NationStates Jolt Archive

Of course, we could always go the other direction with it, outlaw abortion as a means of birth control and force both responsible parties to take care of their own kids, set up a trust fund with state oversight and collect child support from both parties into the trust.
Yes of course if the equal application of equal rights results in the potential for a female to derive an opportunity that a male cannot derive as a result of biological reality, we can always just deny women the universal right that gives rise to this potential....because if there is any chance of a women deriving potential oppportunities that are of no use to a male, even though this potential doesnt interfer with or come at the expense of anyone's rights and is a necessary implication of a right everyone enjoys, it must be ended even if doing so requires that women and women alone be denied the universal right at issue.....

And what, pray tell dear, has left you with the opinion that I think this is "ok"?
The fact that instead of making statements in this thread supporting a woman's right to choose, you seem to be devoting your time to insulting women, demonizing them as money grubbing lazy, bitches determined to stick it to men. Even your opening post did this... the man works hard for his schooling while the girl mooches off her parents.
You get focused on women deceiving men to get pregnant and seen to be insisting that a man's right to a paper abortion is more important than a woman's right to an acutal one.

Nope, you're a woman, you couldn't possibly be just a TEENSY bit sexist yourself could you? Can't be, I'm a man, I MUST be sexist.
No, I didn't say you were sexist, just that you're looking out only for the interests of your own gender, to protect these poor, innocent men trapped by these filthy cunts who dare exercise their right to choose to not have an abortion. You don't seem to care too much about any abuse this sort of system allows either.

You ignored the fact that parenthood allows either parent to claim custody and sue the other for child support. The woman gives birth, so what? If the man doesn't want to be robbed of his child support payments, then he can sue for custody and then she'll have to pay him child support.

Excuse me if I take offense to the allegation, and excuse me if I respond that your claim that I am the sexist one here simply because I'm male, when in fact EVERYTHING I have said can ONLY be seen as the opposite of that, as being quite outragiously sexist itself.
I didn't claim that you were sexist because you're male. If anything you're being a touch sexist because of your denigrating comments about women throughout this thread... but I didn't even say that you were being sexist before. Just that you weren't concerend at all with the fact that women don't have these absolute rights you seem to assume we have.

Furthermore, to refute your last remark, I wasn't generalizing either...

Women were meant to be mothers, it's in their chemical makeup.
Now see, this is a sexist statement.

They are options, and valid ones at that. Just don't act like they are easy. Both abortion and adoption are some of the most difficult things a woman will ever do.
...but at least it's followed with some compassion...

Wow.. I've finally made it through all of that. And I think it's brought me 3 months closer to my eventual death by heart attack.

First off, I propose that everyone still involved here drop any pretense at making any kind of legal arguments, because it seems to me everyone is using pure emotion at this point, and the legalizing of the words is getting in the way (bad use of "consent", "right", etc...)

Now, for the emotional parts to this argument. This is about control, plain and simple. It scares guys (and I would know, I am one) that there can be one mistake, and then a woman has control over what happens to the next 2 decades of his life. While a woman can make the decision whether the child is born or not, all he can do is sit back and watch and hope everything works out the way he wanted (one way or the other). Not something guys are very good at.

And I can most definitely sympathize (as much as is in my ability to understand) women feeling like men are trying to weasel their way out of what little obligation they have here, monetarily at a minimum, versus pregnancy, labor, child rearing, etc.. And just to clear up one thing, I don't think anyone here is actively or even subtly suggesting that a man should be able to decide whether a woman brings the child to term or not. It is the control that choice represents that is being attacked here.

And children who are born should be cared for to the best of both parents abilities. Unfortunately, in some parent's cases, the best thing they can do for a kid is leave him/her alone. I should know, I am currently being father to a child whose biological dad who has taken this option (yes, it exists in New York, although not widely known.)

No legislation can replace a good conversation and understanding with your partner.

I would never support any legislation that gave a man the ability to control the reproductive rights of a woman. The woman should have the child or have the abortion as she so desires.

However, I think that it is important that a man is notified of the impending obligation and given opportunity to accept or deny it, as long as it gives the woman ample time to make her decision with knowledge of the man's decision.

Adoption is an option, yes. But it is a proven fact that at least 50% of women who go to term with the intent of putting their baby up for adoption, don't. Women were meant to be mothers, it's in their chemical makeup. When she sees that baby, it is twice as hard for her to give it up as, say, an abortion would be (you don't have a living, breathing baby in front of you when you get an adotion, you can convince yourself that it is just an unwanted 'thing.')

Besides that, adoption agencies are already overflowing. More kids are put up for adoption then there are parents to take them.

*sigh* I'm not saying that a man should throw away his life because he got a girl pregnant. My only point is to those people who say "Oh, a women can just get an abortion, so what's the big deal?" Abotion causes physical and psycological damage to a woman. Adoption, well, that can cause some psycological damage too. Fact of the matter is, women were meant to have children, AND THEN KEEP THEM. Anything else runs contrary to a woman's nature.

They are options, and valid ones at that. Just don't act like they are easy. Both abortion and adoption are some of the most difficult things a woman will ever do.

I suppose some silly people are incapable of making reasonable decisions. If a woman is stupid enough to decide to keep a child despite knowing that she will struggle to cope, she certainly shouldn't be making decisions for anyone else. Let her deal with the little sprog on her own.

I suppose some silly people are incapable of making reasonable decisions. If a woman is stupid enough to decide to keep a child despite knowing that she will struggle to cope, she certainly shouldn't be making decisions for anyone else. Let her deal with the little sprog on her own.

Reasonable? There is nothing reasonable about giving birth. It is a highly EMOTIONAL time for a woman. Obviously you have never given birth or even seen a woman give birth, if you think it should be REASONABLE.

Now see, this is a sexist statement.



No, it's a true statement. Women are meant to be mothers, and it is in their chemical make up, how can you possibly deny that? Number one goal for any species is survival, that means both procreation, and securing the survival of the procreated. Women give birth, so their job is procreation. Men are stronger, mentally and physically, then women and children so their job is securing the survival of the procreated.

Simple as that.

I am against all abortion after three weeks, and before it only in case of rape or incest, and only if the Police verify that the woman has notified them about it, and that they are taking action against the accused (to prevent liars).

Women do not and should not have a right to choose. Their body is their business, the body growing in side them is not. Just as society at large has the right to stop a woman from murdering born children, so does it have the right to stop her murdering the unborn.

Now see, this is a sexist statement.

The human female is biologically designed to be a mother. I don't think he meant it in any sort of social terms.

No, a human child is not legally a quasi-living parasite, nor do I expect that the majority of people in many (if any) societies would accept such a legal definition.

You have my apologies, I should have said fetus, or blastocyst, or whatever you want to call it at the time the abortion is legal. However, if you would've taken the time to read the rest of the posts on the same page, you would've also seen that I was using semi-humorous terms previously used. See Post 278, by Muravyets, just one page previous.

Incorrect.

How so? If the bundle of cells is determined to be a human with human rights, then it is a serious violation of those rights to "kill" it. There is no way for an abortion to be legal and the blastocyst to not be considered just a packet of cells within the female, at best a potential human.

Legally a human child is not property.

See previous.

Slavery is illegal in most countries, it's probably illegal where you live.

And?

If and when we reinstitute slavery where I live, I will reconsider the implications as per your comments. Certainly if we suppose that ownership of people is a legally recognised and enforcable right, then what you suggest is not unreasonable on the surface, however, in the meantime I'll gladly fight tooth and nail to prevent any re-emergence of legalised slavery.

You make quite a jump here. Please at least attempt to understand my argument before building up straw men and slamming them?

Woah! 12, well maybe a bit immature, but hey sometimes it happens, but eight-fucking-teen.....er is slavery legal where you live or did you manage to get to 18 in the modern world without realising that slavery is not nice and for the most part, somewhat frowned on in polite company...?:eek:

Insulting, needless, and generally an asshole thing to say, considering that you didn't even seem to try to understand my argument.

Reasonable? There is nothing reasonable about giving birth. It is a highly EMOTIONAL time for a woman. Obviously you have never given birth or even seen a woman give birth, if you think it should be REASONABLE.

Life-changing decisions should be made with reason, not emotion. If a woman can't take care of a child without forcing a guy to give her cash then she should give it up. Ideally though she should of had an abortion.

No, it's a true statement. Women are meant to be mothers, and it is in their chemical make up, how can you possibly deny that? Number one goal for any species is survival, that means both procreation, and securing the survival of the procreated. Women give birth, so their job is procreation. Men are stronger, mentally and physically, then women and children so their job is securing the survival of the procreated.

Simple as that.
hahahaha....
oh my, I simply don't know where to start.

Women aren't meant to be mothers anymore than men are meant to be fathers.
If all there is to life is reproducing then why the hell do we bother trying to advance as a species?
Women's sole job is not procreation, we are more than our reproductive systems.
And men are not mentally stronger than women. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? Did you grow up in the 1400s?! Women are just as capable as men intellectually.

I am against all abortion after three weeks, and before it only in case of rape or incest, and only if the Police verify that the woman has notified them about it, and that they are taking action against the accused (to prevent liars).
So basically no woman should be allowed an abortion unless she suffered a traumatic event. So a baby is punishment for having sex. Thanks.

Women do not and should not have a right to choose. Their body is their business, the body growing in side them is not. Just as society at large has the right to stop a woman from murdering born children, so does it have the right to stop her murdering the unborn.
Let me tell you, buddy, women absolutely have the right to choose what goes on inside their own bodies and there's nothing you can do about it, it's not murder. Murder is an unlawful killing of a sentient human being. Abortion is neither unlawful, nor killing a sentient being. The only sentient beings involved in an abortion is the woman and the doctor. And despite your earlier rant about how us women are all mentally feeble, we are prefectly capable of making such decisions for ourselves.

The human female is biologically designed to be a mother. I don't think he meant it in any sort of social terms.
Look at his next post... I think he did. And saying that human femals are biologically designed to be a mother is like saying that human males are biologically designed to be fathers. Clearly that's not all people are capable of, male or female.

No it cant.

Do you not know that parenthood obligations are obligations that arise in respect of a living child? Do you not know that no living child results if a pregnancy is terminated? Do you not know that a mother's failure to have an abortion even if she wanted one doesnt mitigate her obligation should she become the mother of a living child? Do you not know that the obligations of parenthood arise by virtue of the needs of the child and not by virtue of peoples consent to meet those needs?

No it is not. Abortion isnt a get out of parenthood free card, it is an action that circumvents the circumstances that give rise to the obligation. Adoption is not a get out of parenthood free card, it is a means of discharging one's parental obligations.

That isnt relevent because the obligations arise as a result of the rights of a particular party (the child). Parental obligatons do not arise as a result of consent, but as a result of the rights the law grants to living children.


So close yet so far. I have bolded the relevent aspect of your comments. The obligations arise due to the rights of the child, not due to anyone consenting to undertake the obligations.

No it doesnt. To be true children's rights to be provided for would have to be premised on someone consenting to care for them. They are not, they are based on the law (and society's) recognition of the special dependent condition of children.
No I have not. The rights involved are the rights of any adult to bodily autonomy and the rights of a child to be provided for by their parents. The two are seperate issues and the law is not obligated to ensure that every party does as well or as poorly out of these provisions as any other.


That isnt a matter of not consenting since as you yourself pointed out where there is no child no obligations can arise to be consented (or not consented) to.

Right, which applies across the board and without regard to consent.

No kidding Sherlock. The relevent fact to parenthood obligations is not consent but parenthood.


No it is not. If a women is in a coma and gets raped and wakes up just when she is going into labour and the result is a live child, even though she did not consent she incurs parental obligations to the child.

No it doesnt. It comes around because it is a lawful option that someone chooses in a particular case to exercise. And that lawful option arises as a necessary implication of rights that apply to both males and females.


No, abortion doesnt terminate non-existent obligations, how the frig can something that doesnt exist be terminated?

Parenthood obligations arise as the result of the rights of a living child. Where there is not a living child (as recognisable at law) there are no rights to terminate, should a living child exist it has rights whether or not anyone consented to those rights because the rights stem from the living child's status as a living child not from someone's act of consent. Parents are obligated until they legally discharge that obligation. This might take the form of adopting the child out or of contributing to their care until they reach 18 or until they die if they dont make it to 18. But the obligations arise with or without the consent because the cause of the obligation is not consent, but the rights of the child.

I am aware that if a mother does have a child she is obligated to care for said child.
I am not an idiot, however I may appear..

You cannot terminate something that does not exist, you can terminate its possibilities of existence.

We are not talking about if the woman had the child.

Every action discussed here deals with before the 6 month period of gestation...

I honestly do not know what you are arguing for anymore, I suggest you read the OP again.

Typo on my part. It is the job of the legislature to CREATE law. THe role of the judiciary is to interpret the law given any leeway the law creteas.
Now you've just gone off the freaking deep end. How in holy hell IS the law supposed to address that? In what POSSIBLE way can the law change that? I'd like to be a little stronger and a bit taller, but to say "it's unequal because someone is this way and the law should fix it" is assinine.
It's no more assinine than suggesting the law ought to address the biological reality that women gestate and men do not at the expense of the legal rights of one party or another. That is asking inequality at law to be created in order to force the law to attempt to cause equality of outcome where biological facts make equality of outcome impossible.

Real, very very VERY carefully here, ok? I am not talking about PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS I am talking about LEGAL rights, this is where the point is just not sticking through your damned head.
Wrong, you are skipping backwards and forwards being legal rights and biological consequences that arise when those rights are exercised in the real world. The legal rights of both mother and father are not different. The difference in outcome is entirely the result of biological realities. You are asking that because equality before the law cannot, due to biological facts, ever in this case result in equality of outcome, that someone's rights be violated to ensure that any equality never works more to the benefit of a particular gender than to the other. Equality before the law exists, equality of outcome is biologically impossible. Your insistence isnt for equality before the law (it already exists) or even equality by the law since this is rendered impossible by the biological realities concerned. What you are demanding is that if inequality is unavoidable the law ensures that males not be the ones who get the raw end of the gender stick even if this is at the expense of the rights of the child who is clearly not at fault no matter how you cut, dice and spin the matter.

If the law allows you to do something, it must allow me to do the same.
And it does. The law allows both the mother and father to make decisions about whether or not to undergo invasive medical proceedures, the inherent biological limitations on this option are not caused by the law, nor can the law effect equality of outcome no matter what it does. Your suggesting wont generate equality of outcome, it merely shifts things in favour of one of the parents at the expense of children of both genders.

It doesn't say "if one person is physically capable of something then all must be physically capable of it" that is idiocy.
That's exactly right, you've finally hit the nail on the head. The law says males and females can both elect to undergo a termination to end an unwanted pregnancy, the law doesnt say 'and since females are physically capable of doing so but males are not, we must end the rights of the child so that the unavoidable inequality of outcome never privledges females over males.

You know what kills me, you take the term "universal right" and then use the word apparent. I'm still waiting on your explination on what a universal right looks like, so we can distinguish it from my so called "imaginary" right.
You are mixing yourself. Real as compared to imaginary refers to legally enforcable reports as compared to a wish list of how the world ought to be that simply exists in your head. The right to not be murdered is legally enforcable, the right to always have any inevitable biologically caused inequality never work out in favour of females is part of the imaginary wish list that apparently exists in your head.

Universal compared to restricted refers to 'who' the law applies to. The right to not be murdered is universal, the right to practise law is restricted.

How the hell do you know what a "real" right is as opposed to an "imaginary" one?
By consulting the law.

What does a right look like? Where can I find it?
In legislation, consititional documents, starie decisis....

How do I know what's a right?
By being cognisent of whether the law constructs complementary obligation - rights are in essence the obligations others have to the rights-bearer.

You go on to state with such conviction and firmness UNIVERSAL RIGHTS without actually going on as to which one they are.
I thought you already knew where the right for bodily autonomy comes from in whichever jurisidiction you referred to. If you dont then you are not really qualified to comment either way given the knowledge concerned is necessary to any proper understanding of the issue.

Pick a position, either rights are universal, but being intangible as rights are, you really can't say for sure what's a "right" and what is not a "right", or rights are created by law, in which case the law certainly can create another one.
Nowhere have I suggested that the law cannot create rights...if that's that point of your post your post is pointless....give the strawman a rest already.

Which is it?

Before this conversation goes ANY further, I want from you one thing. Give me a list.

Give me, right here, a list of universal rights.
Of universal rights in which jurisdiction, and for what purpose?

Then when you have finished with that, tell me

a) how you found them

b) how you know they are universal

c) by what criteria did you use to determine that this knowledge is correct

d) how you were able to assertain my articulated "right" is not one of your universal rights
Were to go to the trouble you propose, I'd find the rights by consulting the legal authority in the jurisidiction concerned. You know they are universal by determing if they in the first instance apply to everyone, or in the first instance apply only to particular restricted groups of person that necessarily exlude others (either generally or as particular groups).
You determine the knowledge is correct by applying robust reading and comprehension, and legal reasoning, although in some cases there will be scope for ambiguity and the issue cannot be determined without further clarification from the authority concerned.

if you can't do that, then either conceded that whatever universal rights there are, you can't actually pinpoint exactly what they are, OR rights are not universally existant, but are created, and then removed, by law, in which case any talk is bullshit since the law could easily create, alter or remove any right there is.
You're obviously very confused. Universal rights doesnt refer to rights that are not created (in fact only it only refers to created rights). Universal refers to applicability within a jurisdication. The right to be cared for as a minor is universal in many jurisdictions, the right to enjoy freedom except where due process provides for the suspension of that freedom is in many jurisdictions universal, ie you dont have to be anyone particular for it to apply to you. Such rights are not universally existant (they apply universally in those jurisidictions where they do exist), they are created and can be uncreated (or abandoned).

Hopefully you can now rejoin plot.

Life-changing decisions should be made with reason, not emotion. If a woman can't take care of a child without forcing a guy to give her cash then she should give it up. Ideally though she should of had an abortion.

You overestimate the power of reason.

You overestimate the power of reason.

What would you suggest as an alternative to reason? Insanity? Emotion? Neither are very useful or successful at creating a positive future, especially when compared to reason.

Reason is the best tool we have. I have rarely come up against a situation (none come to mind, I'm only not saying "never" because such situations might exist, though I cannot see how reason would become negative in such a situation) when reason utterly failed me.

Look at his next post... I think he did. And saying that human femals are biologically designed to be a mother is like saying that human males are biologically designed to be fathers. Clearly that's not all people are capable of, male or female.

Men are biologically engineered to be fathers. It is evolutionary, those that were more likely to successfully reproduce were more likely to continue their genetic line.

Of course we are not genetically determined and can rise above our natural proclivities, but to deny that there are intense biological forces that lead women to become mothers is nonsense.

What would you suggest as an alternative to reason? Insanity? Emotion? Neither are very useful or successful at creating a positive future, especially when compared to reason.

We act because of emotion, reason is not sufficient to create action or halt action. Reason is only a faculty we use to best plot how to achieve our emotive goals.

In other words, the woman becomes a mother foremost because of emotional drives and values, how she provides for the child is where reason comes in.

We act because of emotion, reason is not sufficient to create action or halt action. Reason is only a faculty we use to best plot how to achieve our emotive goals.

In other words, the woman becomes a mother foremost because of emotional drives and values, how she provides for the child is where reason comes in.

Excellent point, and agreed. I do believe, however, that reason is the single best tool for achieving whatever goal is set. If one makes decisions based purely on emotion, one becomes an impulsive animal.

Edit: I suppose this should be rephrased. The (or a, I don't particularly feel like thinking it out, as it has no relevance to the point) primary goal of intelligent beings is the satisfaction of emotional needs. One can very well use reason for this particular goal, setting sub-goals based in reason, which is used for the purpose of achieving that emotional satisfaction. However, I feel, if emotion is used to either determine in totality the goals (or any sub-goals, etc.) or methods toward the satisfaction of the primary emotional needs (other then as a reference) then the satisfaction of those primary emotional needs will, as a rule, be sub-optimal.

Excellent point, and agreed. I do believe, however, that reason is the single best tool for achieving whatever goal is set. If one makes decisions based purely on emotion, one becomes an impulsive animal.

Yes.

But in our cases, the woman makes value judgements and sets goals based on emotion, then uses reason as a weighing and planning mechanism.

If her goals are to be financially responsible, her reason will lead her to abortion. If her goals are to be a mother, her reason will lead her to plan for the child.

The fact that instead of making statements in this thread supporting a woman's right to choose,

Really?

Unlike this one:

A female needs never, ever, to consider the viewpoint of her sexual partner. At all.


Post 306

or this one:

It would be absolutly and tremendously unethical and illegal beyond all extreme to FORCE a woman to abort her pregnancy at a whim of the father.

No, absolutely, not, never ever ever ever.

Even under my hypothetical scheme, she would NEVER be told she had to, it would fully be her choice to have it if she wished

or:

should only extend to the same time period that a woman can have an abortion (6 months, 18 weeks, whatever).


This one?

tie the time limit the male has to make this choice to be equal (actually, probably less) than the time a woman has to have an abortion

not good enough?

if she wishes to bring it to term

Not enough for ya?

she may abort the pregnancy, if she choses to.

No mother is ever, ever forced to raise a child they did not want.
Also every state MUST allow abortion, it's a constitutional right.

it's about her right to control her body

A woman's right extendes 6 months after conception.

