if she has an abortion against his will. This is not a legal argument, I realize that. It is an ideological one. I sense that there is a fundamental difference of opinion between us here, so I will not pursue this particular matter further.

He has a right to have a child. No one has taken that away. He has no right to have a child out of a particular woman's body. I would like you to find anything that suggests otherwise. He is still able to have a child, just not out of her body. Meanwhile, if she has an abortion (which you pretend like is something she must do or raise the child alone) she may no longer be able to have a child, EVER, something she must weigh if she chooses to end the pregnancy but the man never has to consider.

Also, you argument would extend to if she chose to take the pill. He has a right to have a child. How dare she take the pill?

Once again we disagree. The woman is dissolving her responsibility to the child by choosing not to have the child. If she chooses to have a child, she must take responsibility for it. If she chooses to have an abortion, no such responsibility exists. The father, however, does not have a choice in the matter.

There is no child. She hasn't dissolved her responsibility to any child. If you can point me to the child then I will absolutely 'force' her to take responsibility for it. The father does not have to be pregnant and thus cannot end the pregnancy. You are correct. Find a way for him to pregnant and I will be first in line defending his right to end that pregnancy. However, neither parent can EVER end their responsibility to the child without, one, ensuring a suitable replacement is found for care of the child and, two, the express or implied (for example, denying that you are the father at all or fleeing your responsibilities) permission of the other parent.

Meanwhile, the child exists and has the right to support from both parents. Your document infringes on the child's rights without consideration and gives the man a right no one else has, the right to single-handedly decide not to be responsible for one's child.

The child's rights do not take precedence over the father's and mother's rights. If a father chooses to forfeit responsibility for the child and the mother chooses to bear the child despite that, the responsibility falls upon her to support that child or put it up for adoption.

False. They absolutely do take precedence. Are you actually arguing that the child's rights should be taken away in order to give the parents more rights? The child has no ability to decide to be involved in the situation, both parents do, equally. The child's rights trump the rights of both parents. Both parents are treated exactly equally once a child exists. I challenge you to show otherwise. Both parents have the ability to prevent the existence of the child. I challenge you to show otherwise.

Your argument amounts to you touched it last so you have to clean it up and the inequity is obvious. Please offer me any way the child will ever come to exist where the father will bear sole responsibility for it, INCLUDING the responsibility of bearing the child and endangering one's body and life, and the woman can absolve herself of this responsibility with a swipe of the pen. Until you can offer such a thing you aren't even preaching equality between the man and the woman (and even if you could offer it, the child still needs consideration).

This is a logically flawed argument and completely beside the point, so I won't even respond to it.
The extra responsibility a woman already shoulders in pregnancy is beside the point? The terrible price women pay to have access to an abortion is beside the point? What isn't beside the point? Only arguments that give men rights at the expense of the child? Only arguments that further decrease the cost of fathering a child to a man while further increasing the cost of mothering a child to a woman?

You wish to divide out this issue until it must be that the man has less rights, but they are all part of much more than you are considering. If we are talking about rights and responsibilities relating to pregnancy, sex and children, then we must talk about all of them, not limit them to some little pocket of time and space where the man is disadvantaged for the only time he ever will be throughout the entire experience.

You wish to give men a right without the responsibilities it carries and you act like those responsibilities are beside the point. They aren't. To pretend it is so is jawdropping.

Thank you Ashmoria, this argument also works. I should make clear that on this point in my mind it isn't so much a matter of what or who is making the father responsible as it is that he is made responsible, potentially against his will.

No moreso than has ever been the case before abortion or after. Why does this suddenly give him the right to deny the rights of the child? What about the child's will? He is potentially leaving the child without a father without any consideration for the will of the child (or an advocate of the child since the child is not in a position to excercise its interests). Why is the man's will, a person who had the opportunity to not be involved in the situation at all, more important the child's will?

What do you mean? By choosing to carry a child the father doesn't want, the mother forces him to pay child support for the child.

I don't understand your logic; because the mother is the only person who can make the decision to abort, that decision directly influences the other party involved- the father.