Women have the right to bodily autonomy.

I fully 100% support a woman's right to bodily autonomy. I would never suggest otherwise. That is a choice she, and ONLY she, can make.

Their right is to have bodily autonomy. An abortion is an exercise of their bodily autonomy

she can terminate responsibilities by aborting her pregnancy

But keep talking about how I haven't been "making statements in this thread supporting a woman's right to choose" It just makes you look like a bigger jackass.



you seem to be devoting your time to insulting women, demonizing them as money grubbing lazy, bitches determined to stick it to men.

When have i ever mentioned money, other than to note there is a financial cost to women?

Show me once, please.

Even your opening post did this... the man works hard for his schooling while the girl mooches off her parents.

My opening post? MY opening post?

I dont know what your primary language is, but in which does "Arthais" look like "Regenius"?

You don't even bother to verify who you're TALKING to. I didn't make this thread. I didn't create the hypothetical. If you had bothered to read you would realize that, but you're too busy trying to make me fit into whatever preconceived notion you're arguing against.

You get focused on women deceiving men to get pregnant and seen to be insisting that a man's right to a paper abortion is more important than a woman's right to an acutal one.

I think I just quoted several times within this thread when I went, very clearly, QUITE clearly, that the right to have an abortion should NOT be removed or limited. How DARE you say I don't support it or perceive it as less important? How fucking dare you?

Read my posts before commenting on what I've said.


No, I didn't say you were sexist, just that you're looking out only for the interests of your own gender

I'd also fully support the right for a woman to do an equivalent "paper abortion" in which she brings the child to term, but does not wish to have legal responsibility for it, if she wishes to bring it to term

to protect these poor, innocent men trapped by these filthy cunts who dare exercise their right to choose to not have an abortion. You don't seem to care too much about any abuse this sort of system allows either.

Again, how fucking dare you?

You ignored the fact that parenthood allows either parent to claim custody and sue the other for child support.

oh?
Actually a woman is held equally financially obligated to a child as the father is.



I didn't claim that you were sexist because you're male. If anything you're being a touch sexist because of your denigrating comments about women throughout this thread

Find ONE. Just one. I am not the OP, however much you seem to think I am. And this even FURTHER proves my point of your sexist attitude by assuming I was whoever it is you're angry about JUST because i have a general viewpoint similar on a particular concept.

Find ONCE when I advocated that women should not have the right to chose. Find ONCE when I mentioned money. Find ONCE when I refered to women in any sort of derogatory term.

Find it, just once.

You can't, it's not there. You just assumed it would be without even bothering to look who you were talking to.

Whoever you THOUGHT you were talking to, I'm not it. And you didn't even bother to check, you just assumed. And what were you saying about not making generalizations?

For the record, I would never, EVERY say that a woman does not have the right to chose, I consider that right paramount. I would NEVER suggest otherwise, and I would never, EVER argue that this right should in ANY way be diminished. If you had bothered to read, you would have known that.

And while I concede that SOME women may be manipulative, egotistical money grubbing, I do so in the same breath that I concede that some MEN may be manipulative, egoistical and money grubbing. That has nothing to do with gender, that has to do with being human.

You can attack my reasoning sure, question my logic fine. But the minute you take this away from what I've said, and start putting words in my mouth, saying i said things I didn't, referencing posts I didn't make, without taking five minutes to make sure you knew what the fuck you were talking about, you turned this from a debate of a concept into an attack on my character. And frankly I'll be damned if I let you do that.

You didn't bother to make sure you knew who you were talking about, you just prefered to strike out with some righteous anger. I am greatly insulted and absolutely offended you would suggest I would take those standpoints, my comments in this thread are quite evident I do NOT. And I'm not going to stay here and watch my character be besmirched in this manner. I'm through with this debate, and frankly, I'm through with you.

You have my apologies, I should have said fetus, or blastocyst, or whatever you want to call it at the time the abortion is legal.
Right, so you in fact did mean the child at all, you mean a pre-born potential child...ok.
However, if you would've taken the time to read the rest of the posts on the same page, you would've also seen that I was using semi-humorous terms previously used. See Post 278, by Muravyets, just one page previous.
I read all previous posts in the thread.

How so? If the bundle of cells is determined to be a human with human rights, then it is a serious violation of those rights to "kill" it.
Incorrect. It isnt necessarily true that if a human being with human rights will die if bodily contact with another human being is discontinued, that it is murder to end the contact if it is undesired and ending it necessarily results in the person being 'killed'.

There is no way for an abortion to be legal and the blastocyst to not be considered just a packet of cells within the female, at best a potential human.
Of course there are ways. One could construe abortion as self defence, the right of humans do not necessarily extend to forcably maintaining physical contact with some other human.


See previous.
Indeed.

And?
Slavery is simply the ownership of a human being. No living human may be owned where slavery is prohibited, that's what the prohibition prohibits - the owning of human beings.

You make quite a jump here.
There is no jump from ownership of a human to slavery, that's exactly what slavery is, ownership of people....:rolleyes:

Please at least attempt to understand my argument before building up straw men and slamming them?
I understand that your argument relied on construing human beings as being ownable and owned by other human beings. I understand that the ownership of human beings constitutes slavery. Humans as property is slavery, the prohibition of slavery is a prohibition of the owning of people and a prohibition of the treatment of people as property.

Insulting, needless, and generally an asshole thing to say, considering that you didn't even seem to try to understand my argument.
I dont agree that I didnt understand your argument, if you failed to undertand that in advocating that the law deals with children as property you were advocating an end to the prohibition on slavery, then clearly I understood your argument better than you did.

Want insults? Okay.
I'm not over-fussed either way, so long as you know the forum rules and you dont break them you have my blessing to insult to your heart's content.

First off, I don't plan to debate this, I just want to see what the reaction is to this concept of abortion. I'm not heartless, I'm just curious. So, here goes.

Let's start with a hypothetical situation: Billy and Sally are two young people. They have no clearly defined religious beliefs, and are attending the same college. Billy has a part time job to pay for expenses, and Sally's parents cover hers.

Billy and Sally meet at a party and really hit it off. They leave together and go to Billy's apartment. They spend a night getting to know each other in the biblical sense (while using a condom of course). They bid each other adieu the following morning both accepting it as a one night stand.

A month later, Sally is concerned because she is far over due for her period, and has been missing classes because of nausea. She goes to her doctor to discover that she is pregnant.

Calling Billy, she relays the information. He is shocked and doesn't know how to respond. He can't support a baby financially without quitting school and going to work full time, but that would ruin his hope of one day being a doctor. Turning to the only alternative he could see, he suggests an abortion. Sally is appalled, for she is morally opposed to abortion, and would never do such a thing. Because of the laws in his nation, Billy has no say in the matter.

Several months later, Sally gives birth to the baby. The baby suffers from fetal alcohol syndrome from Sally's college drinking binges, and requires significant medical attention. The baby will need extensive medical care through out its development, but is mentally fine.

Billy is forced by his state to pay child support for the following 18 years and is forced from college and into the workforce so that he can meet the high payments. He leads a life not at all comparable to the one he would have had he finished school or not been forced to pay child support.



So, the key issue is: If the man has no say on whether or not a baby is born, why is he responsible for supporting that child to age 18?

The average cost of raising a child from birth to age 18 is $250,000 working out to about $20,850 a year. That is a significant dent to almost anyone's income, but especially if you are not college educated and can not attain a high salary position. This is not even considering that a mentally or physically retarded baby would cost astronomically more.

It seems unfair to me that men are on the really short end of the stick here. They have no part in the decision making process, but have atleast half the financial responsibility.

I'm not suggesting that fathers should have the power to force mothers into getting an abortion, but instead that if the mother opts not to get an abortion, the father should be able to, through legal action, sever himself from the financial burden of the unwanted child.

It takes two parties to make a baby, but only the mother gets to decide whether or not the baby goes to term or is aborted, and by extension, the fate of the father.

Thoughts, criticisms (constructive preferably)?
HEY JUST DONT HAVE SEX UNTL YOU ARE MARRIED OR SETTLED IN WITH A PARTENER WHO WANTS TO HAVE KIDS WITH YOU!!!!! That would settle it there and then!

I am aware that if a mother does have a child she is obligated to care for said child.
I am not an idiot, however I may appear..

You cannot terminate something that does not exist, you can terminate its possibilities of existence.
That's true, this is why it cannot be true that abortions terminate parenthood obligations, no such obligations exist at the time, so they cant be terminated.

We are not talking about if the woman had the child.
The 'paper-abortion' has no purpose exept in those cases where a child is born....:rolleyes:

Every action discussed here deals with before the 6 month period of gestation...
No, the obligation of parenthood doesnt exist until the child is born, and the discussion is about father's being able to terminate parental obligations, you know the ones that only start after the child is born. So whenever the acts might be initiated, the actions (in regards to paper abortions) deals only with the time after a child is born, and not at all with the time before the 6 month period when the obligations they supposedly would void dont yet exist to void...

I honestly do not know what you are arguing for anymore, I suggest you read the OP again.
I honestly dont know why you think my re-reading something will advance your understanding or clear up your miscomprehension.

I've got a mate at the Pizza place, a delivery driver like me. He's pretty new so I didn't know much about him.

We were talking about uni, and I asked him what he was doing. He was a 4th year dual degree student in Maths and Physics - but not anymore. Why? Because his girlfriend got pregnant.

Aside from the obvious question of how a maths and physics student can find a girl to get pregnant, he basically had to ruin his life because of it. He's still hoping to finish his degree some day, but chances are that it ain't gonna happen.

I think the two are still together, so the problem might be a bit different, but nonetheless, it sucks. A lot.

Unfortunately you can't force an abortion on the mother either. And since the court will be quite ready to destroy a life by ordering payments...maybe the best way would be an out-of-court settlement of some sort. Most young mothers would have parents to help them out anyways, so maybe the allemony could be put off a bit until the guy finishes uni.

Incorrect. It isnt necessarily true that if a human being with human rights will die if bodily contact with another human being is discontinued, that it is murder to end the contact if it is undesired and ending it necessarily results in the person being 'killed'.

It is if you put that human being in that position. If someone with some sort of kidney disease (or whatever organ you want) connects themselves to your kidneys somehow, and you disconnect them, then that is not murder. They violated your natural rights to possession of your own body. The person getting pregnant, however, should understand that, if they consider a blastocyst to be a child, then they have the potential for creating a child when having sex. That child is innocent of all malicious intent, and their dependence on the mother is fully the fault of the parties involved (the parents).

Of course there are ways. One could construe abortion as self defence, the right of humans do not necessarily extend to forcably maintaining physical contact with some other human.

One can hardly murder a person in order to get him/her off your foot, if he/she fell, even if that person's teeth are firmly lodged within your tendons. Especially if you tripped them.

Slavery is simply the ownership of a human being. No living human may be owned where slavery is prohibited, that's what the prohibition prohibits - the owning of human beings.

There is no jump from ownership of a human to slavery, that's exactly what slavery is, ownership of people....:rolleyes:

There is a jump, however, if you consider aforementioned blastocyst a nonperson.

I understand that your argument relied on construing human beings as being ownable and owned by other human beings. I understand that the ownership of human beings constitutes slavery. Humans as property is slavery, the prohibition of slavery is a prohibition of the owning of people and a prohibition of the treatment of people as property.

My argument relies on nothing of the sort. It relies on the concept that a ball of cells with only the potential to produce a thinking, feeling person, (a potential that has not been realized) that is still dependent on the mother, is nothing more then that- A ball of cells with potential. And as such, is part of the mother's body, with no more inherent rights then any other part of the mother's body.

I dont agree that I didnt understand your argument, if you failed to undertand that in advocating that the law deals with children as property you were advocating an end to the prohibition on slavery, then clearly I understood your argument better than you did.

You misunderstood the basic premise of my argument: That blastocysts are not people. As such, they can be owned.

I'm not over-fussed either way, so long as you know the forum rules and you dont break them you have my blessing to insult to your heart's content.

Neither I, but it was still quite rude.

Edit: Actually, I think that was a mistake. Deleted.

I've got a mate at the Pizza place, a delivery driver like me. He's pretty new so I didn't know much about him.

We were talking about uni, and I asked him what he was doing. He was a 4th year dual degree student in Maths and Physics - but not anymore. Why? Because his girlfriend got pregnant.

Aside from the obvious question of how a maths and physics student can find a girl to get pregnant, he basically had to ruin his life because of it. He's still hoping to finish his degree some day, but chances are that it ain't gonna happen.

I think the two are still together, so the problem might be a bit different, but nonetheless, it sucks. A lot.


maybe it sucks maybe it doesnt. he may be thrilled about the baby or at least be happy that his gf isnt getting an abortion. many men are opposed to abortion.

i dont personally know anyone who wishes that their child had never been born. yes it messes up his plans for the future, and hers too but a child is a joy that no college degree can replace



Unfortunately you can't force an abortion on the mother either. And since the court will be quite ready to destroy a life by ordering payments...maybe the best way would be an out-of-court settlement of some sort. Most young mothers would have parents to help them out anyways, so maybe the allemony could be put off a bit until the guy finishes uni.


unless the state is going to make the payments on his behalf, what is the child supposed to do for the first few years of its life? go without eating? no diapers until he's 4?

That's true, this is why it cannot be true that abortions terminate parenthood obligations, no such obligations exist at the time, so they cant be terminated.


No, the obligation of parenthood doesnt exist until the child is born, and the discussion is about father's being able to terminate parental obligations, you know the ones that only start after the child is born. So whenever the acts might be initiated, the actions (in regards to paper abortions) deals only with the time after a child is born, and not at all with the time before the 6 month period when the obligations they supposedly would void dont yet exist to void...



Okay, I usually object to using analogies because one can never compare apples to oranges.. However, the point I am trying to make is so simple that an analogy will not confuse the issue. Here is the situation.

You are going to buy a car.
You make a deal and are going to pay for the car.
Suddenly all your money and assets are burned in a horrible fire.
You are now completely broke.
You cannot pay for the car without money.
Since you cannot purchase the car you are not obligated to pay for car insurance.

Now, using the exact same path of thinking:

You are going to have sex.
You have sex and are going to have a child.
Suddenly the fetus is aborted.
You are now without fetus.
You cannot have a child without a fetus.
Since you cannot have a child you are not obligated to care for it.

------
See, the fact is that once a child is born, you must care for it.
Abortions DO terminate parenthood obligations.
The end result of an abortion is the same as if you never concieved.
Since you are only discussing the end result, an abortion does exactly what you say it doesn't.



Just because something does not exist yet does not mean it cannot be prevented.
It being prevented essentially means it cannot concievably happen.
If it cannot concievably happen, it never will.
Thus it is never a factor.
-----

The mother can terminate parental obligations before the child is born.

The father should be able to terminate the parental obligations before the child is born.

Yes of course if the equal application of equal rights results in the potential for a female to derive an opportunity that a male cannot derive as a result of biological reality, we can always just deny women the universal right that gives rise to this potential....because if there is any chance of a women deriving potential oppportunities that are of no use to a male, even though this potential doesnt interfer with or come at the expense of anyone's rights and is a necessary implication of a right everyone enjoys, it must be ended even if doing so requires that women and women alone be denied the universal right at issue.....

Unnameability2 tries to catch up with the run-on sentence...

OK, so, are you saying that what's good for the goose ought not also be good for the gander? I haven't really been following your other posts, so forgive me if I misinterpreted you here, but it sounds like you don't like the idea that women should have to pay for their own children? I'm not sure precisely what "opportunity" you're talking about, unless it's the one that currently exists of women having the opportunity to create an industry out of having children that the fathers have to pay for. If, indeed, that is the opportunity of which you speak, then there's definitely gonna be a fight here.

Equal application of equal rights is the end we're trying to arrive at. It is not what we have right now. The very nature of equal application of equal rights should theoretically preclude one party having an opportunity that another party does not, regardless of biological differences. The only "universal rights" that women enjoy that men do not are the right to get pregnant and the right to multiple orgasms. The problem is that the legal structure that was necessary to protect women in the days when women had almost no legal rights is now being used to provide women who now have nearly if not completely equal legal rights an opportunity to "interfer (sic) with" and live at the expense of the rights of men. While some may believe that turnabout is fair play, I sit in the camp of two wrongs not equaling a right and hardly think that the enslavement of men is an asset to the feminist agenda.

As regards the issue at hand, I made 2 propositions that, while admittedly imperfect and logistically questionable, might provide a more equitable situation. The first was to attempt to give "unwilling" fathers an "adoption clause" whereby if the man wished to terminate an unplanned pregnancy and the woman refused, the man could potentially absolve himself of some or all of the responsibility for the child in the same way that married couples and single women may do now. The second, which you quoted, was to completely remove any ability for anyone to absolve themselves of any responsibility and force people to take care of any children they have, planned or otherwise. I happen to find the second method a bit draconian, but it would certainly accomplish the end of equal application of equal rights.

The only "universal rights" that women enjoy that men do not are ... the right to multiple orgasms.

/offtopic
Not quite true. It may be an innate ability for the female, but it is a learn-able skill for the male.
/offtopic

I guy should have half the say, seriously, he helped create the baby, its partly his DNA, the mother is only housiing it for 9 months. Its like me paying 100k to start a business, i rent out a shed to hold the business in, and the renter tells me that they now own my business, even though I was the one that put up all the money.

You are completely and totally glossing over the psychological and physiological changes a woman goes through while merely "housing [the baby] for 9 months".

It's not like she's just carrying it around in a basket for 9 months and hands it off when the timer goes off; there are other things going on!

The question is, why should any man, any PERSON, end up with legal obligations that person didn't desire, didn't request, didn't consent to, and doesn't want?

Consent to sex does not equate to consent to parenthood. That's an argument that's been used NUMEROUS times in support of abortion rights for women. It cuts both ways. Consent to sex does not equate to consent to parenthood, for both men, AND WOMEN.

Because a man has sex this does not mean he desires, requests, wants, and/or consents to the legal obligations of fatherhood.

Because a woman has sex this does not mean she desires, requests, wants, and/or consents to the legal obligations of motherhood.

However a woman who gives birth creates the implication that at some point between the sex and the birth (under law, after the 18th week of pregnancy) she HAS consented to the legal obligations of motherhood.

Why? because she CHOSE to give birth, she CHOSE not to have an abortion, and she CHOSE to carry the child to term. That is her consent.

Not the sex, never the sex. Her consent to motherhood is the choice she made to actually carry the child. She, as the mother, has the opportunity to consent to the legal responsibilities of motherhood only after 18 weeks. Before that, she can opt out at any time.

What you are advocating is inequality, simple inequality. You are in favor of giving the mother the ability to opt out of motherhood up to 18 weeks after conception, yet giving no similar opportunity to the male.

The only way, the ONLY WAY your argument works is if you argue that sex is a tacit consent to fatherhood.

But sex is not, and should NEVER EVER be a tacit consent to motherhood. And since it is not, it can not be considered a consent to fatherhood.


There's a difference between "consent to parenthood" and "assumption of the risk of parenthood" and I would say that what we're dealing with is the latter. You can assume the risk that something bad will happen, this does not require consent, but because you ASSUMED THE RISK, you cannot back out of it later and go "oh! I never wanted this to happen!"

He could have kept it in his pants.
Anti-choicers use that argument to say that women shouldn't have the right to an abortion.

There's a child now. Billy's petty whining ceases to matter.
Sally should take full responsibility. Billy has the right to live his own life as he wants. Rather than being enslaved to the child he wanted to get rid of.

Your position is that the father has zero rights, and the mother has all rights. Hardly egalitarian, is it?

*shrug* Because it's her body being destroyed by the parasite within.
Well, pregnancy doesn't kill, at least not in western countries.

How about Billy's life? This parasite destroyed it.

Well if men hadn't shot down every attempt at an Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, you may have had a point. As it stands, though, nothing protects the man right now.

Whar are you saying? That you don't think equal rights means the same right for both sexes? Or that men deserve to be oppressed for the oppression perpetrated by previous generations?

America! Love it or change it!
Umm, yeah I think that's what the OP would like to do.

1) am I the only one upset that Bill and Sally didn’t get together?
Either marriage or adoption would be the best idea.

Too bad for him.
It sucks life is not fair
These are not only illogical arguments, they're also uncompassionate.

Prove? Nothing, but it would make it equal. Women have to undergo a medical procedure to have a physical abortion, I think it fully fair for men to have to undergo the same procedure to have a paper abortion.
I am agreeing with your argument in general, but unnecessary surgery is the stupidest idea I've ever heard.

Only a feminazi could be opposed to "the paper abortion." Btw, "paper abortion" is a great name for it.

unless the state is going to make the payments on his behalf, what is the child supposed to do for the first few years of its life? go without eating? no diapers until he's 4?
Who says the mother can't work? Who says her parents can't help?

In Oz at least childcare is heavily subsidised by the government.

they both have equal right to any child born from their sexual congress.



No they do not. A father(to be) cannot force an a woman to preserve the life of his baby. He can have it taken away, regardless of his good intentions and responsibility. He cannot enjoy the privilage of being a parent, if the women decides to take it way from him, either though abortion or adoption.

That being said, Babies truly are an STD.

Yeah, I think a man has a right to choose as much as a woman does. The trouble though seems to arise when the man and woman in question don't agree. Who has "more" rights? Personally, I think they both should have thought of that before they had unprotected sex.

The woman could have been more careful by just giving the man oral, and the man could have been more careful by just orgasming in between her breasts. On camera.

Only a feminazi could be opposed to "the paper abortion." Btw, "paper abortion" is a great name for it.

I'm not opposed to the concept of a "paper abortion", I'm opposed to the ease with which it could be abused and lead to severe "issues" in our society.

There's a lot of related societal restructuring that would need to occur for this to be successful, IMO.

The mother can terminate parental obligations before the child is born.

No, she can't. If a child is born, she has full parental obligations to that child. This is exactly the same as a man - if a child is born, and he is the father, he has full parental obligations to that child.

What the mother *can* do is ensure that no child ever exists in the first place, by terminating her pregnancy. It is fairly obvious that a man cannot do this, as he cannot get pregnant. Unfortunately, this is a basic biological difference, and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it. The only way to possibly allow a man to terminate a pregnancy would be to give him ownership over a woman's body, which I think is something we obviously cannot and will not do.

What this means, in the end, is that the "paper abortion" would not be equivalent to an actual abortion in any sense of the word. An actual abortion removes the question of anyone supporting a child from the equation, as there is no child to support. A "paper abortion" simply removes support from any child that might be born. With the "paper abortion", if it needs to be used at all, chances are that there is a child, and the father has just skipped out on his responsibility to it.


Sally should take full responsibility. Billy has the right to live his own life as he wants. Rather than being enslaved to the child he wanted to get rid of.

I'm not going to cry for a deadbeat, sorry. I think it would be best if the asshole were completely out of the child's life, but I'm not going to cry for him when he doesn't step up and take responsibility for his child. Get him out of the child's life and ensure that he never returns to scew it up, but I see it in the same way that I would see getting an abusive or neglectful father out of a child's life.

Well, pregnancy doesn't kill, at least not in western countries.

What an incredibly naive and false statement. Pregnancy absolutely can kill, even in Western countries. The rates are reduced, but not eliminated. Women still die from complications of pregnancy, during childbirth, from infections obtained during childbirth, from complications of abortions, from infections obtained during abortions,etc. Meanwhile, pregnancy puts all sorts of strains on the body that cause women to be much more susceptible to life-threatening conditions later in life.

Either marriage or adoption would be the best idea.

Marriage just because of a baby is never a good idea. Such a marriage is pretty much doomed to failure, which will simply disrupt the child's life when it happens.

Adoption might be a good idea, if and only if the infant is perfectly healthy in every way and is white. Otherwise, it probably isn't.

<snip>

Thoughts, criticisms (constructive preferably)?
Hmm, you have a good point. So here goes...

"MALE CHAUVINIST PIG!":upyours:

:rolleyes:

Equality under the law IS one of our basic premises and principals. I find this an inequaluity

Indeed, but this isn't an inequality in the law. It's an inequality in biology. It certainly might be possible to account for some inequalities of biology, but I don't see how we're going to change the fact that only women can get pregnant, and thus only women can decide whether or not to abort a pregnancy.

What happens after a child is born is already equal under the law. If a child is born, both the mother and father are equally legally obligated to that child. Now, one can argue over whether or not parents should be automatically legally obligated to their children. One could even argue over whether or not parents are morally oblivated to their children. But it would be rather silly to argue that the law itself is not equal at this point.

So basically, you're saying that if abortion is against a woman's religious or moral beliefs....oh well, sucks to be her?

By the way, I recognize that it was still the woman's choice to have sex (just as it was the man's). But based on the premise that sexual activity does not make a woman (or a man) responsible for the end product, then there should be a consession made for those that don't/won't/can't have an abortion. In the United States, we at least CLAIM to follow freedom of religion, right? So if it is against a woman's religion to have an abortion, shouldn't we honor that?

It is honored. She can choose not to have an abortion. To be fair, even if men had the "paper abortion" option, she would still have the right to refuse to get an abortion.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that no one, whether male or female, should have sexual intercourse that could lead to the birth of an infant if said person is not willing and able to provide for a child. Someone who wishes to never have a child should get medically sterilized. Someone who wishes to have children, but cannot or will not support them yet, should not be having sex. Barring complete abstinence, they should be using every form of birth control they can get their hands on. Of course, that would be in a perfect world, where chocolate rained from the sky and the streets were paved with gold.

I think we've finally found an issue where there is absolutely no solution that is fair to everybody.

I think we've finally found an issue where there is absolutely no solution that is fair to everybody.

LOL, there are more issues like that than there are issues where there is a fair solution to everybody.

The baby suffers from fetal alcohol syndrome from Sally's college drinking binges, and requires significant medical attention. The baby will need extensive medical care through out its development, but is mentally fine.


Fetal alcohol syndrome not affecting brain? I doubt that.

Back to OP topic:
The baby is hers. She's the one who chooses. So it's also her own responsibility - she wasn't raped or tricked or told promises of eternal love.

She has the responsibility to raise the kid. If she cannot because she's poor, the welfare system should kick in and fund medical care and education for the kid.

Also, because she is has been so stupid, drinking alcohol while pregnant, I feel that the social system should judge her too stupid to raise a kid - and give the kid to someone else to adopt him, or to care for him temporarily.

What this means, in the end, is that the "paper abortion" would not be equivalent to an actual abortion in any sense of the word. An actual abortion removes the question of anyone supporting a child from the equation, as there is no child to support. A "paper abortion" simply removes support from any child that might be born. With the "paper abortion", if it needs to be used at all, chances are that there is a child, and the father has just skipped out on his responsibility to it.


The paper abortion is more like putting the child up for adoption.

Are women/girls who put a child up for adoption because they cannot/do not want to make the sacrafices also deadbeats?

He could have kept it in his pants.

She could have swallowed it instead.

Shoulda woulda coulda never did no gooda.

There's a child now. Billy's petty whining ceases to matter.



I definitely agree with this statement. If Billy and Sally wanted to have the fun, guess what they were choosing to accept the responsibility of consequences. This is called accountability. Say there was no baby involved. Say that Sally or Billy, on one of their many college drinking binge slept with all of the football players or all of the cheer leaders. Now say that one of them had aids. Could that be aborted? Could they run away from the situation then.

Only a feminazi could be opposed to "the paper abortion." Btw, "paper abortion" is a great name for it.
In a world where women don't have access to abortion, why should any equal-minded person worry about making sure that MEN have access to "paper abortions"?

If women are given unrestricted access to abortion, I will wholeheartedly support giving men access to "paper abortions." Until then, I see no reason to grant men further freedoms while women still don't even have the most fundamental freedom there is: the freedom to choose what happens to your own body.

Are women/girls who put a child up for adoption because they cannot/do not want to make the sacrafices also deadbeats?
Oooh, wanna see me make a bunch of new enemies? Here goes:

In my opinion, a woman who intentionally carries a pregnancy to term knowing that she will give the child up for adoption is a deadbeat. (This, of course, excludes surrogates or women who are having a baby for another person/couple as part of a predecided plan.)

Oooh, wanna see me make a bunch of new enemies? Here goes:

In my opinion, a woman who intentionally carries a pregnancy to term knowing that she will give the child up for adoption is a deadbeat. (This, of course, excludes surrogates or women who are having a baby for another person/couple as part of a predecided plan.)


That is a ludicrus position to defend you know. So you would prefer that a fetus is aborted, which means that no child is born, which means that the promise of one life is gone. Rather than a women who knows she is going to be a shit mother giveing the baby away?

Oooh, wanna see me make a bunch of new enemies? Here goes:

In my opinion, a woman who intentionally carries a pregnancy to term knowing that she will give the child up for adoption is a deadbeat. (This, of course, excludes surrogates or women who are having a baby for another person/couple as part of a predecided plan.)

Ok.

Now... say the fundies get control and abortion is banned...

Is a girl who finds herself saddled with an unwanted pregnancy she cannot (legally) have aborted and gives the baby up for adoption still a deadbeat?

In a world where women don't have access to abortion, why should any equal-minded person worry about making sure that MEN have access to "paper abortions"?

If women are given unrestricted access to abortion, I will wholeheartedly support giving men access to "paper abortions." Until then, I see no reason to grant men further freedoms while women still don't even have the most fundamental freedom there is: the freedom to choose what happens to your own body.

I kinda thought that the paper abortion thing was only meant to exist in a world were women were freely given access to abortions. Thats why if the man decides to have a paper abortion, the woman can then get an abortion if she decides she cant support the baby.

The paper abortion loses its point in a country were women cant have abortions.

The paper abortion is more like putting the child up for adoption.

Not really. When a child is put up for adoption, *both* parents severe their legal responsibilities and rights to the child and an adoption agency makes a concentrated effort to see that the child is placed in a good home.

Are women/girls who put a child up for adoption because they cannot/do not want to make the sacrafices also deadbeats?

To a point, yes. Any parent who does not take responsibility for their child is, by definition, being irresponsible. However, there is a difference between putting a child up for adoption and simply walking away from a child. At least with an adoption situation, the parent has made an effort to ensure that the child will be well taken care of, instead of just saying, "Not my problem," and walking away with no such effort made.

To a point, yes. Any parent who does not take responsibility for their child is, by definition, being irresponsible. However, there is a difference between putting a child up for adoption and simply walking away from a child. At least with an adoption situation, the parent has made an effort to ensure that the child will be well taken care of, instead of just saying, "Not my problem," and walking away with no such effort made.

If the fundies manage to ban abortion is a girl who puts the baby up for adoption a deadbeat in trying to shirk her responsibilities onto someone else? In a similar manner to a guy trying to shirk his of a child he does not want?

What about a girl/woman who leaves a baby outside a hospital?

Personally, I'm of the opinion that no one, whether male or female, should have sexual intercourse that could lead to the birth of an infant if said person is not willing and able to provide for a child. Someone who wishes to never have a child should get medically sterilized. Someone who wishes to have children, but cannot or will not support them yet, should not be having sex. Barring complete abstinence, they should be using every form of birth control they can get their hands on. Of course, that would be in a perfect world, where chocolate rained from the sky and the streets were paved with gold.

i agree. hence abortion is for lazy selfish people.

i agree. hence abortion is for lazy selfish people.

Yeah. Like rape victims. Way to show the world what a piece of trash you are.

That is a ludicrus position to defend you know. So you would prefer that a fetus is aborted, which means that no child is born, which means that the promise of one life is gone.

I would prefer that nobody produce offspring they have no intention of supporting or caring for, yes.


Rather than a women who knows she is going to be a shit mother giveing the baby away?
A woman who knows she will be a "shit mother" should not produce babies. In my opinion.

Now, with that said, I would never in a million years even remotely consider for one tiny instant that I (or anybody else) should have the right to force any woman to have an abortion. I believe that it is for each individual to choose what medical procedures they will and will not receive. If she does not want to undergo an abortion procedure, that is absolutely her right, without question, and I would never remotely consider forcing her to have one. Just as I consider it totally unacceptable to ever stop a woman from having an abortion if she wants one.

I happen to believe that choosing to produce babies that you fully intend to put up for adoption is irresponsible and dishonorable. That's my opinion on the subject, and I have no interest in legally enforcing it. There are lots of things I believe are irresponsible but which I also believe should remain legal options. I think it's irresponsible to spend your life savings on an ostrich ranch because you're just damn sure that ostrich burgers will be so popular that they replace beef. I think it's dishonorable to cheat at a poker game with your mates. Doesn't mean I want to slap people in jail for doing any stupid or dishonorable things.

If the fundies manage to ban abortion is a girl who puts the baby up for adoption a deadbeat in trying to shirk her responsibilities onto someone else? In a similar manner to a guy trying to shirk his of a child he does not want?

What about a girl/woman who leaves a baby outside a hospital?

To a point, yes. It might be the best choice out of a list of irresponsible choices, but it is irresponsible nonetheless. It is possible that, in a given situation, once an unplanned pregnancy occurs, nothing but irresponsible choices are left to the parents, and they must try and choose the least of the evils.

But, once again, there is the difference that making an effort to see that the child is well taken care of is different from simply signing some papers and walking away, with no such effort made. The former I would not refer to as a deadbeat, simply irresponsible. The second I would refer to as a deadbeat.

i agree. hence abortion is for lazy selfish people.

That cannot, in any way, be drawn from what I said.

Wow. Just wow. I read the first 12 pages and I think my brain caught on fire.

Also every state MUST allow abortion, it's a constitutional right.


This is so untrue it's ridiculous. There is absolutely nothing in the constitution that says a woman has te right to trash her fetus. Nor is there any mention of a "right to medical privacy" or watever it was the Roe v. Wade ruling was based on. The entire concept of a legal right to an abortion is on incredibly shaky constitutional grounds, and it wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that the Supreme Court could overthrow the ruling fairly easily. Now whether they would actually do this is a different matter entirely. It's a shame how society has such an influence on the supposedly unbiased courts.

Yeah. Like rape victims. Way to show the world what a piece of trash you are.
Hey, any woman who goes around having sex and making personal medical decisions (as if she had the right to!) is clearly lazy and selfish.

:rolleyes:

Yeah. Like rape victims. Way to show the world what a piece of trash you are.

flaming is not the best way to win arguements.

flaming is not the best way to win arguements.

Oh, was "abortion is for lazy people" an argument?

I thought it was just flamebait.

If it was an argument, then it's a strawman since you got it by mis-representing what Dempublicents1 said in order to come up with an intentionally provokative statement.

i agree. hence abortion is for lazy selfish people.

The lazy selfish people are the ones that don't take precautions.
The lazy selfish people are the ones that argue only abstinance should be taught.
The lazy selfish people are the ones that argue contraception should not be made available.

Thank you for reminding me why I turned my back on Catholics.

This is so untrue it's ridiculous. There is absolutely nothing in the constitution that says a woman has te right to trash her fetus. Nor is there any mention of a "right to medical privacy" or watever it was the Roe v. Wade ruling was based on. The entire concept of a legal right to an abortion is on incredibly shaky constitutional grounds, and it wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that the Supreme Court could overthrow the ruling fairly easily. Now whether they would actually do this is a different matter entirely. It's a shame how society has such an influence on the supposedly unbiased courts.

So you think the federal government has the power to make medical decisions for all of its citizens, rather than leaving that decision up to the person himself?

Meanwhile, if you are looking for specifically enumerated rights to be the only ones protected by the Constitution, there are an awful lot of recognized rights that you're going to lose. Are you willing to give up most of your constitutionally recognized rights?

Oh, was "abortion is for lazy people" an argument?

I thought it was just flamebait.

If it was an argument, then it's a strawman since you got it by mis-representing what Dempublicents1 said in order to come up with an intentionally provokative statement.

its been explain not only by me but a lot of people in several threads how abortion is lazy and selfish.

its been explain not only by me but a lot of people in several threads how abortion is lazy and selfish.

Ok. Explain how you are going to handle a child with severe autism(requires 24x7 care). You are divorced and you have no family and you are only a nurse.

You shouldn't spout off about things you don't know.

The lazy selfish people are the ones that don't take precautions.
The lazy selfish people are the ones that argue only abstinance should be taught.
The lazy selfish people are the ones that argue contraception should not be made available.

Thank you for reminding me why I turned my back on Catholics.

i didnt mention anything about contraception not being available. i dislike condoms but they are necessary to prevent disease, which i fear more then the 'terror' of getting a girl pregnant.
i dont use catholism for a reason for being pro-life, i use it as a reason to explain why it is banned in my country.

So you think the federal government has the power to make medical decisions for all of its citizens, rather than leaving that decision up to the person himself?

Meanwhile, if you are looking for specifically enumerated rights to be the only ones protected by the Constitution, there are an awful lot of recognized rights that you're going to lose. Are you willing to give up most of your constitutionally recognized rights?

No don't think I ever made that claim.

...

I didn't say that enumerated rights are the only ones we have. The 9th ammendment says this isn't so. I'm saying that claiming that "the right to have an abortion" has a constituional basis is completely wrong. People like to throw around words like "unconstitutional" without even reading the document. It's not even that long.

No don't think I ever made that claim.

If it isn't true, then people must have a right to make their own medical decisions - a right to medical privacy, as it were - something you denied in your last post.

I didn't say that enumerated rights are the only ones we have. The 9th ammendment says this isn't so. I'm saying that claiming that "the right to have an abortion" has a constituional basis is completely wrong. People like to throw around words like "unconstitutional" without even reading the document. It's not even that long.

Replace it with the "right to obtain vaccinations." Is it now correct? The decision to have an abortion is a medical decision. If a person has the right to make her own medical decisions, the government would have to come up with a pretty clear reason to deny her this particular one.

Well, this thread had some interesting reading.

Many posters in this thread need to understand that the entire premise of this thread is founded on the notion of women having the right to Abortions.
It is a discussion of comparative rights and if there are people that are denied their rights, that is a separate discussion but a serious fallacy to bring up here. You don't deny MORE people rights just because their has been an issue with some people's rights.

If you happen to be someone that is opposed to abortion rights for women in the first place, then this issue is a non-issue in the first place and telling "him" to 'keep it in his pants' is pointless since under your view, there is equality.


I don't know if Arthais is going to come back, sounds like perhaps not after his character took a very underserved besmirching with false accusations, but if you do, I wanted to applaud how well you have stayed on topic and very logically presented your case.
I also wanted to point out you a wrinkle in parental obligations that I kept expecting would show up but apparently never did.

Sperm Donors.

You can be the father of a living, born child and bear no obligations or responsibilities to that child in a manner that can be seen as very similar to this 'Paper Abortion' concept.

Serveral people kept harping on you that you cannot enter into a contract with the mother and that all obligations are strictly between you and the child. That may be the norm, but it is not always true.

In a situation where 2 consenting individuals enjoyed sex together and both agreed to prevent pregancy and followed through with appropriate contraceptives and yet still found themselves with a pregancy and imminent parenthood there is a CHOICE to be made. Do they want to be parents? They were trying to prevent it, but now a further choice is required.
If the male would still like to maintain his previously stated position of NOT becoming a parent while the female may upon reflection decide to allow the pregnancy to continue then why is the male any different than a sperm donor?

So now both parents should be irresponsible and pawn off the raising of their child on someone else just because one of them is?


There are waiting lists of people waiting to adopt infants, how is it "pawning off" or irresponsible?

There is one tiny flaw in that arguement. Believe it or not, some women do think abortion is the same as murder. Whether you follow that belief or not doesn't matter. To those women, abortion is not an option. So where does that leave them?


That wasn't a flaw at all.
Some men will have moral issues with the entire 'Paper Abortion' concept and it will not be an option for them either.

its been explain not only by me but a lot of people in several threads how abortion is lazy and selfish.

Yeah. So, as i said before, a rape victim has to carry a rapist's baby to term, by herself of course, otherwise she is lazy and selfish. According to you. Sorry, that's not an argument - that's a morally insulting bunch of horse shit.

I provide the sperm, she provides the egg, its an partnership. If i decide not to be part of it, then she can have 100% control and decide to abort it or not, but if i want this baby, the legally speaking, shouldn't i have a right to have a say in the fate of the fetus?
Well, if it's a partnership, and you want out, she should be able to buy you out, right? So, what is the dollar value of your sperm? Would, say, $5 US compensate your for your contribution and make you go away forever?

Of course, this still ignores the fact that she has no right to let you out of your obligations to someone else. Your parental obligation is to the child, not to her, so if the child wants to enforce its rights against you, that $5 agreement is going to be worth even less.

Corporate personhood is a somewhat flawed analogy.
It was an example of a "legal fiction." It was not being used as an example of what you are talking about.

The reason is that we're not denying something exists, far from it.
Then you agree with me that "paper abortion" is a stupid name for what you are talking about, because it draws a false analogy?

Therefore the rest of your argument about "non person" doesn't work. Here's why.

There is no physical magical rope tied around the father and his offspring. There is no attachment at the hip. There's nothing physically binding them together. The father is not walking around, dragging his child, pretending it's not there.

If there was, your argument would be more proper, but there isn't.
Nope, no magical rope. No attachment at the hip. Not even an umbilical cord. But there is a legal connection. You cannot deny that, because if it did not exist, you would not have to be advocating a new law to sever it. And according to the law, the connection is between you and the child, not you and the woman, and in order to sever it, you must deal with the child, not the woman. Thus, your "paper abortion" won't be worth the paper it's printed on because it is an agreement made with the wrong party, as I keep telling you.

What exists between the father and the child is a list of CREATED legal rights and responsibilities.
I wonder where you heard that from. Gosh, I think it might have been me, in every one of my posts before this. You're reminding me of one of my boyfriends, Arthais. Stop it, please, thank you.

The father has legal obligations to the offspring. He has, to some extent, legal rights he can exert over the offspring. Those obligations do not exist in a physical form. THere is no umbilical cord connecting them.

Those rights and responsibilities, themselves, are a legal creation. There is no physical bond between them.
You keep repeating that as if it means something.

And as LEGAL creations, the law can modify them, or even allow for them to be severed, as it wishes.
Right. The LAW can do this if it wishes. But not the woman. Let's say you have a child you don't want. The woman lets you out of the relationship and never initiates legal action for child support from you. Then both she and you die, while your child is still a minor. Guess what? Your child CAN contest your will, through legal counsel, in order to enforce its rights of inheritance as your biological child. Why? Because those rights belong to the child, not the woman, and no agreement the woman makes with you affects the rights of the child. And if both parents are dead, who is acting on behalf of the minor child? Why, the law, i.e. the state. So who should you be talking to about severing those legal ties? The woman? No, Arthais, you should be talking to either the child itself or to the state.