The mother does not force him to do any such thing. The mother simply chooses not to take an action that would absolve him of the responsibility. The same argument could be made about adoption, but I notice no one is making that argument.

What do you mean? By choosing to carry a child the father doesn't want, the mother forces him to pay child support for the child.

I don't understand your logic; because the mother is the only person who can make the decision to abort, that decision directly influences the other party involved- the father.

if the mother allows nature to take its course, as is her right, she is putting the father in the same postion that nature and the state has put him since the beginning of time. nothing has changed; nothing is new. he is going to be a father because of the choice HE made to have sex at an inopportune time.

its the same, as jocabia contended, as suggesting that in the past (before legalized abortion) a man could get out of being a father by telling the mother to put it up for adoption because that was HER choice and if she didnt chose it, he shouldnt have to pay for it.

the state forces him to pay child support, the mother only demands her childs right to it.

Jocabia: You are correct, I am sacrificing the rights of the child in favor of the rights of the father. I have no problem with that. You're an intelligent individual, but I have other things to do and it's obvious that our differences lie in ideology rather than misunderstanding or poor information. Because of that, I am going to withdraw from this argument with notation that, while I do not agree with you, I respect your views and that they are as well thought-through as they are. Thank you for the discussion.

You are correct, the debate about whether an embryo/fetus is or is not a child does not belong here.


I suppose that my real gripe is, why is that a woman would be allowed to essentially choose the fate of a man who does not want this child by subjugating him to paying for child support? We call it 'barbaric' when we suggest that a man have a say in whether or not the mother of his potential child carries the child to term, but we see no such problem when a woman forces the exact same consequences, sans nine months of physical trauma, on to the man? This is where the real contradiction lies. The arguments of 'well conception is a risk you take when engaging in sexual behaviour' simply cannot be used here, because it's the argument used against pro-choice people and has been hotly debated.

The response, of course, is that a woman who accidentally conceives after a night of frivolity did not mean to, so she should be able to terminate the effects of her ill-made decision. But doesn't this also apply to a man who conceives a child during the same scenario? Why is it that a woman would be empowered to force a child on to a man, while a man is not empowered to force the child on to the woman? Why can the mother destroy a child that the father may wish to keep, but the father cannot destroy a child the mother wishes to keep?

And fake pregnancies? I'd be more willing to endure a trivial nine months of serious discomfort than an entire life of losing money to a cause that I don't support. I've delt with worse.

Trivial? And if it kills you? Would that also be trivial?

She does not choose his fate. He does. When she gets an abortion, she affects no other person. When he gets a 'paper abortion' he affects two other people. Those other people should be involved in the decision. Again, I would like to see how her decision to not get an abortion is effectively different than deciding not to put the child up for adoption (which, of course, has been available for quite some time).

However, I think your resources would be better spent figuring out a way to bring a child to term without the aid of a woman (or a man) than developing fake pregnancy pills.
I have no interest in finding a way to do so, but then I'm not arguing to change the law to further limit a man's responsibilities in the event of pregnancy and further increase a woman's responsibilities in the event of pregnancy, all the while making no consideration for the needs and rights of the child.

Jocabia: You are correct, I am sacrificing the rights of the child in favor of the rights of the father. I have no problem with that. You're an intelligent individual, but I have other things to do and it's obvious that our differences lie in ideology rather than misunderstanding or poor information. Because of that, I am going to withdraw from this argument with notation that, while I do not agree with you, I respect your views and that they are as well thought-through as they are. Thank you for the discussion.

Fortunately, other people actually consider the rights of the child. I find your views to be well offered, but I also find them dangerous. When the child is not longer protected by the law, I believe we cease to be a society, at least not one I wish to be a part of.

EDIT: I appreciate that you are clear about not considering the child's rights. Other posters don't admit that this is true.

This is still the choice. If sex results in a child, both have an equal responsibility regardless of the birth control measures that exist and that were used or not used.