So again, the "paper abortion," "equality with the woman" approach is just plain the wrong road to take.

There is no denying the child EXISTS, that's stupid, the father doesn't go around saying "nope, no kid, doesn't exist, I see nothing". It is saying that the law, which has created those rights and obligations, terminates those rights and obligations.

The child certainly EXISTS, it's not a "non person", but the father and the child have no legal relationship with each other. The relationship was created by the law anyway, it can be severed by the law.

To say that it denies the child EXISTS is as nonsensical as me saying the law denies YOU exist. You and I have no legal relationship with each other, we have no obligations to each other. It doesn't mean, from my perspective, that you don't exist.
Read the post I was responding to. That person said a paper abortion would effectively mean that there was no child. That is what I was countering.

It just means we have no legal obligations to each other, and no legal authority over each other.
If by "each other" you mean you and the child, you cannot make such an agreement with the woman. Also, if, as you acknowledge here, you are dealing only with parental obligations, there is absolutly no point in trying to cast that as an "equality" issue with women's rights regarding pregnancy, which, as has already been explained in detail several times, is not the same thing. Instead, you should be comparing the parental obligations of men to the parental obligations of women, and when you do that, you see they are already equal, and your equality arguments also go out the window.

Do you understand yet that any validity your views may have is being destroyed by this wrong-headed form of argument? Do you guys love it so much because "paper abortion" seems somehow more sound-bitey than "severance of parental rights and obligations"? Well, I'd just remind you that "stay the course" was a great sound bite, but it didn't work, either.

I've actually figured this one out logically, whilst seemingly avoiding moral assessment all together.

To come to an answer one has to assess the situation. In doing so it becomes apparent that there are two points of responsibility/choice. First of all is whether the baby is indeed to be had. Now seeing as the baby is half Billy's and half Sally's they hold equal sway in this arguement. Basically they must come to a unanimous decision to proceed fairly.However, there is a second aspect to this situation, and that is in regards to who will give birth to the baby. That is to say, Sally has to carry the baby in her womb for 9 months, and then give birth to it. Whether or not she wants to do this is completely up to her, as it is her body.

The end result is that either decision requires a unanimous vote of both parties, and can be vetoed by Sally if she pleases, unless Billy can provide a surrogate womb. As such I feel the logical stance is that if both parents cannot agree on the decision to abort, then the decision by default falls on to the mothers willingness to carry and give birth. However, seeing as in this process the man had his vote removed, he shall no longer be responsible for the consequences (no child support).
Now explain why the CHILD should accept that arrangement.

This is a different issue entirely. It all depends whether you consider a fetus a human being which would then be required to have human rights.
No, it doesn't, because parental obligations do not become effective until the child is born. At that point, it is no longer a fetus. This confusion just points up why "paper abortion" is a misnomer. Abortion ends a pregnancy. What these cheap bas--- excuse me, what these gentlemen are arguing for is to be let out of obligations to someone who has already been born. Two completely different situations.

We act because of emotion, reason is not sufficient to create action or halt action. Reason is only a faculty we use to best plot how to achieve our emotive goals.

In other words, the woman becomes a mother foremost because of emotional drives and values, how she provides for the child is where reason comes in.
What the devil are you on about? You seemed to be going all right for a while there, but with this post --- are you suggesting that if a woman is not in the grip of an emotional drive or value, she won't become pregnant? What about if a north wind is blowing, or if she dreams of eating pumpkin seeds? You're not making sense.

It's rather amazing to see normally pragmatic posters like yourself get all tripped up by words like "mother" and "father" which are so loaded down with emotional baggage.

The fact is there is no biological imperative to be a "mother" or a "father" to the extent that those terms connote an ongoing relationship with a child. The only biological imperative is to reproduce, i.e. to have sex. The resulting pregnancy is completely automatic and is not controlled by the woman -- or her emotions. And as for the presumed relationship, if there was a biological imperative behind it, there would be fewer cases of child abuse, abandonment, and infanticide in the world. We learn how to be parents. It is not instinctive.

(Or else, we wouldn't be having this debate, now would we?)

Yes.

But in our cases, the woman makes value judgements and sets goals based on emotion, then uses reason as a weighing and planning mechanism.

If her goals are to be financially responsible, her reason will lead her to abortion. If her goals are to be a mother, her reason will lead her to plan for the child.
Or her reason could lead her to enforce the existing child support laws against the father.

Your argument is flawed by the assumption that deciding to have a child is not a reasonable plan. Personally, I happen to agree that a woman following reason should plan to support her child on her own, even if she has a supportive man willing to help, because, you know, he might die. But I do not pretend that my definition of "reasonable" is the measure of what constitutes "reason" (i.e. rational thinking). A rational woman may make a plan based solely on reason that involves using the law to allow her to exploit a source of funds -- the father.

There are waiting lists of people waiting to adopt infants, how is it "pawning off" or irresponsible?

First of all, what you really mean is perfectly healthy white infants. Many infants are considered "unadoptable" because they don't meet all of those requirements.

Second of all, how could it be anything but irresponsible? Parents have a responsibility to their children, one that any parent giving a child up for adoption is opting out of. That can't be anything but irresponsible. In some cases, it may be less irresponsible than the alternative, but it is irresponsible nonetheless.

Meanwhile, I have no more respect for those who get on a waiting list for an infant and pretend they are trying to help a child than those who have children they cannot support and end up giving them up. If someone really wants to help a child, there are millions of them out there that need good homes. The fact they aren't perfectly healthy little white infants shouldn't be an issue if the goal really is to take in and raise a child and not to get a doll.

Abortion IS Murder plain and simple if the parents weren't having sex all the time maybe there wouldn't be a need!! :fluffle: :mp5: This maybe a shock to this mainly Democrat forum :eek: But abortion is killing a baby period!!!!

Abortion IS Murder plain and simple if the parents weren't having sex all the time maybe there wouldn't be a need!! :fluffle: :mp5: This maybe a shock to this mainly Democrat forum :eek: But abortion is killing a baby period!!!!

Buy corn nuts!

And now back to your regularly scheduled rational discussion...

Speaking of rational decisions...

The decision is between two options:

1. The guy quits his studies and starts some low-wage job to pay child support. You get a relatively low cash-flow, but it starts immediately.

2. The guy only starts paying child support once he's finished his studies and earns a wage. The cash flow would start in the future, but it would be much more money. For the time being the mother will have to rely on help from parents and the community.

Now, calculating present values of those two options, I'd put forward that the second would yield a higher return to everyone involved. Thus, the court should judge the father liable to pay child support - but to be paid only after the studies have been completed.

Speaking of rational decisions...

The decision is between two options:

1. The guy quits his studies and starts some low-wage job to pay child support. You get a relatively low cash-flow, but it starts immediately.

2. The guy only starts paying child support once he's finished his studies and earns a wage. The cash flow would start in the future, but it would be much more money. For the time being the mother will have to rely on help from parents and the community.

Now, calculating present values of those two options, I'd put forward that the second would yield a higher return to everyone involved. Thus, the court should judge the father liable to pay child support - but to be paid only after the studies have been completed.


option 2.

Abortion IS Murder plain and simple if the parents weren't having sex all the time maybe there wouldn't be a need!! :fluffle: :mp5: This maybe a shock to this mainly Democrat forum :eek: But abortion is killing a baby period!!!!

your opinion isnt valid cause you disagree with people in this thread. welcome to nation states.

Speaking of rational decisions...

The decision is between two options:

1. The guy quits his studies and starts some low-wage job to pay child support. You get a relatively low cash-flow, but it starts immediately.

2. The guy only starts paying child support once he's finished his studies and earns a wage. The cash flow would start in the future, but it would be much more money. For the time being the mother will have to rely on help from parents and the community.

Now, calculating present values of those two options, I'd put forward that the second would yield a higher return to everyone involved. Thus, the court should judge the father liable to pay child support - but to be paid only after the studies have been completed.
Sort of a good idea.

Say the guy is 18 when he gets his high school GF pregnant. He has another 4 years of college and maybe even a few years of Grad School. Say he is capeable of becombing a Doctor or Lawyer, I'm not expert on US Grad School but I think those each add about 4 years of Grad school, but at the end his earning potential will be astronomical. In a few years he'd earn more than a whole lifetime flipping burgers, he'll be able to put the kid through the best private school and give the kid oppertunities he would never have dreamed of as a burger flipper. But - the kid will be 8-10 years old by the time this happens (depending on grad school length and the like). Which would mean the mother would have to raise the kid for almost a decade without child support from the dad.

Although the support will by many times better once it comes the kid is more than halfway to college by the time dad starts chipping in.

This si not to say that option A is the better choice, as it will provide marginal help to the kid and will ruin the dads career prospects.

One of those things where there is no good option, just a choice of crap ones.

Sort of a good idea.

Say the guy is 18 when he gets his high school GF pregnant. He has another 4 years of college and maybe even a few years of Grad School. Say he is capeable of becombing a Doctor or Lawyer, I'm not expert on US Grad School but I think those each add about 4 years of Grad school, but at the end his earning potential will be astronomical. In a few years he'd earn more than a whole lifetime flipping burgers, he'll be able to put the kid through the best private school and give the kid oppertunities he would never have dreamed of as a burger flipper. But - the kid will be 8-10 years old by the time this happens (depending on grad school length and the like). Which would mean the mother would have to raise the kid for almost a decade without child support from the dad.

Although the support will by many times better once it comes the kid is more than halfway to college by the time dad starts chipping in.

This si not to say that option A is the better choice, as it will provide marginal help to the kid and will ruin the dads career prospects.

One of those things where there is no good option, just a choice of crap ones.

You could get the best of both options by having the state pay for the early years and then when the father graduates (etc) and starts paying child support he also starts paying back the state (inflation adjusted) for the early years. The amount the state pays should probably be the amount the father would have been able to pay when flipping burgers rather than improving his earning potential.

Speaking of rational decisions...

The decision is between two options:

1. The guy quits his studies and starts some low-wage job to pay child support. You get a relatively low cash-flow, but it starts immediately.

2. The guy only starts paying child support once he's finished his studies and earns a wage. The cash flow would start in the future, but it would be much more money. For the time being the mother will have to rely on help from parents and the community.

Now, calculating present values of those two options, I'd put forward that the second would yield a higher return to everyone involved. Thus, the court should judge the father liable to pay child support - but to be paid only after the studies have been completed.

There's another option - one that many, many people take.

3. The guy has to work his ass off like he probably never has before in his life. He works, most likely (in the early years of school anyways) at a low wage job, *and* completes his studies.

Believe it or not, people work and study all the time. I knew a woman who worked full-time, had college age children, and gave birth to a newborn while in a 4-year difficult engineering degree. She managed.

There's another option - one that many, many people take.

3. The guy has to work his ass off like he probably never has before in his life. He works, most likely (in the early years of school anyways) at a low wage job, *and* completes his studies.

Believe it or not, people work and study all the time. I knew a woman who worked full-time, had college age children, and gave birth to a newborn while in a 4-year difficult engineering degree. She managed.

I think you're absolutely correct and thank you for bringing this up. It is definately a viable (if difficult) option for those who find themselves in that situation.

First off, I don't plan to debate this, I just want to see what the reaction is to this concept of abortion. I'm not heartless, I'm just curious. So, here goes.

Let's start with a hypothetical situation: Billy and Sally are two young people. They have no clearly defined religious beliefs, and are attending the same college. Billy has a part time job to pay for expenses, and Sally's parents cover hers.

Billy and Sally meet at a party and really hit it off. They leave together and go to Billy's apartment. They spend a night getting to know each other in the biblical sense (while using a condom of course). They bid each other adieu the following morning both accepting it as a one night stand.

A month later, Sally is concerned because she is far over due for her period, and has been missing classes because of nausea. She goes to her doctor to discover that she is pregnant.

Calling Billy, she relays the information. He is shocked and doesn't know how to respond. He can't support a baby financially without quitting school and going to work full time, but that would ruin his hope of one day being a doctor. Turning to the only alternative he could see, he suggests an abortion. Sally is appalled, for she is morally opposed to abortion, and would never do such a thing. Because of the laws in his nation, Billy has no say in the matter.

Several months later, Sally gives birth to the baby. The baby suffers from fetal alcohol syndrome from Sally's college drinking binges, and requires significant medical attention. The baby will need extensive medical care through out its development, but is mentally fine.

Billy is forced by his state to pay child support for the following 18 years and is forced from college and into the workforce so that he can meet the high payments. He leads a life not at all comparable to the one he would have had he finished school or not been forced to pay child support.



So, the key issue is: If the man has no say on whether or not a baby is born, why is he responsible for supporting that child to age 18?

The average cost of raising a child from birth to age 18 is $250,000 working out to about $20,850 a year. That is a significant dent to almost anyone's income, but especially if you are not college educated and can not attain a high salary position. This is not even considering that a mentally or physically retarded baby would cost astronomically more.

It seems unfair to me that men are on the really short end of the stick here. They have no part in the decision making process, but have atleast half the financial responsibility.

I'm not suggesting that fathers should have the power to force mothers into getting an abortion, but instead that if the mother opts not to get an abortion, the father should be able to, through legal action, sever himself from the financial burden of the unwanted child.

It takes two parties to make a baby, but only the mother gets to decide whether or not the baby goes to term or is aborted, and by extension, the fate of the father.

Thoughts, criticisms (constructive preferably)?

This is all well and good. If the baby was say a piano, then I would be all for the father terminating his rights and the piano being cared for or not cared for by the mother. However, in this scenario there is most certainly a person who has rights and needs. Those needs are to be filled by either the father and mother or responsible agreeable surrogates. Now, in the case of adoption the surrogates must agree to take on the responsibility and someone acting on behalf of the child must accept the new sorrogates.

In the case of adoption, the new parents act on behalf of the child and in the interest of the child. However, in the case of the father giving up his responsibilities and rights, he is not acting on behalf of the child and the child has no advocate in this scenario.

The child has rights. It's rights must be met by the parent until it is either 18 or a responsible replacement has been found. You've not offered one.

I propose a solution. Any woman who aborts is legally required to support an orphan (Financially) if the father of the aborted child can be found to be forced into child support (for the orphan). Now no one has the legal right to cut off responsibility for a child.

This actually sounds like an acceptable solution to me. Not only do we even out the responsibility, but we can get a better level of financial support for all those poor orphans. Of course that's still the problem of punishing people for having sex, but anyone in favor of forced child support for biological children should jump at the chance to punish people for having sex.


when you add that to the societal problem of massive numbers of men walking away from their financial responsibility to their own children, its a bad idea.

You know, this brings up an intersting question. Where does this obligation people have toward their children come from in the first place? Why do parents owe their children 18 years of financial support? What do parents get out of the deal? Who owes who what and why in the parent child relationship?

Okay... Next on by Means:

*snip*

Nice pedophilia.

*snip*

That one wasn't a contradiction.

First off, I don't plan to debate this, I just want to see what the reaction is to this concept of abortion. I'm not heartless, I'm just curious. So, here goes.

Let's start with a hypothetical situation: Billy and Sally are two young people. They have no clearly defined religious beliefs, and are attending the same college. Billy has a part time job to pay for expenses, and Sally's parents cover hers.

Billy and Sally meet at a party and really hit it off. They leave together and go to Billy's apartment. They spend a night getting to know each other in the biblical sense (while using a condom of course). They bid each other adieu the following morning both accepting it as a one night stand.

A month later, Sally is concerned because she is far over due for her period, and has been missing classes because of nausea. She goes to her doctor to discover that she is pregnant.

Calling Billy, she relays the information. He is shocked and doesn't know how to respond. He can't support a baby financially without quitting school and going to work full time, but that would ruin his hope of one day being a doctor. Turning to the only alternative he could see, he suggests an abortion. Sally is appalled, for she is morally opposed to abortion, and would never do such a thing. Because of the laws in his nation, Billy has no say in the matter.

Several months later, Sally gives birth to the baby. The baby suffers from fetal alcohol syndrome from Sally's college drinking binges, and requires significant medical attention. The baby will need extensive medical care through out its development, but is mentally fine.

Billy is forced by his state to pay child support for the following 18 years and is forced from college and into the workforce so that he can meet the high payments. He leads a life not at all comparable to the one he would have had he finished school or not been forced to pay child support.



So, the key issue is: If the man has no say on whether or not a baby is born, why is he responsible for supporting that child to age 18?

The average cost of raising a child from birth to age 18 is $250,000 working out to about $20,850 a year. That is a significant dent to almost anyone's income, but especially if you are not college educated and can not attain a high salary position. This is not even considering that a mentally or physically retarded baby would cost astronomically more.

It seems unfair to me that men are on the really short end of the stick here. They have no part in the decision making process, but have atleast half the financial responsibility.

I'm not suggesting that fathers should have the power to force mothers into getting an abortion, but instead that if the mother opts not to get an abortion, the father should be able to, through legal action, sever himself from the financial burden of the unwanted child.

It takes two parties to make a baby, but only the mother gets to decide whether or not the baby goes to term or is aborted, and by extension, the fate of the father.

Thoughts, criticisms (constructive preferably)?

The sperm donor gave up his "create/destroy-a-baby" rights when his sperm left his body voluntarily.

The fact that the ovum donor has more control of the "create/destroy-a-baby" process, due to the process being in her body, has no bearing on him having given up his rights.

Once the sperm and the ovum have combined into a potential baby, it is an entirely new entity, and it is now under the utter control of the new mother, of whom it is a part.

The sperm donor has rights to only the dispensation of his sperm, while the mother has rights to that which is integrally part of her.


The sperm donor is RESPONSIBLE for the baby because his sperm was the catalyst that started the process that would result in the baby.

Thus, he is responsible for the outcome of the process but has no say in the outcome of the process.

Billy has a responsiblity to help finacially with the child. They both made the choice to have sex and now they both have the responsibility to bring up the child. Sally was very irresponsible in her decision to drink during pregnancy and should have had consequences other than the baby's illness.

I'm pro-life with the exception of extreme circumstances. Rape victims and if the mother is in danger of losing her life.

People choose to have sex. They know the consequences of their actions could lead to a child. They should have to live with the responsibility of raising the child and not just throw it away as garbage because they don't feel like raising a child.

Bottom Line: If you want to play, take the responsibility of what happens afterwards. People need to be more responsible for their actions. This stuff is almost as bad as the insanity defense.

So, women should be allowed, by law, to sleep around all they want and not risk financial obligations from it, but men should not?

One thing I don't understand. If the man terminates his obligations, why does everybody assume that there'll be a mother having to pay for a child alone? She can still abort, can she not? If she can't afford the cost of raising a child alone and the father won't help pay, then she should abort. It's pretty simple. Hell, if a man gets a paper abortion and that causes a woman to choose to abort, then have the man be forced to cover the abortion costs if you want to. That's fair enough.
Actually, that brings me to something I've been thinking about the last few days. It seems to me, ultimately, this debate is about who should have a difficult, life affecting choice forced upon them. Who should have to sit down and think long and hard about what they will do, and who should not have to make that choice.

As it is now, men have to make the tough choice: Live without sex, or give up your ability to make choices about your financial future.
With paper abortions, it's the woman with the tough choice:
Abort and lose your potential child (a clump of cells, at this point) when you may not really want to, or have a tough life of having to do extra work to raise the child.
The entire debate, to me, seems to be about which choice is more just to force upon somebody. Because sex is so basic an instinct, so powerful a drive, I'd argue the choice between sex and free will is more unjust. In comparison, an abortion is the loss of a clump of cells. If a woman wants a baby and can't afford one on her own, she can leave the man who won't pay for a child and find a better man, one who will, and have him be the father instead. However, I recognize this point is entirely an opinion, based on one's personal perspective, and is the sort of opinion that is very difficult to convince somebody else that yours is the correct. Therefore, I'm going to state that I'm arguing from the view that the first choice is more unjust to force upon somebody else than the first. If you can convince me otherwise, then I may agree with the rest of the argument against paper abortions.

You could get the best of both options by having the state pay for the early years and then when the father graduates (etc) and starts paying child support he also starts paying back the state (inflation adjusted) for the early years. The amount the state pays should probably be the amount the father would have been able to pay when flipping burgers rather than improving his earning potential.
I like this. A lot. Actually, make him pay a bit of interest, too, to account for the fact that some people will fail out and not be able to pay back their full obligations. In fact, set the rate so that the state would probably make a small profit. (That way there's a nice little saftey barrier to fall back on should there be a sudden increase in people not paying back.) This would, in the long run, not increase the tax burden at all because the money is getting paid back to the state. So, no tax increase, the child is paid for(probably better than it would be without this idea), and men do not have to choose between life as a virgin and having a financial future. Perfect.
In fact, I think I may like this idea better than paper abortions. Sure, men still get kinda the short end of the "choice" stick, but it ends out working the best. I mean, the amount he'd have to pay back would be almost negligible compared to the paycheck he'd be getting. It'd be such a small percentage he'd have no reason to complain.
Allow women to have the same deal, too, of course. Let the state pay for their child if they're still in school. Let the woman complete her education and get a good job while still being there *as a parent* for the child, though the state pays for it, and then, once she has her good job, she pays the state back too.

I might have to make a new thread about *this* idea, as it's fairly distinct from paper abortions, but it's a good enough idea that I think it merits its own discussion.

Sorry in advance if some of my wording is a little confusing, I went back and edited the way I worded a lot of stuff, so I probably have some redundancy issues or something. I proofread it a few times, and I didn't catch anything, but I know something probably slipped past me.

So, women should be allowed, by law, to sleep around all they want and not risk financial obligations from it, but men should not?

One thing I don't understand. If the man terminates his obligations, why does everybody assume that there'll be a mother having to pay for a child alone? She can still abort, can she not? If she can't afford the cost of raising a child alone and the father won't help pay, then she should abort. It's pretty simple. Hell, if a man gets a paper abortion and that causes a woman to choose to abort, then have the man be forced to cover the abortion costs if you want to. That's fair enough.
Actually, that brings me to something I've been thinking about the last few days. It seems to me, ultimately, this debate is about who should have a difficult, life affecting choice forced upon them. Who should have to sit down and think long and hard about what they will do, and who should not have to make that choice.

As it is now, men have to make the tough choice: Live without sex, or give up your ability to make choices about your financial future.
With paper abortions, it's the woman with the tough choice:
Abort and lose your potential child (a clump of cells, at this point) when you may not really want to, or have a tough life of having to do extra work to raise the child.
The entire debate, to me, seems to be about which choice is more just to force upon somebody. Because sex is so basic an instinct, so powerful a drive, I'd argue the choice between sex and free will is more unjust. In comparison, an abortion is the loss of a clump of cells. If a woman wants a baby and can't afford one on her own, she can leave the man who won't pay for a child and find a better man, one who will, and have him be the father instead. However, I recognize this point is entirely an opinion, based on one's personal perspective, and is the sort of opinion that is very difficult to convince somebody else that yours is the correct. Therefore, I'm going to state that I'm arguing from the view that the first choice is more unjust to force upon somebody else than the first. If you can convince me otherwise, then I may agree with the rest of the argument against paper abortions.

Yay, EQUALITY. I'm all for it.

First, if a woman gets pregnant and the guy wants the baby and she does to. If she dies. So does he. And he gets to have his organs damaged. And just for fun we'll tear the skin on his penis. He'll get an equal slice in the pregnancy pie. We'll inject him with hormones, we'll up his chances as suicide. All the good stuff.

And if she gets an abortion, we'll still inject him with hormones and we'll put him through surgery.

See how silly it is when we ask the law to correct for biology? And, of course, your equitable solution doesn't account at all for the child, but, hey, who cares about the infant, right?

The whole scenario illustrates why guys should only play with other guys until and unless they make the decision that they want to be shackl-- er-- rather, that is, that they want to partake in the.. uh.. beautiful.. thing.. that is the creation of a child and subsequent fatherhood. If Billy had just stuck to messing around with his frat brothers instead... excuse me... <fanning myself> whew... then he wouldn't be in that whole predicament. No accidental or unwanted pregnancies with the boy-on-boy action.

(by the way, can we get some stats on Billy, just for the sake of fleshing out the mental images?) :) har har.

The whole scenario illustrates why guys should only play with other guys until and unless they make the decision that they want to be shackl-- er-- rather, that is, that they want to partake in the.. uh.. beautiful.. thing.. that is the creation of a child and subsequent fatherhood. If Billy had just stuck to messing around with his frat brothers instead... excuse me... <fanning myself> whew... then he wouldn't be in that whole predicament. No accidental or unwanted pregnancies with the boy-on-boy action.

(by the way, can we get some stats on Billy, just for the sake of fleshing out the mental images?) :) har har.

ahahahah.

So, women should be allowed, by law, to sleep around all they want and not risk financial obligations from it, but men should not?

No, both parties risk financial obligations from it.

Actually, that brings me to something I've been thinking about the last few days. It seems to me, ultimately, this debate is about who should have a difficult, life affecting choice forced upon them. Who should have to sit down and think long and hard about what they will do, and who should not have to make that choice.

Because a woman who has to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term doens't have to sit down and think long and hard about what they will do? They have no tough choices to make?

Meanwhile, your entire argument relies upon the idea that all women are willing to make the choice to abort. For some, it is not an option, period. As such, they are faced with the exact same choice as men. They either give up sex, or risk becoming a parent.

The sperm donor gave up his "create/destroy-a-baby" rights when his sperm left his body voluntarily.

The fact that the ovum donor has more control of the "create/destroy-a-baby" process, due to the process being in her body, has no bearing on him having given up his rights.

Once the sperm and the ovum have combined into a potential baby, it is an entirely new entity, and it is now under the utter control of the new mother, of whom it is a part.

The sperm donor has rights to only the dispensation of his sperm, while the mother has rights to that which is integrally part of her.


The sperm donor is RESPONSIBLE for the baby because his sperm was the catalyst that started the process that would result in the baby.

Thus, he is responsible for the outcome of the process but has no say in the outcome of the process.

Okay... so then women (the ovum donor/incubator) alone enjoy any post-sexual autonomy? A willfilly promiscuous woman can-- depending on the laws or the improvised means available to her-- choose never to use protection, choose to get pregnant like it's going out of style, and choose to abort every last fetus that burrows into her uterus, while men are reduced to "sperm donors" who-- once they've offed a load (and regardless, apparently, of the effectiveness of a condom)-- forfeit any future autonomy? The "sperm donor" no more bears SOLE responsibility than the "ovum donor" because his 'catalyst' is irrelevant without her participation, excepting cases of non-consentual sex. Excepting those cases, she chose to go at it just as much as he did.

Don't get me wrong: I support women's rights to exercise control over their own bodies, and if a woman wants to abort a fetus that's inside her body, I think she has that option. But just as there are factors a woman considers in choosing to have an abortion, there are factors she should be required to consider before choosing *not* to. If the man she had sex with cannot force her to have an abortion, and he cannot force her not to-- cannot force her to live her life as a mother-- then she shouldn't have the power to force him to live his life as a father. The logic bcomes clearer if you turn it around and imagine that the "sperm donor" could somehow prevent an abortion (suppose a mentally projected force-field, if you must-- we're using our imaginations). I'd wager that any woman would consider it a total affront to her autonomy if she didn't want to be a mother, wanted an abortion, but couldn't do so because the guy that knocked her up didn't consent to it. Entrapment *either way* is unjust, because entrapment *is* unjust.

One person's rights don't exist in a vaccuum; how we exercise our rights can impact the rights of others, and in those cases rights must be balanced with responsibilities. If a mother has the power to *exclude* her unborn child's father from the child's life, the father ought to have the power to exclude himself, and if he chooses to do so then the mother, thankfully, has the right to exercise her choice to abort or to undertake raising a child that she alone wants. Otherwise-- if the mother is the sole decider of *three* people's lives, then that isn't equality, it's a tyranny of the uterus.

The woman shouldn't be the lone arbiter of whether a mistake, or an accident, has consequences. Making the baby takes two. Therefore both parties should have a say in whether the sex act obliges them to be parents.

<snip>
it's a tyranny of the uterus.

<snip>

Hahahaha! Sorry, I know this is a serious subject, but I find that phrase very funny.

:p

BEWARE THE UTERUS! (maybe this should be my sig now.. hehe)

Don't get me wrong: I support women's rights to exercise control over their own bodies, and if a woman wants to abort a fetus that's inside her body, I think she has that option. But just as there are factors a woman considers in choosing to have an abortion, there are factors she should be required to consider before choosing *not* to. If the man she had sex with cannot force her to have an abortion, and he cannot force her not to-- cannot force her to live her life as a mother-- then she shouldn't have the power to force him to live his life as a father.

She doesn't have any such power. Even under the legal system as it now stands, it is the child's rights that require him to be, in some sense, a father.

One person's rights don't exist in a vaccuum; how we exercise our rights can impact the rights of others, and in those cases rights must be balanced with responsibilities. If a mother has the power to *exclude* her unborn child's father from the child's life, the father ought to have the power to exclude himself, and if he chooses to do so then the mother, thankfully, has the right to exercise her choice to abort or to undertake raising a child that she alone wants. Otherwise-- if the mother is the sole decider of *three* people's lives, then that isn't equality, it's a tyranny of the uterus.

One problem, legally, a woman does not have the power to exclude her child's father from the child's life. She cannot terminate his parental responsibilities or rights. Now, she might try to exclude him. Sometimes, she may even be right in doing so. But the fact remains that she has no legal power to do so.

The woman shouldn't be the lone arbiter of whether a mistake, or an accident, has consequences.

She isn't. An unplanned pregnancy has consequences no matter how you look at it - and a woman has to deal with more of them than a man.

Making the baby takes two. Therefore both parties should have a say in whether the sex act obliges them to be parents.

The sex act cannot oblige anyone to be parents. There are all sorts of things that can occur between the sex act and a birth that will prevent anyone involved from being parents. It is the birth of a child that obligates parents to take responsibility for it. And, yes, the woman is the final arbiter of whether or not birth occurs. Of course, she is the one who has to give birth, so we can't very well make the man the arbiter, can we?

Okay... so then women (the ovum donor/incubator) alone enjoy any post-sexual autonomy? A willfilly promiscuous woman can-- depending on the laws or the improvised means available to her-- choose never to use protection, choose to get pregnant like it's going out of style, and choose to abort every last fetus that burrows into her uterus, while men are reduced to "sperm donors" who-- once they've offed a load (and regardless, apparently, of the effectiveness of a condom)-- forfeit any future autonomy? The "sperm donor" no more bears SOLE responsibility than the "ovum donor" because his 'catalyst' is irrelevant without her participation, excepting cases of non-consentual sex. Excepting those cases, she chose to go at it just as much as he did.

Don't get me wrong: I support women's rights to exercise control over their own bodies, and if a woman wants to abort a fetus that's inside her body, I think she has that option. But just as there are factors a woman considers in choosing to have an abortion, there are factors she should be required to consider before choosing *not* to. If the man she had sex with cannot force her to have an abortion, and he cannot force her not to-- cannot force her to live her life as a mother-- then she shouldn't have the power to force him to live his life as a father. The logic bcomes clearer if you turn it around and imagine that the "sperm donor" could somehow prevent an abortion (suppose a mentally projected force-field, if you must-- we're using our imaginations). I'd wager that any woman would consider it a total affront to her autonomy if she didn't want to be a mother, wanted an abortion, but couldn't do so because the guy that knocked her up didn't consent to it. Entrapment *either way* is unjust, because entrapment *is* unjust.

One person's rights don't exist in a vaccuum; how we exercise our rights can impact the rights of others, and in those cases rights must be balanced with responsibilities. If a mother has the power to *exclude* her unborn child's father from the child's life, the father ought to have the power to exclude himself, and if he chooses to do so then the mother, thankfully, has the right to exercise her choice to abort or to undertake raising a child that she alone wants. Otherwise-- if the mother is the sole decider of *three* people's lives, then that isn't equality, it's a tyranny of the uterus.

The woman shouldn't be the lone arbiter of whether a mistake, or an accident, has consequences. Making the baby takes two. Therefore both parties should have a say in whether the sex act obliges them to be parents.

And yet another post that completely ignores the rights of the child. In an abortion, the child need not be represented because no child ever will exist. However, in the case of a father denying responsiblity for his progeny we must represent the child because the child has rights. This is a battle of the sexes once the child exists. The father is beholden to the child, not the mother. No amount of trying to even this out will ever be enough unless the child is the primary object in the discussion.

Believe it or not, people work and study all the time. I knew a woman who worked full-time, had college age children, and gave birth to a newborn while in a 4-year difficult engineering degree. She managed.
Wanna bet that you're leaving something out? ;)

Okay... so then women (the ovum donor/incubator) alone enjoy any post-sexual autonomy?

No, in that situation both women and men would be enjoying equal autonomy. Both women and men are free to choose how their own bodies participate in reproduction.

It just so happens that a man's body does not participate in pregnancy. Sorry, lads, but that's how you're made. If I could change things so that men's and women's bodies participated equally in pregnancy, I would!

Women's bodies continue to participate in reproduction after sex. Men's bodies don't.

I support any man's right to abort (or continue) any pregnancy occuring in his body. I oppose any man's (or woman's) right to decide whether somebody else will abort or continue their own pregnancy.


A willfilly promiscuous woman can-- depending on the laws or the improvised means available to her-- choose never to use protection, choose to get pregnant like it's going out of style, and choose to abort every last fetus that burrows into her uterus, while men are reduced to "sperm donors" who-- once they've offed a load (and regardless, apparently, of the effectiveness of a condom)-- forfeit any future autonomy?

In the situation you are describing, men have precisely the same amount of autonomy as women. Men are free to be willfully promiscuous, to choose whether or not they use protection, and can choose exactly how, when, and with whom they are sexually active. Men lack any right to make such choices for another person, just as women do.

In the situation you are describing, women are not forcing men's bodies to participate in reproduction any longer than those men choose. Men remain free to decline sexual activity, to insist upon contraceptive measures, and to make their own personal medical choices (such as whether or not to get a vasectomy, etc).

On a side note, I find it cute that you think women can "decide" to be pregnant. As if women have conscious control over when/if they become pregnant! Oh, if only...


The "sperm donor" no more bears SOLE responsibility than the "ovum donor" because his 'catalyst' is irrelevant without her participation, excepting cases of non-consentual sex. Excepting those cases, she chose to go at it just as much as he did.

Yes, she chose to have sex. I don't know why this needs to be repeated so often, but...

CHOOSING TO HAVE SEX DOES NOT EQUAL CHOSING TO CARRY A PREGNANCY TO TERM AND THEN GIVE BIRTH.

I once decided to go skiing. One possible outcome of going skiing is that you could break your leg. If I had broken my leg, would you be sitting there telling me I have no right to take aspirin or get a cast because I chose to ski? Would you waste your time telling me that I "consented" to have my leg remain unset because I had "consented" to ski? Maybe you would, but it seems damn silly to me.


Don't get me wrong: I support women's rights to exercise control over their own bodies, and if a woman wants to abort a fetus that's inside her body, I think she has that option. But just as there are factors a woman considers in choosing to have an abortion, there are factors she should be required to consider before choosing *not* to. If the man she had sex with cannot force her to have an abortion, and he cannot force her not to-- cannot force her to live her life as a mother-- then she shouldn't have the power to force him to live his life as a father.

The woman doesn't "force" any of this. The man's obligation is to the child, if one is born. Not to the woman. To the child.

Again, the man has the absolute right to control how HIS OWN BODY participates in reproduction. He has no right whatsoever to control how anybody else's body does so. This is a totally separate issue from his obligations to existing biological offspring of his.


The logic bcomes clearer if you turn it around and imagine that the "sperm donor" could somehow prevent an abortion (suppose a mentally projected force-field, if you must-- we're using our imaginations). I'd wager that any woman would consider it a total affront to her autonomy if she didn't want to be a mother, wanted an abortion, but couldn't do so because the guy that knocked her up didn't consent to it. Entrapment *either way* is unjust, because entrapment *is* unjust.

If women could magically choose to become pregnant or choose to never have become pregnant at will, then perhaps you would have a point.


One person's rights don't exist in a vaccuum; how we exercise our rights can impact the rights of others, and in those cases rights must be balanced with responsibilities. If a mother has the power to *exclude* her unborn child's father from the child's life, the father ought to have the power to exclude himself, and if he chooses to do so then the mother, thankfully, has the right to exercise her choice to abort or to undertake raising a child that she alone wants. Otherwise-- if the mother is the sole decider of *three* people's lives, then that isn't equality, it's a tyranny of the uterus.

Demi has already responded to this quite thoroughly, and said all I would say (and better).


The woman shouldn't be the lone arbiter of whether a mistake, or an accident, has consequences.

She isn't. Women can't magically make a pregnancy never have happened. The consequence IS the pregnancy, and the woman is going to have to deal with it no matter what. She may choose to abort it, or she may choose to carry to term, but either way she WILL be dealing with it. She cannot do otherwise.

Wanna bet that you're leaving something out? ;)

Such as?

Such as?
Why, the MAN, of course! I'm sure she had a big strong man who did all the heavy lifting and jar-opening for her, right? She'd never have been able to manage being so tough and successful without a MAN in the picture. You're clearly just leaving him out because you're a nasty man-hating feminist. Admit it! OWN UP, YOU HARPY!!!

(kidding, kidding)

Why, the MAN, of course! I'm sure she had a big strong man who did all the heavy lifting and jar-opening for her, right? She'd never have been able to manage being so tough and successful without a MAN in the picture. You're clearly just leaving him out because you're a nasty man-hating feminist. Admit it! OWN UP, YOU HARPY!!!

(kidding, kidding)

She was married, and I'm sure her husband was very supportive (before anyone thinks I'm leaving him out completely, LOL). But it still doesn't change the fact that, even with such support, she was doing much, much, much more than your average college student. =)

(And stop telling people my secret!)

Meanwhile, your entire argument relies upon the idea that all women are willing to make the choice to abort. For some, it is not an option, period. As such, they are faced with the exact same choice as men. They either give up sex, or risk becoming a parent.

Irrelevant. She has the option to abort. If she choses not to, for the purposes of her morality, then that's her own fault.

Your argument hinges on the idea that all men are willing to make the choice to not have sex. For some, it is not an option, period. As such, they literaly have zero choice. They risk becoming a father.
Doesn't that sound completely idiotic? That's how the "she doesn't want to abort" argument sounds to me. What if the man is an Epicureanist (or anything similar), in which the greatest good is to seek pleasure? To him, it would be completely against the "greatest good," and therefore, would be great evil, to not have sex (against good generally being evil...). Now, who is to say that her moral code is better than his? Essentially, I'd argue that you have to ignore the fact that some people believe something is immoral in cases like this. You have to look at what they could do with the law being the only limitation.

I once decided to go skiing. One possible outcome of going skiing is that you could break your leg. If I had broken my leg, would you be sitting there telling me I have no right to take aspirin or get a cast because I chose to ski? Would you waste your time telling me that I "consented" to have my leg remain unset because I had "consented" to ski? Maybe you would, but it seems damn silly to me.

Okay, I'll give a better analogy:
I once decided to go skiing. It's possible that you'll collide with somebody else while skiing. Let's say that I go skiing and I collide with somebody on the slopes, despite the fact that we are both taking all reasonable precautions to avoid such an outcome. Accidents still happen. The other person is injured pretty badly in the accident. He damages his spine and is paralyzed. Now, pretend that they've found a treatment with stem cells for it and this happens a while after the cure is found, and it's become a fairly inexpensive treatment. However, this man thinks stem cell research is wrong. It's "not an option" for him. He goes through some extremely expensive and time-consuming rehab process that costs a lot of money and isn't covered by his insurance. Would you waste your time telling me that I'd have to pay his rehab expenses because I'd "consented" to ski(And to keep the analogy even more equal to the original example, say I'm a college student that couldn't afford those expenses, so I had to drop out of college to get a full-time job so I could afford them.)? Maybe you would, but it seems damn silly to me.

Now, I at least do see your point. It has merit, but I think that if women can be promiscous and not have to risk a financial obligation on the level of raising a child for 18 years, then men should be able to do so also.

With paper abortions, each situation would have a fair solution for both when a woman gets pregnant:

If she wants a child but he does not, he paper aborts. The can then get a regular abortion and have a baby with another man who will support her. (or, if she can afford it, she can keep the child.) If she chooses not to abort, though, then she has to work extra, yes. But it's because of her beliefs. Sometimes, doing what you believe is right isn't easy. It requires sacrifice. In this case, it means she has to take another job.

If he wants a child and she does not, he can find a woman who does want one.

If they both want one, then it's fine, obviously.

If neither wants one, then it's fine, obviously.

In the current situation, this happens when she gets pregnant:

She wants a baby, he doesn't: tough shit for him, he can never get a decent education or a job because of her beliefs.

He wants a baby, she doesn't: He can find another woman. Fair enough.

Neither want a baby: it works.

Both do: it works.

Basically, the main difference is in the situation where she wants a baby but he does not. In the paper abortion situation, that situation works out.

Now, I admit there are problems with this system. But at least everybody gets to make their own choices about their futures. But at least it doesn't have the problem where women lie about being on birth control so that they can screw over some guy like what we have now does. (And don't claim it never happens. It's probably uncommon, but shouldn't we seek to eliminate such injustices as best we can?)

Of course, the more I think about it, the more I like:
You could get the best of both options by having the state pay for the early years and then when the father graduates (etc) and starts paying child support he also starts paying back the state (inflation adjusted) for the early years. The amount the state pays should probably be the amount the father would have been able to pay when flipping burgers rather than improving his earning potential.
I like this. A lot. Actually, make him pay a bit of interest, too, to account for the fact that some people will fail out and not be able to pay back their full obligations. In fact, set the rate so that the state would probably make a small profit. (That way there's a nice little saftey barrier to fall back on should there be a sudden increase in people not paying back.) This would, in the long run, not increase the tax burden at all because the money is getting paid back to the state. So, no tax increase, the child is paid for(probably better than it would be without this idea), and men do not have to choose between life as a virgin and having a financial future. Perfect.
In fact, I think I may like this idea better than paper abortions. Sure, men still get kinda the short end of the "choice" stick, but it ends out working the best. I mean, the amount he'd have to pay back would be almost negligible compared to the paycheck he'd be getting. It'd be such a small percentage he'd have no reason to complain.
Allow women to have the same deal, too, of course. Let the state pay for their child if they're still in school. Let the woman complete her education and get a good job while still being there *as a parent* for the child, though the state pays for it, and then, once she has her good job, she pays the state back too.
You didn't address this part of my post, I notice. I think this is a fair compromise: It's possible to be sexually active yet have a financial future, the child gets looked after, and the woman is free to abort or not without having to consider whether the man pays or not.