I have never mentioned anything about preventative birth control measures. I'm talking about abortion, period. It is a unique scenario compared to prevention. With prevention, things go wrong, and when they do both parties must assume full responsibility, period.

With Abortion, things happened for whatever reason but there is still an option for a choice. If a man expresses his wish to terminate the pregnancy, it is still possible--but at this point if the woman has actively chosen to continue for her own reasons, it is 'her creation'... yes, we are playing 'god'.

The woman does not force a man to do anything. The rights of the child require the man to meet his responsibilities.

The rights of a child that was created by one person alone might be considered different from the rights of a child with two consenting parents-- with abortion, both parties still have the ability to consent, or withdraw, though legally, only the woman has the right to consent, and does in fact force the man to provide for the child he openly expressed disagreement with bringing the child into existance in the first place--while there was still ample time to legally stop it from happening.

Men have no options during the pregnancy and, in return, their lives and bodies are not endangered. Women have options in regard to the pregnancy and none of them are the option the man has (to continue his life unfettered with no effect to his body). Newsflash: Men and women do not have the same options during pregnancy. Until you can give women the option to go out partying while the man pukes his guts out and pees twenty times an hour or ends up on three weeks of bed rest, then you can't really do anything to make them have similar options, now can you? I don't see you doing anything to equalize the inequity a woman faces in terms of pregnancy.

I'm sorry, but I do not see this argument as valid at all because the woman has the option to NOT take the pregnancy to term. She has the ability to stop any of these horrible things you are talking about. I have the utmost respect for any woman that is having a child and the things it is doing to her body, but suggesting a woman, who has the choice not to have these things done to her body, but then decides to go through with it anyway, even after the father openly renounces his involvement with actually bringing this pregnancy to term, is borderline self-martyrdom. Please read on...

The woman is at home puking her guts out while a man is out partying because she chose to continue with the pregnancy that he openly opposed continuing. She has the choice to avoid this. It is also the exact reason why we need to consider the special situations where a man would oppose a pregnancy being taken to term. A man that is out partying while the mother of his child is at home puking her guts out, isn't meant to be a father. He obviously knows it so why won't she admit it and just be realistic about it? I'm just trying to be realistic-- and realistically balanced-- about the options available to us today.

I would never do that. I love my girlfriend of two years and she is my favorite woman I have ever dated (I'm 34) and entertain the thought of marrying her. One of the most wonderful women I have ever had the pleasure of knowing. If she were to become pregnant I would never oppose the pregnancy and would, in fact, be by her side whenever possible, care for her whenever possible... do anything in my power to help her, and with regard to the effect, stress, and risk this had to her and her body I would think nothing less than sainthood about her for going through the amazing, yet completely dangerous and disruptive, process of bringing our child into this world. I would never forget that, as I do not diminish what my own mother went through to bring me into this world. Simply amazing.

I'm sorry, but I do not accept at all you telling me that by continuing a pregnancy that a man has openly expressed his wish to terminate that the same man has somehow inflicted all of this damage to the woman's body. Even he was telling her that he didn't want her to go through it in the first place. By choosing to continue with the baby, and go through all that pain and suffering to have it, even though the father thinks it should be terminated--is a completely respectable decision and I would support any woman that did that, so long as she didn't expect the man that opposed continuing the pregnancy to pay her and the child's way-- and further, any notion at that point that somehow this man is responsible for her pain and suffering is complete and total self-martyrdom at that point. She chose that path. She chose to create the child after the father openly opposed creating it in the first place, thus the child truly has one creator.

Once abortion is no longer an option, the father has no more right to oppose and withdraw. This is really very simple.


Why does the man deserve such consideration, particularly at the expense of the rights of the child? Why with the advent of abortion should the rights of the child change? Is the child of less value now? Are the rights of the child less important?

I would suppose those rights are subject to debate when a child has no 'true father'. I would uphold that a sperm donor father has no obligation to a child as well. This is no different--except actual the sperm donor officially endorses the creation of the child, so long as he has no responsibility. The woman is using the father's sperm to create her own child, and forcing the father to pay for it.



This does not consider the rights of the child. It only considers something you deem to be unfair. Again, if you can find a way to remove the responsibilities of the father without infringing on the rights of anyone else, more power to you. Nature afforded women a method to do so. Men do not have that ability. Your solution does infringe on the rights of the child.

This is another debate. What rights do children have? I see single adoptive parents, I see children who have one deceased parent-- should we have a mandatory-by-law resurrection of the deceased parent because the child has rights? There are realities in this world that need to be accounted for.

I simply state that I believe a man should be able to claim while there is still an option available that he does not want a pregnancy to go to term, but if the woman should so choose-- because after all it is her body, which I have never debated-- but if she chooses to go through with it, then it is completely and entirely up to her to care for it. Period.

I do not believe this infringes on anyone's rights. My opinion redefines 'Creator' as I see it. I believe it to be the same for sperm donors, etc.

A woman donates her eggs to an egg bank for woman that need them, and a second woman gets implanted with the first woman's fertilized egg. The 2nd woman falls on hard times and goes running to court to get the 1st woman to pay child support because the child is, in fact, 'created' by the 1st woman's egg. Does that fly? I will assume no, but why doesn't that fly when a sperm donating man can be dragged into court to 'fulfill his responsibility as a father' when he openly never intended for it in the first place?

It's a rocky road, but I'm just trying to rationally navigate it.



You can't withdraw your part in the creation. When your part of the creation stopped occurring within your body, you're ability to withdraw your part was ended. If a child results once you no longer have its creation under the control of your body, you have a responsibility to the child.

That is how it was before abortion. I'm sorry, with new technology comes new definition. The man is forcing nothing upon the woman, and in fact she can choose anything she wants. What abortion allows is the choice to stop that creation from turning into a real person. If the option still exists to legally stop that process from happening, and one person expresses their desire to actually stop that process from happening, and if not, then absolve their responsibility from the result from that time forward, then we should allow for either person involved in the creation to do so.

I'm sorry, by my phrasing of 'undoing your part in creation' that I gave you such easy fodder to nitpick my point apart. I knew it when I wrote it, but hoped we would stay with the general direction of my actual point.

Women have the exact same responsibility.

Men do not have the same means, ie: choice, to stop the 'responsibility' from became realized after pregnancy has begun.

Again, this ignores the needs of the child and pretends as if your claim is possible.

This is a debate of values here. As far as the father is concerned by this point, if he openly declared that he didn't want to take it to term, and she realistically still had the means not to, then she chose to take it to term. As far as he's concerned that's anybody else's child but his own. I would agree.

That might sound cold but is how I feel. Equally an anti-abortion protester would think just as cold of a woman who chose to have an abortion in the first place. Different values.

Further disclaimer as I mentioned above, I would probably never do this, but I can see the necessity of this proposal.

The man has no ability to withdraw his part in the creation at that point. No document can give him that ability.

The woman has every ability to withdraw her creation at this point. The man may not be able to force any decision upon the woman, and I firmly believe that to be wrong, but he should be allowed to dissolve all responsibility so long as the option to legally terminate the pregnancy is still available to the woman and she can still decide to stop or continue with the pregnancy after taking his decision into consideration.

Your 'novel' does not consider the rights of the child. You wish to abridge the rights of the child in order to correct an perceived inequity caused by nature. Your perceptions aside, the child has rights and you are denying those rights.

Exactly. What are the rights of this child? Who decides what the rights of this child are? I don't assume there to be a global agreement on this, and I believe those rights are whatever we logically decide they are.

What are the rights of a child born by a sperm donor? and egg donor? These people openly agreed to donate on the terms that they had no responsibility-- the mother decided to go ahead anyway, and it was her choice at that point to 'create' the child on her own basically.

Why then, if a woman is pregnant by a man, but he openly expresses his opposition to taking it to term while it is still completely possible to stop the pregnancy-- but by all means if the woman wants to continue with the pregnancy she is more than welcome to use his sperm in the creation of the child, but he wants nothing to do with it at all. Why would this child have rights when the children of sperm or egg donors do not? She still had ample time to reflect on his decision to dissolve responsibility-- but by choosing to continue become the sole 'creator' of the child.