Or are you so intent on giving men the short straw that you're unwilling to assent to a compromise that hurts no one else but benefits men? (Well, I suppose it hurts the men who go into debt to the state and then fail out of school, giving them a large, hard to pay back debt. But that's the risk you take when you take out a loan, I suppose.) Indeed, it benefits the child and the mother, too. Because the father is much less likely to resent his child for forcing him out of college, he is likely to be willing to be the father figure to the child, which can only help his development, no?
I think, with refinement, this is the idea that would benefit the most people and take away the fewest rights.

Irrelevant. She has the option to abort. If she choses not to, for the purposes of her morality, then that's her own fault.

That is one way to look at it. But it isn't, in any way, the fault of the child that results. And a parent attempting to terminate parental responsibilities is affecting that child's life.

Your argument hinges on the idea that all men are willing to make the choice to not have sex. For some, it is not an option, period. As such, they literaly have zero choice. They risk becoming a father.

It hinges on no such thing. I'm well aware that many men and women are not willing to abstain from sex. Of course, by making the choice to do so, they incur the risks.

For me, not driving isn't an option. I cannot get to work and back without driving. And, each time I get in my car, I know that I might be in an accident, and will have to deal with the consequences of an accident if it occurs.

Doesn't that sound completely idiotic? That's how the "she doesn't want to abort" argument sounds to me. What if the man is an Epicureanist (or anything similar), in which the greatest good is to seek pleasure? To him, it would be completely against the "greatest good," and therefore, would be great evil, to not have sex (against good generally being evil...). Now, who is to say that her moral code is better than his?

It isn't a matter of her moral code being better than his. It's a matter of hers being the only one that matters in whether or not an abortion occurs.

Essentially, I'd argue that you have to ignore the fact that some people believe something is immoral in cases like this. You have to look at what they could do with the law being the only limitation.

Really? Well, in that case, all is already equal. Men and women have exactly equivalent obligations to their children.


With paper abortions, each situation would have a fair solution for both when a woman gets pregnant:

Not at all. A woman, no matter how you look at it, bears the physical brunt of any decisions that are made.

The problem here is that three is no way to make unplanned pregnancy fair for both parents. It is biologically impossible. Unless the human species changes so that men have just as much chance of getting pregnant as women, the process will never be "fair."

And that's really just the way it goes. There are many things that are biologically unfair, most of which we can't "fix.".

She wants a baby, he doesn't: tough shit for him, he can never get a decent education or a job because of her beliefs.

This is an incredible exageration. Many people with children succeed in life, even if they have them unplanned and are financially unstable. There are people who work full time jobs and finish 4-year degrees. There are people who have children earlier than planned and still manag to get decent jobs. It is more difficult, yes, but not impossible.

A more accurate description of the current legal situation would be: She gets pregnant and decides not to abort, exercising her right to make her own medical decisions. A child is born. Both are now parents. Both are legally obligated to the born child. Both parents will most likely have to sacrifice and take on new or extra jobs.

Basically, the main difference is in the situation where she wants a baby but he does not. In the paper abortion situation, that situation works out.

It works out, but for whom?

You didn't address this part of my post, I notice. I think this is a fair compromise: It's possible to be sexually active yet have a financial future, the child gets looked after, and the woman is free to abort or not without having to consider whether the man pays or not.

Or are you so intent on giving men the short straw that you're unwilling to assent to a compromise that hurts no one else but benefits men? (Well, I suppose it hurts the men who go into debt to the state and then fail out of school, giving them a large, hard to pay back debt. But that's the risk you take when you take out a loan, I suppose.) Indeed, it benefits the child and the mother, too. Because the father is much less likely to resent his child for forcing him out of college, he is likely to be willing to be the father figure to the child, which can only help his development, no?
I think, with refinement, this is the idea that would benefit the most people and take away the fewest rights.

I'm not sure if this part was directed at me, since at least part of the quote was not from my post, but I'll address it anyways.

I have made it clear that I actually support a legal "out" for deadbeat parents at or before the birth of a child. I simply don't pretend that it is about rights or making things fair for men or women. It is about the welfare of the child - plain and simple. If some asshole doesn't want to step up and take care of his child, I think the child is better off without him - completely without him. And this is true whether that parent is male or female. I'd rather see a child in a loving home, but on state support, than have an unloving deadbeat parent around, in any capacity.

And no, I don't think it is a better situation for the man to put off being a father for 4 to 5 years of a child's life, and then disrupt that child's life by showing up. "Hello, son. I thought that other things were much more important than your welfare for the past four years, but now I really want to be your dad!" :rolleyes:

If a parent is unwilling to take care of their child, fine, society can take up the slack for their irresponsible actions. But that decision should be absolutely permanent, so that the child can be placed in a loving home that isn't going to be disrupted a few years down the line when some deadbeat decides that his child really is important now.

There have actually been cases about whether or not the law should (or would) take religion into consideration when determining liability for damages (or the responsibility to mitigate damages on the part of an injured plaintiff).

The only one that I know off the top of my head is Williams v. Bright out of New York:

Jehovah's Witness who was injured in automobile accident brought negligence action. Following jury trial in the Supreme Court, New York County, Edward Greenfield, J., 167 Misc.2d 179, 637 N.Y.S.2d 915, judgment was entered for plaintiff. Defendant appealed. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Wallach, J., held that instruction on mitigation of damages, requiring jury to determine whether plaintiff acted reasonably as Jehovah's Witness in declining recommended surgeries following automobile accident, constituted endorsement of religion in violation of First Amendment.
Judgment reversed in part; remanded for new trial on damages alone.
Rosenberger, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Alternatively here is a Law Review Article on the topic (I have included only the introduction and the conclusion for the sake of not taking up a huge amount of space. If yall would like for the entire article to be posted, I will do so or alternately will email it to interested people):

FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
25 Ohio N.U. L. Rev. 381

Ohio Northern University Law Review
1999

Student Article

*381 REFUSAL OF MEDICAL TREATMENT ON THE BASIS OF RELIGION AND AN ANALYSIS OF THE DUTY TO MITIGATE DAMAGES UNDER FREE EXERCISE JURISPRUDENCE

Ben Ritterspach

Copyright © 1999 Ohio Northern University Law Review; Ben Ritterspach

I. Introduction

Courts have generally acknowledged that a patient has the right to refuse medical treatment for religious reasons [FN1] when the patient is a competent adult, childless, and not pregnant. [FN2] A unique problem arises when a patient who has refused medical treatment due to his or her religious beliefs seeks recovery in tort for the injury suffered. These situations arise most often with respect to Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists who, citing their religious faith, refuse to allow physicians to transfuse blood. [FN3] The Jehovah's Witness' belief against blood transfusions stems from biblical interpretations that equate blood with life. [FN4] They forbid its use for medical purposes believing that accepting a blood transfusion will deny them eternal life. [FN5] Christian Scientists do not forbid all medical treatment; however, they believe that illness can and should be cured by faith healing. They view medical treatment as a lapse in faith rather than a direct sin against God and are taught that medical and faith healing are incompatible and cannot be combined. [FN6] A question generated by such beliefs is whether a court should reduce the plaintiff's recovery because the plaintiff failed to mitigate his or her damages when sincerely held religious convictions compelled that failure. [FN7]

In attempting to resolve this problem, courts may run afoul of First Amendment principles if the mitigation rule is not applied in a way that accommodates the religious beliefs of these patients. [FN8] On the other hand, *382 recent developments in free exercise jurisprudence may render such accommodations inappropriate and unnecessary under a re-tooled framework for analyzing free exercise claims. To deal with these issues, courts have developed two standards to be used when applying the mitigation rule: the "objective" standard and the "case-by-case" standard. While both approaches provide courts and juries with a workable definition of the duty of a plaintiff to mitigate his or her damages when refusing medical treatment on a religious basis, both approaches are flawed in various respects. In light of such flaws and the recent developments in free exercise jurisprudence a third approach has developed called the "reasonable believer" standard.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the "objective" and "case-by-case" standards under free exercise jurisprudence and examine the potential effects of the "reasonable believer" standard. Part I of this paper will discuss the "objective" and "case-by-case" applications of the duty to mitigate damages. Part II will analyze the consistency of these two approaches with the religion clauses of the First Amendment. Finally Part III will focus on the alternative "reasonable believer" standard.

*399 V. Conclusion

Both the "objective" and "case-by-case" standards of the doctrine of avoidable consequences create First Amendment issues when applied to plaintiffs who have refused medical care for religious reasons. The "case-by-case" standard is most consistent with the Sherbert tendency to accommodate religious beliefs. The "objective" approach is therefore the logical standard to apply under Smith's theory of equality under a neutral and generally applicable rule of law. The "reasonable believer" standard represents a proposal to deal with the confusing free exercise environment generated by the coexistence of the competing theories underlying Sherbert and Smith by combining an objective standard with a more limited subjective assessment of a plaintiff's behavior. Although the "reasonable believer" standard has yet to be adopted by the courts, it remains a viable alternative to the other approaches based on the Supreme Court's history of religious accommodation, the favorable policy considerations underlying this approach and the context-sensitive application of the mitigation rule.

I have made it clear that I actually support a legal "out" for deadbeat parents at or before the birth of a child. I simply don't pretend that it is about rights or making things fair for men or women. It is about the welfare of the child - plain and simple. If some asshole doesn't want to step up and take care of his child, I think the child is better off without him - completely without him. And this is true whether that parent is male or female. I'd rather see a child in a loving home, but on state support, than have an unloving deadbeat parent around, in any capacity.

And no, I don't think it is a better situation for the man to put off being a father for 4 to 5 years of a child's life, and then disrupt that child's life by showing up. "Hello, son. I thought that other things were much more important than your welfare for the past four years, but now I really want to be your dad!" :rolleyes:

If a parent is unwilling to take care of their child, fine, society can take up the slack for their irresponsible actions. But that decision should be absolutely permanent, so that the child can be placed in a loving home that isn't going to be disrupted a few years down the line when some deadbeat decides that his child really is important now.


I think you misunderstand the idea. The father still acts as a father for that time, but the state basically lends him his financial obligation to the child so that he can finish college instead of being forced to drop out. That way, he can get a good job, and then have a better source of income. This can only work to the child's benefit, because the child will now be far more able to go to college and get a good education himself.

And looking at the bigger picture, this puts more people into higher tax brackets, meaning more income for the government, and it increases the education level and economy.

I think you misunderstand the idea. The father still acts as a father for that time, but the state basically lends him his financial obligation to the child so that he can finish college instead of being forced to drop out. That way, he can get a good job, and then have a better source of income. This can only work to the child's benefit, because the child will now be far more able to go to college and get a good education himself.

And looking at the bigger picture, this puts more people into higher tax brackets, meaning more income for the government, and it increases the education level and economy.

That breaks from the original idea expressed, which was that the father did not want a child and wanted no part in it. If the man wants to be a part of his child's life, he quite obviously will not sign any form of a "paper abortion."

However, I have no problem with parents getting financial help from the government, if it is needed. This does not, of course, remove all personal responsibility. If this man wishes to be a father, he needs to contribute what he can financially, and I don't buy that the amount is $0. There are all sorts of government grants available for young parents, and for young students. In fact, having a dependent would most likely make him eligible for interest-free student loans. Child support laws *already* take into account the income level of the parent paying said support and what types of payments they can make.

No one (or, at least, no one I have seen) has been arguing that anyone should have to give up on an education because of a child being born. To suggest that this is the most likely income is pretty ludicrous, given the number of people who have managed, even as single parents with *all* legal parental responsibilities, to manage a college education. Working while in college is not impossible. I do, however, have to wonder just how much time a person who thinks they can't work at all because of their studies is going to have to be a parent.

First off, I don't plan to debate this, I just want to see what the reaction is to this concept of abortion. I'm not heartless, I'm just curious. So, here goes.

Let's start with a hypothetical situation: Billy and Sally are two young people. They have no clearly defined religious beliefs, and are attending the same college. Billy has a part time job to pay for expenses, and Sally's parents cover hers.

Billy and Sally meet at a party and really hit it off. They leave together and go to Billy's apartment. They spend a night getting to know each other in the biblical sense (while using a condom of course). They bid each other adieu the following morning both accepting it as a one night stand.

A month later, Sally is concerned because she is far over due for her period, and has been missing classes because of nausea. She goes to her doctor to discover that she is pregnant.

Calling Billy, she relays the information. He is shocked and doesn't know how to respond. He can't support a baby financially without quitting school and going to work full time, but that would ruin his hope of one day being a doctor. Turning to the only alternative he could see, he suggests an abortion. Sally is appalled, for she is morally opposed to abortion, and would never do such a thing. Because of the laws in his nation, Billy has no say in the matter.

Several months later, Sally gives birth to the baby. The baby suffers from fetal alcohol syndrome from Sally's college drinking binges, and requires significant medical attention. The baby will need extensive medical care through out its development, but is mentally fine.

Billy is forced by his state to pay child support for the following 18 years and is forced from college and into the workforce so that he can meet the high payments. He leads a life not at all comparable to the one he would have had he finished school or not been forced to pay child support.



So, the key issue is: If the man has no say on whether or not a baby is born, why is he responsible for supporting that child to age 18?

The average cost of raising a child from birth to age 18 is $250,000 working out to about $20,850 a year. That is a significant dent to almost anyone's income, but especially if you are not college educated and can not attain a high salary position. This is not even considering that a mentally or physically retarded baby would cost astronomically more.

It seems unfair to me that men are on the really short end of the stick here. They have no part in the decision making process, but have atleast half the financial responsibility.

I'm not suggesting that fathers should have the power to force mothers into getting an abortion, but instead that if the mother opts not to get an abortion, the father should be able to, through legal action, sever himself from the financial burden of the unwanted child.

It takes two parties to make a baby, but only the mother gets to decide whether or not the baby goes to term or is aborted, and by extension, the fate of the father.

Thoughts, criticisms (constructive preferably)?

Aren't child-support payments based on a percentage of your income. No income, no support necessary. When I worked retail I had a co-worker who was ordered to pay 32 dollars a month in child support. That's beer money to the average college guy.

He could also point out that if she demands financial support when he doesn't have any, she's shooting herself in the foot. Even the huns used to give priests start-up funds so that there'd be a rich church to plunder the following year. If she allows him to finish college, she'll get more out of him. He'll even be likely to have health coverage to pay for the childs care.

Aren't child-support payments based on a percentage of your income. No income, no support necessary. When I worked retail I had a co-worker who was ordered to pay 32 dollars a month in child support. That's beer money to the average college guy.

Generally, yes, they are. Some states have a mandatory minimum, but even that generally becomes negotiable if the parent is not employed or cannot possibly make it.

This child support issue really hits home for me. I had to pay child support for six years on my daughter if I was unemployed or something came up. I would get a lien on my bank account or get threatened my car would be taken away. Child Support services had absolutely no compassion what my situation was. I got custody of my daughter from my crazy ex-girlfriend 4 years ago. Child Support Services refuses to help me they will do nothing to make her pay any kind of support. I really think Child Support Services and the courts are biased against men. Men are expected to pay child support no questions asked woman on the other hand are allowed to be lazy pathetic deadbeats the system always makes excuses for women. I really could care less I do not need my daughter's mothers help but it really pisses me off that there is such a bias in society against men. I wonder if it would be possible for a group of single fathers to get a class action lawsuit against the state for being biased against single fathers due to refusing to enforce non-custiodial mothers to pay child support. I know I am not the only single father who has had a problem with the system making the mother pay support.

This child support issue really hits home for me. I had to pay child support for six years on my daughter if I was unemployed or something came up. I would get a lien on my bank account or get threatened my car would be taken away. Child Support services had absolutely no compassion what my situation was. I got custody of my daughter from my crazy ex-girlfriend 4 years ago. Child Support Services refuses to help me they will do nothing to make her pay any kind of support. I really think Child Support Services and the courts are biased against men. Men are expected to pay child support no questions asked woman on the other hand are allowed to be lazy pathetic deadbeats the system always makes excuses for women. I really could care less I do not need my daughter's mothers help but it really pisses me off that there is such a bias in society against men. I wonder if it would be possible for a group of single fathers to get a class action lawsuit against the state for being biased against single fathers due to refusing to enforce non-custiodial mothers to pay child support. I know I am not the only single father who has had a problem with the system making the mother pay support.

You had a bad experience, but that hardly means that the system itself is broken. I'm sure there are biased judges out there. I'm sure there are biased caseworkers. And it probably doesn't help the issue that there are, statistically, many more non-paying fathers than mothers.

But difficulty in getting child support is hardly restricted to fathers seeking child support from mothers. It happens quite often that a woman who has custody of children runs into the same walls when trying to get child support from their father. Often, she gives up and doesn't seek it at all (as I'm sure fathers do at times, as well).

If it could be shown that a state was systematically gender-biased when it came to enforcing child support, then there would be a court case there. The difficulty will be in showing it, especially when the vast majority of those who don't pay child support are still men.

How do you know that they aren't making similar threats to her as those they made to you, with her simply ignoring them?

How do you know that they aren't making similar threats to her as those they made to you, with her simply ignoring them?

I know because they straight out told me they would not pursue a case against her because she did not make enouph money. They should at least try to get $40 a month or something. Oh well its water under the bridge.

I know because they straight out told me they would not pursue a case against her because she did not make enouph money. They should at least try to get $40 a month or something. Oh well its water under the bridge.

I have a friend who almost lost custody of her son to her ex husband (who was abusive and mentally unstable) purely because the judge was biased against women (it was a female judge).

I know these kinds of prejudices exist and I think it's a terrible thing.

I actually do support the "paper abortion" idea, but not because of any rights of the father. I support it because I think, if someone is so much of a deadbeat that he will not take responsibility for his own child, the child is better off with him completely out of that child's life.

Is it unfair that a man has no decision-making ability in whether or not he will become a father once he has had sex? Sure it is. Of course, it's also unfair that a woman has to bear the entire physical brunt of a pregnancy and the man will never have that burden. I'd say that's actually much more unfair. If a deadbeat won't step up to the plate and take responsibility for his child, fine, get him out of that child's life and never ever let him be a part of it. But don't expect me to respect him for it.
Why can't we be in such close agreement more often?
Provided that women are granted full access to actual abortions, I don't have a problem with this. Of course, as long as women suffer restrictions to their abortion rights, I see no reason why men should be granted unrestricted rights to "paper abortions."

Of course. The entire arguement was centered around equal treatment, and is predicated on full access to abortion.

I don't think a man who would seek such a "paper abortion" would make a good father, but I do think he's probably capable of at least contributing to the material support of the child in question. It's great to say that kids should all have good and loving parents, but kids also should all have enough to eat and good medical care and access to education and a safe home to live in. The material considerations cannot be ignored, as callous as it might sound to some.
But why assume that he has the ability to contribute to this child a meaningful financial ammount? Who is to say that he does or doesn't have the ability to provide enought to eat and good medical care, and all the other things you said the child should have access to? These are pretty basic things that should be provided regardless of the ability of either or both biological parents to provide them, aren't they? Why obligate the father specifically in this case? For that matter, why obligate the mother specifically to provide financial support for the child?

Why not socialise the problem of child rearing expenses in broad terms? No parent, custodial or otherwise shall be obligated to pay to provide basic needs to their children, but rather all adult citizens of the country pay to provide for all the children of the country, regardless of their presence with their biological parents or not. It isn't as though children are the property of their parents to do with as they please. Society as a whole, and it's instrument the government gets to exersise certain rights and restrictions about child rearing, so why not have society as a whole foot the bill?

Such as?
A 4-year degree, plus 40 hour weeks, plus being pregnant and having a child? I mean, the pregnancy and childbirth alone would've been enough to make her miss one semester.

And yet another post that completely ignores the rights of the child. In an abortion, the child need not be represented because no child ever will exist. However, in the case of a father denying responsiblity for his progeny we must represent the child because the child has rights. This is a battle of the sexes once the child exists. The father is beholden to the child, not the mother. No amount of trying to even this out will ever be enough unless the child is the primary object in the discussion.
So, this is now you, me, Dempublicents, Bottle, Ashmoria (I think), and maybe a few others who have all pointed out this very obvious fact -- that parental obligation is to the CHILD, not the other parent, and if you want out of it, you have to deal with the CHILD, not the other parent. We have also pointed out, often and clearly, that pregnancy is NOT equivalent to parenting. Yet we are ignored. Makes me think these people are arguing more for a sound-bite ("paper abortion") than a serious rethinking of parental rights and obligations and the legal status of born children.

I believe that men should have the right to paper abortions that terminate their obligations of fatherhood.

I agree.

If the roles were reversed, and the woman wanted to abort the fetus, the man would again, have no legal right, so why then, is it fair to demand him to support this child for ther next 18 years?

I dont agree with such a wanton abandon of responsibility, but the choice to take on the greatest responsibility we have as humans should be a choice.