There are single parents across the country that swear by their right to raise a child alone. They don't want people forcing this '2 parent' system on them, while others believe it should be mandatory. Not everyone agrees. I'm not saying a father shouldn't be responsible for his children... not at all. I'm just saying that a potential father should have the same option to absolve responsiblity while abortion is still an option.

No, the woman does not force anything on the man. The man cannot reasonably expect that if the woman gets pregnant she will undergo a surgery to end that pregnancy or raise the child alone. To do so, places little value on the weight and effect of such a decision on a woman and NO VALUE on the rights of the child should one come into being.

Everyone has rights. A child has a right to a parent. If a woman wants to bring a child into the world, that is her right, and she is the parent. If the man openly expresses opposition while it is still possible to stop creation from going forward, then it should be his right to dissolve responsibility. Now that there is a choice for a woman to carry a baby to term or end it, then the women is, in fact, forcing the responsibility onto the man, especially when she herself still has the option to dissolve her own self from the responsibility at that same point. In this we simply completely disagree.

The rights of the child convey certain responsibilities on the parents or their estates. The existence of an abortion does not change these rights or responsibilities. You fail to recognize that you cannot require a person to accept your proposal to end your responsibility or take on the responsibility alone. You can name NO OTHER scenario which such a thing is an option.

It is a new scenario. Comparable simply to sperm donation, etc. It is a newer technology that we humans will have to explore all options, such as this, and evolve into whatever direction we choose.

Nothing is certain. The universe has been around for billions and billions of years. We've only had a working 'history' for 6,000. There is no 'that's just the way it is'. We decide what that is, and evolve. Scary isn't it?

What I mean is let's say my former girlfriend and I have a four-year-old together. I come up to my ex on the child's fourth birthday and say I want to put her up for adoption. Now the ex has the ability to dismiss the responsibilities we both have to the child by allowing us to find replacements for us (someone else to take on custody and care). Does her ability to dismiss my responsibilities and hers make the child now her sole responsibility if she chooses not to do so? If not, then why should it be so at the time an abortion is allowed? There is no pertinent difference in the scenarios. Why shouldn't you be allowed to dissolve your relationship to the child at any time in its life without the consent of the other parent (and without finding someone else to take on those responsibilities)?

In this scenario the child was already a child. With Abortion, you can keep creation from happening before it does and have a choice. Simple as that.

In this scenario the child was already a child. With Abortion, you can keep creation from happening before it does and have a choice. Simple as that.

Ah, the existence of the child matters. REVELATION!!!

The paper abortion does not take effect until the child is born. There is a child in a paper abortion. If there is no child there is no need for the paper abortion. Pretend otherwise, but it doesn't make it true. The child exists in terms of a 'paper abortion'.

You compare to sperm donation. So do I. It's an apt comparison. In the case of sperm donation, there is an advocate acting on behalf of the child in the legal matters surrounding releasing the biological father from responsibility. That advocate as in every other case is the custodial parent at the time the legal agreement takes effect (at birth, in this case).

As far as the rest of your stuff, quit pretending like the only scenario is the one where a man does not wish to have a child and a woman does. Let's look at all scenarios.

Man doesn't wish to have a child. Woman doesn't wish to have a child. Woman MUST have a surgery that may cost her life or her ability to have children among other things. Man must do nothing and has nothing happen to his person. If the woman for whatever reason cannot have an abortion then she must undergo the damage of pregnancy, which may or may not result in a live child, a pregnancy that may or may not result in her death or an inability to have more children, etc. Once the child is born, if the child is born, both have exactly the same responsibility.

Man doesn't wish to have a child. Woman does wish to have a child. She undergoes the damage of pregnancy, which may or may not result in a live child, a pregnancy that may or may not result in her death or an inability to have more children, etc. Once the child is born, if the child is born, both have exactly the same responsibility. Man still has nothing happen to his person at all.

Man wishes to have a child. Woman does not wish to have a child. Woman MUST have a surgery that may cost her life or her ability to have children among other things. Man must do nothing and has nothing happen to his person. If the woman for whatever reason cannot have an abortion then she must undergo the damage of pregnancy, which may or may not result in a live child, a pregnancy that may or may not result in her death or an inability to have more children, etc. Once the child is born, if the child is born, both have exactly the same responsibility.

Man wishes to have a child. Woman wishes to have a child. She undergoes the damage of pregnancy, which may or may not result in a live child, a pregnancy that may or may not result in her death or an inability to have more children, etc. Once the child is born, if the child is born, both have exactly the same responsibility. Man still has nothing happen to his person at all.

In all scenarios, the man is in no danger. In all scenarios, the woman is in physical danger.

Now you talk about preventative birth control, you do realize that abortion prevents birth, yes? The difference is that abortion has a higher likelihood of prevent birth. The ONLY difference. So unless we consider men to be more responsible if they don't get their vas deferens cut, then I don't accept that women are more responsible for undergoing a later form of birth control.

Meanwhile, suddenly abortion changes the rights of the child. Can you explain how the relationship the man has to the child has change in a way that suggests the child's rights should be decreased? How has the man's involvement in the creation of the child changed in 2000 years or more? It hasn't, now has it. Yet, you wish to change the child's rights in relation to its father when nothing in that relationship has changed.

False. You still abridge the rights of the child that exists during the time of effect of the document. You still fail to see that men and women both agree to be held responsible equally in the event a child results from abortion. When a women does not find out she is pregnant until after an abortion is no longer an option, we don't hold her less responsible for the child. You know why? Because the child IS and MUST be considered.

A woman is given no power to place responsibility on a man without his consent and a man should have no such power as well. A woman is not placing responsibility on a man in denying an abortion, she is merely deciding not to undergo surgery in order to end a man's and her responsibility to the child. Your argument would be similar to if the mother decided when the child was four years old to give the child up for adoption and the father said no, would he have sole responsibility for the child? Nope. Because he merely did not allow responsibility to be absolved he didn't place the responsibility on her in the first place.


By allowing her to make a choice which places unwanted responsibility on a man, you are in fact giving her this power.

one could also say "the state" eh? after all the child isnt capable of taking it to court before it can even hold its head up off the bed.

many things are forced on us either by the state or by nature. thats just the way life is. if you really really really object to having a child, the only way to be sure is to abstain from sex. birth control lessens the chance of having an unwanted child but its far from perfect.

i do also object to this notion of child as a bad thing. few people who actually have children regret them. i have never met anyone who wished they had had an abortion rather than the existing child. (not that such people dont exist, i just have never met any)

You say that the only way for men to be sure that they don't have a child is to abstain from sex. Well guess what, the same goes for a woman.

You have yet to explain to me why you argue that the choice to have sex does not equal the acceptance of a child for a woman, but does so for a man.

And I know many, many people who have wished to god that they had had abortions. Most of the children in these homes wish their parents had as well.

By allowing her to make a choice which places unwanted responsibility on a man, you are in fact giving her this power.
huh?
the responsibility, such as it is at that point, exists outside of her ability to choose. all SHE can do it take it away by having an abortion. she cant put it on him. he, the state, and the child do that.

its not like she drugged him and forced him into sex. all she is doing is deciding to not have a particular medical procedure that affects her body. its not a neutral act, it has an effect on her body and mind that she has to take into consideration when she makes the decision.

huh?
the responsibility, such as it is at that point, exists outside of her ability to choose. all SHE can do it take it away by having an abortion. she cant put it on him. he, the state, and the child do that.

its not like she drugged him and forced him into sex. all she is doing is deciding to not have a particular medical procedure that affects her body. its not a neutral act, it has an effect on her body and mind that she has to take into consideration when she makes the decision.

Exactically!

By allowing her to make a choice which places unwanted responsibility on a man, you are in fact giving her this power.

She doesn't place that responsibility on the man. The man placed it on himself. She merely chooses not to lift it from him.