The sperm donor gave up his "create/destroy-a-baby" rights when his sperm left his body voluntarily.

The fact that the ovum donor has more control of the "create/destroy-a-baby" process, due to the process being in her body, has no bearing on him having given up his rights.

Once the sperm and the ovum have combined into a potential baby, it is an entirely new entity, and it is now under the utter control of the new mother, of whom it is a part.

The sperm donor has rights to only the dispensation of his sperm, while the mother has rights to that which is integrally part of her.


The sperm donor is RESPONSIBLE for the baby because his sperm was the catalyst that started the process that would result in the baby.

Thus, he is responsible for the outcome of the process but has no say in the outcome of the process.
Then why is it sperm banks don't work like that? Why aren't the doctors, lawiers, and whatnot who contribute financially responsible for making child support payments to their biological offspring? Why is it different if the instrument used to ensemenate a woman is a penis rather than a...? (I don't even know how they do it in the lab so I'm going to quit while I'm ahead.)
So, this is now you, me, Dempublicents, Bottle, Ashmoria (I think), and maybe a few others who have all pointed out this very obvious fact -- that parental obligation is to the CHILD, not the other parent, and if you want out of it, you have to deal with the CHILD, not the other parent. We have also pointed out, often and clearly, that pregnancy is NOT equivalent to parenting. Yet we are ignored. Makes me think these people are arguing more for a sound-bite ("paper abortion") than a serious rethinking of parental rights and obligations and the legal status of born children.
I agree that the issue of the child's "right" to have their basic needs met should be dealt with in the context of this debate. In that spirit, I'll ask why our society currently places this obligation on the genetic donors. Why should people, simply by having sex, be obligated to resulting ofspring? Is this a kind of implicit contract people enter into with a not yet existent child? If so, is there any consideration offered by the child to the parent in this hypothetical contract?

Personally, I'd propose getting rid of parents raising their biological ofspring entirely. I think the state should collect all infants born for the purposes of adoption, and anyone wishing to adopt a child get no say in what kind of child they get. Children should be assigned randomly to any parent wishing to raise one. This settles the issue of some children being "unadoptable", gets rid of the bizare obligation sex seems to create to raising children, and over time might even diminish the more superficial forms of racism, since people are no longer typiclly raising children with their same racial features.

You had a bad experience, but that hardly means that the system itself is broken. I'm sure there are biased judges out there. I'm sure there are biased caseworkers. And it probably doesn't help the issue that there are, statistically, many more non-paying fathers than mothers.

But difficulty in getting child support is hardly restricted to fathers seeking child support from mothers. It happens quite often that a woman who has custody of children runs into the same walls when trying to get child support from their father. Often, she gives up and doesn't seek it at all (as I'm sure fathers do at times, as well).

If it could be shown that a state was systematically gender-biased when it came to enforcing child support, then there would be a court case there. The difficulty will be in showing it, especially when the vast majority of those who don't pay child support are still men.


In the UK child support (and general laws regarding chldren of failed relationships) are very much against men.

Custody:
It is *almost* impossible for a man to win custody of a child unless the mother does not contest it. When the woman wins custody the man theoretically has visitation rights to see his kid (except in cases of abuse) however if the woman does not want to allow these then it is almost impossible to legally enforce visitation rights - for example the woman can make sure that whatever day the father has access that the child is doing something, her parents are visiting their kid, they have a playmate over, the child is ill, they have something planned (day out etc...). In deciding custody it is not uncommon for the woman to accuse the father of abuse, the child automatically gets placed with her for a year or so while the allegations are investigated and by the time they are resolved the courts decide the child is already settled with the mother.

Child Support and Paternity:
As to paternity... There have been cases where the father has had a private DNA test done and found out that they are not in fact the real father - and have still been required to pay child support! A court cant force a man to take a DNA test, and if he refuses the child is his by default, but a court will not allow a DNA test requested by the 'father' if he has doubts about paternity unless the mother agrees. I am not sure how far along it is, but a little while ago the courts looked set to make it illegal for a man to carry out a private DNA test. AFAIK there is also no obligation for a woman to pay back child support if the man proves he is not the father.

The one case I know where the father won custody he had to pay maintanence to his ex-wife while supporting their three daughters and dispite working she was not required to pay any child support. (The child support agency refused to even request she pay child support)


As to the more men not paying child support... surely this is in no small part due to the fact the woman is almost always the one to win chld support. I wonder how the percentages of men and women who do not have custody who do not pay child support compare.

So, women should be allowed, by law, to sleep around all they want and not risk financial obligations from it, but men should not?

I like this. A lot. Actually, make him pay a bit of interest, too, to account for the fact that some people will fail out and not be able to pay back their full obligations. In fact, set the rate so that the state would probably make a small profit. (That way there's a nice little saftey barrier to fall back on should there be a sudden increase in people not paying back.) This would, in the long run, not increase the tax burden at all because the money is getting paid back to the state. So, no tax increase, the child is paid for(probably better than it would be without this idea), and men do not have to choose between life as a virgin and having a financial future. Perfect.
In fact, I think I may like this idea better than paper abortions. Sure, men still get kinda the short end of the "choice" stick, but it ends out working the best. I mean, the amount he'd have to pay back would be almost negligible compared to the paycheck he'd be getting. It'd be such a small percentage he'd have no reason to complain.
Allow women to have the same deal, too, of course. Let the state pay for their child if they're still in school. Let the woman complete her education and get a good job while still being there *as a parent* for the child, though the state pays for it, and then, once she has her good job, she pays the state back too.

I might have to make a new thread about *this* idea, as it's fairly distinct from paper abortions, but it's a good enough idea that I think it merits its own discussion.

Sorry in advance if some of my wording is a little confusing, I went back and edited the way I worded a lot of stuff, so I probably have some redundancy issues or something. I proofread it a few times, and I didn't catch anything, but I know something probably slipped past me.

i am glad you like my suggestion, with some modifications.:)

Paper abortions are trying correct an inequality arising from a women deciding to take a child to term while the man does not wish to have the child. In this I support them, the problem, as many have pointed out, is that once the child is born the father is obligated to it and not to the mother (she having her own seperate obligations).

I have a question, is it possible to have a partial adoption where one natural parent gives up all rights and obligations to a child and another adult willingly takes them on (such as a partner/husband etc of the mother). This would alleviate some cases but probably not that many as it depends on finding someone wiling to take on the responsibilities.

i am glad you like my suggestion, with some modifications.:)

Paper abortions are trying correct an inequality arising from a women deciding to take a child to term while the man does not wish to have the child. In this I support them, the problem, as many have pointed out, is that once the child is born the father is obligated to it and not to the mother (she having her own seperate obligations).

I have a question, is it possible to have a partial adoption where one natural parent gives up all rights and obligations to a child and another adult willingly takes them on (such as a partner/husband etc of the mother). This would alleviate some cases but probably not that many as it depends on finding someone wiling to take on the responsibilities.

It is technically legal except in the case where the child's needs cannot be met by one parent alone. The state will not take on the burden of the child if one of the parents is not contributing without first trying to get the money from the biological parent. (In most states anyway)

A 4-year degree, plus 40 hour weeks, plus being pregnant and having a child? I mean, the pregnancy and childbirth alone would've been enough to make her miss one semester.

She didn't miss a semester. She missed, maybe, a week of classes and made up the work. I want to say that she did take maternity leave from her job, but no major time off of school. Her baby became a standard sight on campus (very cute, btw).

I've had this argument with people before - those who think that a woman absolutely must take several months away from everything for pregnancy and childbirth, but I have yet to see that ever be the case. Every woman I have ever known who had a baby worked normal hours up until she gave birth. Most took less than a week off total.


I have a question, is it possible to have a partial adoption where one natural parent gives up all rights and obligations to a child and another adult willingly takes them on (such as a partner/husband etc of the mother). This would alleviate some cases but probably not that many as it depends on finding someone wiling to take on the responsibilities.

This most likely varies from state to state. In most laws I have seen, the law generally requires a new parent to be willing to take over parental responsibilities before a single biological parent can give them up. In other words, if a child's biological father wanted to give his child up for adoption, he couldn't do it solely to the mother. She would have to be remarried and the stepfather would have to be willing and ready to adopt the child. Could a judge could make a special exception? Maybe. Some states have absolute child support minimums for a non-custodial parent. Some will allow a custodial parent to request that no child support be paid, although this does not remove all parental rights from the non-paying parent.


Custody:
It is *almost* impossible for a man to win custody of a child unless the mother does not contest it.

By law? Or just your general sense of the situation? People say this in the US as well, but then when you look at the actual numbers, it simply isn't true. In the US, the vast majority of cases are settled by the parents, without court intervention for anything than to sign off on it. In many of these cases, joint custody is the outcome. In those that are not joint custody, the mother does more often get custody - but that is with the express agreement of both parties. In other words, the father willingly gives up custody. In cases decided by the court, the vast majority are joint custody. In those that are not joint, the proportion is something like 60/40 mother/father.

When the woman wins custody the man theoretically has visitation rights to see his kid (except in cases of abuse) however if the woman does not want to allow these then it is almost impossible to legally enforce visitation rights - for example the woman can make sure that whatever day the father has access that the child is doing something, her parents are visiting their kid, they have a playmate over, the child is ill, they have something planned (day out etc...).

This should be illegal if it can be shown that it is constant, whether it is a mother or father doing it.

In deciding custody it is not uncommon for the woman to accuse the father of abuse, the child automatically gets placed with her for a year or so while the allegations are investigated and by the time they are resolved the courts decide the child is already settled with the mother.

This is an abuse that could happen either way, so it isn't a matter of fathers getting the short end of the legal stick.

Child Support and Paternity:
As to paternity... There have been cases where the father has had a private DNA test done and found out that they are not in fact the real father - and have still been required to pay child support!

This can happen in the US as well, if the father voluntarily supported that child at any point. I see no problem with this. He accepted the child as his for years, and now he just doesn't want to pay? Too bad.

A court cant force a man to take a DNA test, and if he refuses the child is his by default, but a court will not allow a DNA test requested by the 'father' if he has doubts about paternity unless the mother agrees. I am not sure how far along it is, but a little while ago the courts looked set to make it illegal for a man to carry out a private DNA test. AFAIK there is also no obligation for a woman to pay back child support if the man proves he is not the father.

The woman doesn't own the child support money, the child does. How could she take from the child to give it back?

Meanwhile, if a father has never voluntarily taken on care of a child, and wishes a patenity test, it should certainly be done, mother's consent or not.

As to the more men not paying child support... surely this is in no small part due to the fact the woman is almost always the one to win chld support. I wonder how the percentages of men and women who do not have custody who do not pay child support compare.

Often, it isn't a matter of "winning" anything. There are many single mothers out there with children whose fathers never expressed any interest at all in their children. And they factor into the numbers as well.

<snip>

I agree that the issue of the child's "right" to have their basic needs met should be dealt with in the context of this debate. In that spirit, I'll ask why our society currently places this obligation on the genetic donors. Why should people, simply by having sex, be obligated to resulting ofspring? Is this a kind of implicit contract people enter into with a not yet existent child? If so, is there any consideration offered by the child to the parent in this hypothetical contract?
The obligation is assigned by default. There are no other people who have a demonstrable, provable connection to the child that is clearer and less questionable than biology. This mattered back in the day when paternity mattered a great deal for purposes of inheritance and when it would be a HUGE deal if an illegitimate child made a claim to inherit something of the father's -- such as, oh, say, the throne of France or something like that. (Yes, we can blame the Middle Ages for all of this.)

Personally, I'd propose getting rid of parents raising their biological ofspring entirely. I think the state should collect all infants born for the purposes of adoption, and anyone wishing to adopt a child get no say in what kind of child they get. Children should be assigned randomly to any parent wishing to raise one. This settles the issue of some children being "unadoptable", gets rid of the bizare obligation sex seems to create to raising children, and over time might even diminish the more superficial forms of racism, since people are no longer typiclly raising children with their same racial features.
Good luck with that.

There are cultures in which children are raised communally, and others in which all children belong solely to their mothers and "fathers" have neither obligations nor rights of any kind.

But those are not UK/US/European cultures, so...

Hmm...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=505545

HMMM... in that thread you said "You need to be in my bed right now."

And with that, Keruvalia, I question your genuinety (SP?) in your comment. Your inconsistency seems to be on purpose. If it isn't, then Keruvalia, think about how according to your own comments you seem to be a very sexual person, and not exactly the most likely to have "kept it in his pants" and that perhaps someday the person forced to pay child support might be... you.

Wow. It's been a long time since I encountered somebody who so clearly cannot understand the concept of a joke.

Humor, people, look it up. The fact that Keru makes joking and flirting comments doesn't remotely apply here, nor does it indicate any inconsistency in his stance.


As for the topic at hand, I agree with Arthais. Just like women should have the right to end an abortion to relieve themselves of financial obligations, a man should not be forced to pay child support for a child they wouldn't want.

I'm assuming you meant to say that women have the right to end a pregnancy. Women should have this right simply because the pregnancy is occuring in their body and they own their own body. Their motives are irrelevant; all that matters is that they desire to end the pregnancy, and they have that right.

It's been said so many times, but I guess it needs repeating:

The individual right to ownership of one's own person is a totally different subject than the obligation one has to one's born children. Recognizing that women possess the first does not in any way require that men be absolved of the second.


A woman who wouldn't want a child would be allowed to have an abortion in the United States, right?

If she's got money, and happens to live in one of the areas that still provide safe medical abortions, then yes. If she is poor or live in one of the many regions that doesn't have any abortion services at all, then no. If she is past a certain point in the pregnancy, no. The nominal right to abortion doesn't necessarily mean that women are actually able to get abortions when they want them.


And though granted, having to go through both childbirth AND the financial obligations is worse on women than just one, as someone else in this thread said, you can't completely correct for biology as another example is how the father can't choose to not have offspring in the same way women can when they have an abortion. Nature left some injustice in humanity.

This is true. Biology is unequal. Men do not grow babies inside their bodies, so it's perfectly fair to say that the growing of babies is up to the persons who actually grow them.

Parenthood, however, is not biologically unequal. Men are as able to parent as women. There is nothing about maleness which renders an individual less able to be a role model, a guide, a protector, or a provider.

The right to abortion is about every individual's right to choose what happens to their own body. The "right" to divorce oneself from one's children is a totally different topic.

And with that, Keruvalia, I question your genuinety (SP?) in your comment. Your inconsistency seems to be on purpose. If it isn't, then Keruvalia, think about how according to your own comments you seem to be a very sexual person, and not exactly the most likely to have "kept it in his pants" and that perhaps someday the person forced to pay child support might be... you.

Based on what I've seen of Keruvalia, I'm guessing that he wouldn't have to be forced to pay child support if he fathered a child. He'd gladly step up and take responsibility for that child.

Consider that next time you call it "petty whining" and while you're at it consider the post of someone who said something about people who had to quit university early to pay child support before calling it that.

You mean the made-up story? If a person has any business in higher education at all, there is no reason that they cannot work and study. It makes it harder to do. It might even mean it takes a little longer. But it is far from impossible.

As for the topic at hand, I agree with Arthais. Just like women should have the right to end an abortion to relieve themselves of financial obligations, a man should not be forced to pay child support for a child they wouldn't want.

An abortion isn't about relieving anyone of financial obligations. It is about a woman making her own medical decisions. It just so happens that this particular medical decision means that there are no financial obligations to a child, because there is no child at all.

This is true. Biology is unequal. Men do not grow babies inside their bodies, so it's perfectly fair to say that the growing of babies is up to the persons who actually grow them.

Parenthood, however, is not biologically unequal. Men are as able to parent as women. There is nothing about maleness which renders an individual less able to be a role model, a guide, a protector, or a provider.

The right to abortion is about every individual's right to choose what happens to their own body. The "right" to divorce oneself from one's children is a totally different topic.

Precisely. We can argue all day over whether or not the legal obligations of parenthood should be forced on anyone - and whether or not that is a good idea for the child involved. But that is an entirely different subject from the right to control one's own body, and to try to equate the two is silly.

And with that, Keruvalia, I question your genuinety (SP?) in your comment. Your inconsistency seems to be on purpose. If it isn't, then Keruvalia, think about how according to your own comments you seem to be a very sexual person, and not exactly the most likely to have "kept it in his pants" and that perhaps someday the person forced to pay child support might be... you.


Shrug ... I got me a mess of kids. I take care of all of them. Very sexual, yes, but I also accept the responsibility for what I do.

If I couldn't, I would keep it in my pants.

Precisely. We can argue all day over whether or not the legal obligations of parenthood should be forced on anyone - and whether or not that is a good idea for the child involved. But that is an entirely different subject from the right to control one's own body, and to try to equate the two is silly.
It really scares me how so many people seem unable to grasp this distinction.

Pregnancy is a physical process occuring inside a person's physical body. The individual's right to control the physical processes occuring in their physical body is NOT THE SAME SUBJECT as talking about the individual's legal obligations to other individuals. I am really getting creeped out by how often this needs repeating. What gives?!

It really scares me how so many people seem unable to grasp this distinction.

Pregnancy is a physical process occuring inside a person's physical body. The individual's right to control the physical processes occuring in their physical body is NOT THE SAME SUBJECT as talking about the individual's legal obligations to other individuals. I am really getting creeped out by how often this needs repeating. What gives?!
First, you have to start with the bogus argument that this is an equal rights issue. Then you have to look around for a rights comparison to make. Then, in the process of doing that, you have to realize that, if you compare parental rights/obligations of men to the parental rights/obligations of women, you see that they are, in fact, already equal, so you can't argue that men are treated unequally there.

And if you keep looking for a rights comparison, and you look at the object of the obligation, the child, you see that the relationship between child and adult is already unequal, in favor of the adult, and that binding the adult under an obligation is actually equitable because it makes the child less unequal. Plus, who wants to be accused of beating up on the rights of little kids?

So, really, if you are going to insist on this "equality" argument, you are left with no option but to pick up on the one aspect of reproduction that is not shared equally between men and women and that has nothing to do with the rights of children, and that's pregnancy. But in order to push that comparison, you just have to ignore all the practical ways in which pregnancy and parenthood are not comparable. That is why no one has bothered to try to counter the arguments we have made.

Now, if they would abandon this ridiculous "equality" approach, they might have a chance of formulating a cogent argument for their point, but they seem to be in so in love with the term "paper abortion" that they just don't want to give it up.

It really scares me how so many people seem unable to grasp this distinction.

Pregnancy is a physical process occuring inside a person's physical body. The individual's right to control the physical processes occuring in their physical body is NOT THE SAME SUBJECT as talking about the individual's legal obligations to other individuals. I am really getting creeped out by how often this needs repeating. What gives?!

It's not because so many people are unable to grasp the distinction, they grasp it fine, they disagree with you as to what the implications of that distinction are.

Can you explain why the physical processes occuring in an individuals body that are solely their right to control should be able to create legal obligations between two entirely separate other individuals that did not consent to the either the physical process nor the obligations?

*shrug* Because it's her body being destroyed by the parasite within.
You make a baby sound like a tapeworm.

My opinion? Kill the stupid baby, or do like Jonathan Swift says and eat it.

It's not because so many people are unable to grasp the distinction, they grasp it fine, they disagree with you as to what the implications of that distinction are.

Can you explain why the physical processes occuring in an individuals body that are solely their right to control should be able to create legal obligations between two entirely separate other individuals that did not consent to the either the physical process nor the obligations?

Those physical processes do not create any legal obligations. The existence of a child creates legal obligations. Someone must take care of that child and, in our society, we generally expect it to be the parents - the two people whose actions led to the existence of said child.

We could certainly argue over whether or not this is a good thing. Personally, I think any parent unwilling to step up and take care of their children to the best of their ability is a sack of shit. However, I also do not think that children benefit from having deadbeats like that forced into their lives, and I think that any legal obligations surrounding children must be focused on the welfare of those children. As such, I would gladly see deadbeats remove themselves entirely and irrevocably from the lives of children.

I do not, however, pretend that this is any type of equality issue. It is not. I could care less about whiners who think their rights are being infringed when we expect them to take responsibility for their children. On the issue of legal parental obligation, men and women are equal under the law. Both have the same legal obligations to a child, so any attempt to disguise this as an equality issue is misdirection. In fact, if we allowed the "paper abortion", we would have to allow it to both men and women. A woman who could not or would not, for whatever reason, have a medical abortion but did not wish to take responsibility for her child would be able to sign this paper and sign away all rights and responsibilities to a future child that might exist.

Meanwhile, they quite obviously do not grasp the distinction. If they did, there would not be so many people trying to suggest that no child being born at all (and thus no legal obligations to a child) is equivalent to a child being born, but losing all support from one of his parents.

Those physical processes do not create any legal obligations. The existence of a child creates legal obligations. Someone must take care of that child and, in our society, we generally expect it to be the parents - the two people whose actions led to the existence of said child.

We could certainly argue over whether or not this is a good thing. Personally, I think any parent unwilling to step up and take care of their children to the best of their ability is a sack of shit. However, I also do not think that children benefit from having deadbeats like that forced into their lives, and I think that any legal obligations surrounding children must be focused on the welfare of those children. As such, I would gladly see deadbeats remove themselves entirely and irrevocably from the lives of children.

I do not, however, pretend that this is any type of equality issue. It is not. I could care less about whiners who think their rights are being infringed when we expect them to take responsibility for their children. On the issue of legal parental obligation, men and women are equal under the law. Both have the same legal obligations to a child, so any attempt to disguise this as an equality issue is misdirection. In fact, if we allowed the "paper abortion", we would have to allow it to both men and women. A woman who could not or would not, for whatever reason, have a medical abortion but did not wish to take responsibility for her child would be able to sign this paper and sign away all rights and responsibilities to a future child that might exist.

Meanwhile, they quite obviously do not grasp the distinction. If they did, there would not be so many people trying to suggest that no child being born at all (and thus no legal obligations to a child) is equivalent to a child being born, but losing all support from one of his parents.
Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I was going to say.

Those physical processes do not create any legal obligations. The existence of a child creates legal obligations.


The physical processes create a child. Therefore the physical processes when carried through do create legal obligations.

I wonder though - what portion of women who choose to carry through a pregnancy with an unwilling father would continue to carry it through if the man was able to legally discharge himself from all financial responsibility for bringing the child up.


This should be illegal if it can be shown that it is constant, whether it is a mother or father doing it.
It technically IS illegal, but it is rarely, if ever, punished. All that happens is the mother keeps getting court orders, which she keeps ignoring. Note: This rarely if ever happens the other way around. The courts are generally pretty quick to see to fathers who deny mothers rights to visit children. Or fathers who do not return children at the appointed time.


This is an abuse that could happen either way, so it isn't a matter of fathers getting the short end of the legal stick.
There was a case a little while ago here - the woman accused the man of hitting the child - he was arrested and charged with child abuse. He suspected the mother of beating the child and somehow got a microphone in the childs bedroom - and recorded the mother clearly beating the child, with the kid screaming. The charges against him (based only on word of the mother) were dropped, but the mother was not charged at all. The child protection agency also decided there was insufficient evidence to remove the custody from the mother. While theoretically this works both ways, with the court system here it does not.


This can happen in the US as well, if the father voluntarily supported that child at any point. I see no problem with this. He accepted the child as his for years, and now he just doesn't want to pay? Too bad.
WTF? So... A man thinks he is the father, an supports the child. He then finds out the child is not his, but because he trusted the mother he has to keep paying? And you don't think this is fucked up?

This kinda blows the "A guy should have to stand up for his responsibilities if he gets a woman pregnant" out of the water. It is now "If a woman convinces the guy he made her pregnant he is financially liable for the next 18 years regardless of when he discoveres he has no relation to the kid at all."

If a guy has agreed to take care of the child in the knowlege it is not his then maybe there would be some moral grounding in this depending ont he exact conditions. But finding out during a divorce and then being forced to keep paying up?


Meanwhile, if a father has never voluntarily taken on care of a child, and wishes a patenity test, it should certainly be done, mother's consent or not.
Bad luck for men in the UK then.

He could have kept it in his pants.


Right, so the dirty whore argument works with Men but not women?

Right, so the dirty whore argument works with Men but not women?
For men, the right to choose how their body participates in reproduction ends with the sexual act. Their body does not participate in pregnancy. Their body's participation ended when they ejaculated.

The woman's body continues to participate in reproduction after sex. If there is a pregnancy, her body is the one participating in it.

Can you understand, then, why it is perfectly reasonable to say that a man makes his choices up to and including the sexual act, while a woman's choices also extend after the sexual act?

This is true. Biology is unequal. Men do not grow babies inside their bodies, so it's perfectly fair to say that the growing of babies is up to the persons who actually grow them.

Parenthood, however, is not biologically unequal. Men are as able to parent as women. There is nothing about maleness which renders an individual less able to be a role model, a guide, a protector, or a provider.

The right to abortion is about every individual's right to choose what happens to their own body. The "right" to divorce oneself from one's children is a totally different topic.


Amen

For men, the right to choose how their body participates in reproduction ends with the sexual act. Their body does not participate in pregnancy. Their body's participation ended when they ejaculated.

The woman's body continues to participate in reproduction after sex. If there is a pregnancy, her body is the one participating in it.

Can you understand, then, why it is perfectly reasonable to say that a man makes his choices up to and including the sexual act, while a woman's choices also extend after the sexual act?

I think the 'Could have kept it in his pants' is a close enough approximation of 'She could have kept her legs together'. The same sentiment seems to carry through.

'could have kept it in his pants' is the 'Dirty Whore' arguement, which is the issue.

There are ways of saying similar things that carry slightly less harsh connotations - as you have just done - but the same basic message. Just as thereare ways of wording the 'Dirty Whore' arguement that do not sound overley abusive.

Amen
I do want to add something to that post of mine:

I believe that the topic of an individual's right to "divorce" themselves from their children is an important topic. It is absolutely worth discussing. I am simply tired of people trying to equate that topic with the subject of abortion. The two are totally different issues, and each is very emotionally charged on its own. The last thing we need is to further muddle both topics by mashing them together.

I think the 'Could have kept it in his pants' is a close enough approximation of 'She could have kept her legs together'. The same sentiment seems to carry through.

'could have kept it in his pants' is the 'Dirty Whore' arguement, which is the issue.

There are ways of saying similar things that carry slightly less harsh connotations - as you have just done - but the same basic message. Just as thereare ways of wording the 'Dirty Whore' arguement that do not sound overley abusive.
If the tone was what bothered you, then I guess that's a matter of personal taste. I don't much care if a person is flowery versus blunt in what they say, most of the time, but I can understand how blunt language may be very off-putting or appear very hostile.

My problem with the "dirty whore" argument is that it states a woman gives up the right to her own body when she has sex, and that "whores" are unworthy of the right to choose what happens to their bodies. It says that being forced to endure pregnancy and childbirth against her wishes is an appropriate punishment for a woman who has had sex.

In this respect, it is not possible to make a male version of the "dirty whore" argument. Indeed, the male version of the "dirty whore" argument is really just a statement of fact, albeit a harsh one: if a man has sexual contact that has the potential for resulting in pregnancy, then he needs to deal with the fact that he has no right to make any decisions about whether the person experiencing the pregnancy continues it or not. He has the same rights she does. That is, to choose how his own body participates in reproduction. For him, this ends with the sexual contact.

In other words, the female version of the "dirty whore" argument revolves around the notion that a woman who chooses to have sex deserves to be stripped of her rights. The male version simply acknowledges what we all know: that men's bodies don't grow babies inside them, and a man's right to choose how his body participate in reproduction ends with the sexual act.

I do want to add something to that post of mine:

I believe that the topic of an individual's right to "divorce" themselves from their children is an important topic. It is absolutely worth discussing. I am simply tired of people trying to equate that topic with the subject of abortion. The two are totally different issues, and each is very emotionally charged on its own. The last thing we need is to further muddle both topics by mashing them together.

Thing is that it is quite hard to seperate them:

Many women who find themselves pregnant with children they can't/dont want to support can extract themselves from the responsibility via abortion. The female method of 'divorcing from their children' between pregnancy and whatever the limit is is abortion. Not entirely true in semantics, but in practical terms that is what happens.

Men however do not have this option to decide with hindsight what to do when contraception fails/they are tricked. I don't think they should have the right to force a woman to abort either - that is a horrific idea. But I feel they should be able to remove themselves from financial responsibility up to say 4 weeks before the legal limit for abortions (unless the woman does not tell them, in which case they should eb able to make the choice whenever). I doubt this will ever happen.

My problem with the "dirty whore" argument is that it states a woman gives up the right to her own body when she has sex, and that "whores" are unworthy of the right to choose what happens to their bodies. It says that being forced to endure pregnancy and childbirth against her wishes is an appropriate punishment for a woman who has had sex.

In other words, the female version of the "dirty whore" argument revolves around the notion that a woman who chooses to have sex deserves to be stripped of her rights. The male version simply acknowledges what we all know: that men's bodies don't grow babies inside them, and a man's right to choose how his body participate in reproduction ends with the sexual act.
Note - The 'Dirty Whore' arguement is often also used to apply to AFTER the child is born:

"But what if she can't afford to support the child and will have to drop out of college" - "Well she should ahve though of that before she opened her legs"

Which is how it also applies to the male version - almost exactly - for the post-birth section of the 'Dirty Whore' arguement.

Thing is that it is quite hard to seperate them:

Many women who find themselves pregnant with children they can't/dont want to support can extract themselves from the responsibility via abortion. The female method of 'divorcing from their children' between pregnancy and whatever the limit is is abortion. Not entirely true in semantics, but in practical terms that is what happens.

It's really, really simple.

A woman who has an abortion is not "divorcing herself from her child," because there is no child. There is a child once it is born, and not before. Whether or not you personally agree with this standard, it IS the legal standard. If we are talking about legal responsibilities and rights, then it's as simple as that.

Problem solved.


Men however do not have this option to decide with hindsight what to do when contraception fails/they are tricked. I don't think they should have the right to force a woman to abort either - that is a horrific idea. But I feel they should be able to remove themselves from financial responsibility up to say 4 weeks before the legal limit for abortions (unless the woman does not tell them, in which case they should eb able to make the choice whenever). I doubt this will ever happen.
As I have said before, I would support a man's right to sign off his parental rights during the first weeks of pregnancy IF AND ONLY IF women have complete access to all forms of medical abortion at all times and for any reasons throughout pregnancy.

And this means more than just lip-service legalities. In America, it is technically legal for women to have abortions (sometimes), but try telling that to the women of the state of Mississippi, where there is a grand total of ONE abortion provider in the entire state.

Note - The 'Dirty Whore' arguement is often also used to apply to AFTER the child is born:

"But what if she can't afford to support the child and will have to drop out of college" - "Well she should ahve though of that before she opened her legs"

I have not heard it used in that way. I hear it used to argue against a woman's right to choose not to bear a child. The pro-choice person is arguing for the woman's right to abort, and points out that the woman will not even be able to support the child if it is born, but then the anti-choice person counters that the dirty slut doesn't have the right to abort because she should have thought of that before she opened her legs.

I don't hear people insist that she be forced to KEEP the baby if she cannot support it. Usually they just say, "Then she can put it up for adoption."

It's really, really simple.

A woman who has an abortion is not "divorcing herself from her child," because there is no child. There is a child once it is born, and not before. Whether or not you personally agree with this standard, it IS the legal standard. If we are talking about legal responsibilities and rights, then it's as simple as that.

As I said - it's not true semantically but the practical effect is the same - they will not have to support a child which they would have otherwise. Many women who can't/don't want to support their imminent future child have an abortion.


As I have said before, I would support a man's right to sign off his parental rights during the first weeks of pregnancy IF AND ONLY IF women have complete access to all forms of medical abortion at all times and for any reasons throughout pregnancy.

And this means more than just lip-service legalities. In America, it is technically legal for women to have abortions (sometimes), but try telling that to the women of the state of Mississippi, where there is a grand total of ONE abortion provider in the entire state.
WTF?! Only 1? Is this because the state somehow prevents other providers from opening up? Or are there just no doctors there who will do it?

I have not heard it used in that way. I hear it used to argue against a woman's right to choose not to bear a child. The pro-choice person is arguing for the woman's right to abort, and points out that the woman will not even be able to support the child if it is born, but then the anti-choice person counters that the dirty slut doesn't have the right to abort because she should have thought of that before she opened her legs.

I don't hear people insist that she be forced to KEEP the baby if she cannot support it. Usually they just say, "Then she can put it up for adoption."
I've seen both. That she should have to go through pregnancy AND that regardless of wether she can support it 'she should have thought of that bfore she opened her legs'

True they often also say about adoption, but when you point out that the number of new adoptees/year is much smaller than the number of abortion/year and likely she will not find an adopter they often come out with the 'dirty whore' arguement for post-pregnancy.

As I said - it's not true semantically but the practical effect is the same - they will not have to support a child which they would have otherwise. Many women who can't/don't want to support their imminent future child have an abortion.

Yes, and as I've said, that's just an inherent inequality of our biology. Women grow babies in their bodies, therefore women get to make choices about what happens during the growing of a baby inside their body. Men do not have choices about that. Sorry. Hopefully one day we will be able to make it so men can share the physical realities of pregnancy.


WTF?! Only 1? Is this because the state somehow prevents other providers from opening up? Or are there just no doctors there who will do it?
It's a bunch of things. One major problem is that the state governments and local governments can create all sorts of crazy legal blockades and problems for clinics that essentially make it impossible to keep a clinic open if they provide abortions. They can constantly harass clinics with zoning or "health code" issues that take up so much time and money to deal with that the clinics can't cope. They also can deny permits in many cases.

There is also such hostility toward the employees of such clinics that it can be very hard to keep staff around; I honestly can't blame anybody for not wanting to work in an environment where their life is threatened on a daily basis. I couldn't live like that.

And in the US there is also a growing problem with medical doctors not knowing how to perform abortions. Many doctors choose not to learn these procedures at all, which they are free to do because it is not required learning to get your MD. A lot of doctors who know how to perform abortions choose not to because they don't want to get themselves, or their families, mixed up in all the abortion kerfluffle going on in our country.

I'm sorry if I get my dander up on this topic, but it really bugs me to see so many people (mostly dudes) talking about how women can just end their pregnancies on a whim. First of all, I doubt many people here have ever experienced an abortion procedure, or even witnessed one. Let me tell you, it's NOT FUN. Even if you get an early abortion using one of the available drug methods, it's kind of like being kicked in the stomach for 3-5 days straight. It's not like women just flip a switch and magically make the pregnancy go away.

Second of all, there are many women in supposedly-modern nations who DON'T actually have access to abortion. Whether or not it is technically legal means little to women who have no way to drive 10 hours to get to the one clinic that will provide an abortion, at a cost of hundreds of dollars, after she has two interview appointments and waits the required 24 hours (probably having to stay in a hotel over night, or make the drive again).

The parenting side of it also bugs me, since the fact is that most women who get abortions ALREADY HAVE at least one child. They're already a parent. They're already caring for a kid. They aren't going to stop being a mommy just because they ended this particular pregnancy.

Bleh. Ok, enough out of me. :D

I've seen both. That she should have to go through pregnancy AND that regardless of wether she can support it 'she should have thought of that bfore she opened her legs'

Huh. Well, that's just fucking stupid. If they're going to pretend to be so worried about the poor little babies, then why would they be insisting that the babies be left in the care of somebody who can't even afford to feed them?! That's just bizarre.

Hopefully one day we will be able to make it so men can share the physical realities of pregnancy.
Joy!.... Yeah... Can't say I'm sad about missing out on that side...


I'm sorry if I get my dander up on this topic, but it really bugs me to see so many people (mostly dudes) talking about how women can just end their pregnancies on a whim. First of all, I doubt many people here have ever experienced an abortion procedure, or even witnessed one. Let me tell you, it's NOT FUN. Even if you get an early abortion using one of the available drug methods, it's kind of like being kicked in the stomach for 3-5 days straight. It's not like women just flip a switch and magically make the pregnancy go away.


Second of all, there are many women in supposedly-modern nations who DON'T actually have access to abortion. Whether or not it is technically legal means little to women who have no way to drive 10 hours to get to the one clinic that will provide an abortion, at a cost of hundreds of dollars, after she has two interview appointments and waits the required 24 hours (probably having to stay in a hotel over night, or make the drive again).


It's fair enough to get worked up. It's a big topic.

Personally I would rate the two the other way around - I am really appalled at the attitude you are reporting towards abortions and the attempts to make them as hard to get as possible. I can't believe it's legal for them to do that. Pain is a different matter for me... but I'm just odd in that I rarely get bothered by pain.

Huh. Well, that's just fucking stupid. If they're going to pretend to be so worried about the poor little babies, then why would they be insisting that the babies be left in the care of somebody who can't even afford to feed them?! That's just bizarre.
Does it really surprise you that the anti-choices would be that stupid? Or that they are hypocritical in their supposed caring for unborn children?

It really scares me how so many people seem unable to grasp this distinction.

Pregnancy is a physical process occuring inside a person's physical body. The individual's right to control the physical processes occuring in their physical body is NOT THE SAME SUBJECT as talking about the individual's legal obligations to other individuals. I am really getting creeped out by how often this needs repeating. What gives?!

shut up you dam hippies. what you cannot not do is decided by the majority. tuff.

shut up you dam hippies. what you cannot not do is decided by the majority. tuff.
Learn to spell the words damn and tough and stop adding irrelevant comments to threads, please.

Learn to spell the words damn and tough and stop adding irrelevant comments to threads, please.

this person just keeps saying over and over again, about crap peoples rights. one isnt born with rights, you are given your rights.

this person just keeps saying over and over again, about crap peoples rights. one isnt born with rights, you are given your rights.

You're given privileges

this person just keeps saying over and over again, about crap peoples rights. one isnt born with rights, you are given your rights.

Historially people often have demanded and fought for rights more often than they have been given them.

The physical processes create a child. Therefore the physical processes when carried through do create legal obligations.

Not necessarily. It is entirely possible that no child is created even if a pregnancy is carried to term.

I wonder though - what portion of women who choose to carry through a pregnancy with an unwilling father would continue to carry it through if the man was able to legally discharge himself from all financial responsibility for bringing the child up.

I don't think the proportion would change all that much. Most women don't want to deal with an unwilling father. Those who carry out a pregnancy even when the father is a deadbeat most likely do so because of moral reasons, and those reasons aren't going to suddenly change if he is legally allowed to be a deadbeat.

It technically IS illegal, but it is rarely, if ever, punished. All that happens is the mother keeps getting court orders, which she keeps ignoring. Note: This rarely if ever happens the other way around. The courts are generally pretty quick to see to fathers who deny mothers rights to visit children. Or fathers who do not return children at the appointed time.

And you have evidence of this? Like I said, when I actually look at *numbers* in court cases, the differences between the treatment of mothers and fathers don't seem to exist.

WTF? So... A man thinks he is the father, an supports the child. He then finds out the child is not his, but because he trusted the mother he has to keep paying? And you don't think this is fucked up?

You act like parenting is just a matter of writing a check. It is not. Taking responsibility for a child isn't a matter of, "Well, I'll do it for a little while." Once you take that responsibility on, you are obligated to that child at least through adulthood. And, in truth, you are obligated to a whole lot more than writing the occasional check. What kind of monster would stop loving a child simply because he found out that his sperm didn't play a part?

This kinda blows the "A guy should have to stand up for his responsibilities if he gets a woman pregnant" out of the water.

No, it doesn't. That is a different discussion. This is a discussion of the case in which a man voluntarily takes responsibility for a child, and then decides he wants to get out of it years down the road because the child's genetics are not what he thought. Taking on that responsibility is an obligation that lasts through that child's life. If you don't want that responsibility, don't take it.

If a guy has agreed to take care of the child in the knowlege it is not his then maybe there would be some moral grounding in this depending ont he exact conditions. But finding out during a divorce and then being forced to keep paying up?

Any man who would stop loving the child he has helped raise simply because of parentage isn't worthy of consideration. He is scum, pure and simple.

Thing is that it is quite hard to seperate them:

Many women who find themselves pregnant with children they can't/dont want to support can extract themselves from the responsibility via abortion. The female method of 'divorcing from their children' between pregnancy and whatever the limit is is abortion. Not entirely true in semantics, but in practical terms that is what happens.

No, it isn't. There is no child to divorce themselves from. Can you really not see the difference between ensuring that no child is born and abandoning a child?

As I said - it's not true semantically but the practical effect is the same - they will not have to support a child which they would have otherwise. Many women who can't/don't want to support their imminent future child have an abortion.

The practical effect is not the same, not by a long shot. In one case, there is NO CHILD TO SUPPORT. In the other, there is a child WITHOUT SUPPORT. Can you really not see the difference here?

You act like parenting is just a matter of writing a check. It is not. Taking responsibility for a child isn't a matter of, "Well, I'll do it for a little while." Once you take that responsibility on, you are obligated to that child at least through adulthood. And, in truth, you are obligated to a whole lot more than writing the occasional check. What kind of monster would stop loving a child simply because he found out that his sperm didn't play a part?

No, it doesn't. That is a different discussion. This is a discussion of the case in which a man voluntarily takes responsibility for a child, and then decides he wants to get out of it years down the road because the child's genetics are not what he thought. Taking on that responsibility is an obligation that lasts through that child's life. If you don't want that responsibility, don't take it.

Any man who would stop loving the child he has helped raise simply because of parentage isn't worthy of consideration. He is scum, pure and simple.
So... A man who does not want to fund a child who is not his is scum?

Your 'well he loved the kid before' is daft. Things change - and I think it is damn reasonable for someone on finding out they are not the father to have a change of heart on the child.

Say you come home to find your boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife in bed with someone else... well - you loved them before you found out - you gotta keep loving them after you find out yes? It would be almost inhuman to have a change of heart yes?

I suppose the 'not the kids fault' gets trotted out here... well - It is not the fathers fault he was decieved either. Really the mother should be told to go find the biological father and get child support from him. Unless you don't think the biological father in this case has any obligation to provide support...

The practical effect is not the same, not by a long shot. In one case, there is NO CHILD TO SUPPORT. In the other, there is a child WITHOUT SUPPORT. Can you really not see the difference here?

Practical effect on the man being able to remove himself from responsibilities is is he does not have to support a child.
Practical effect on the woman having an abortion is she does not have to support a child.

So... A man who does not want to fund a child who is not his is scum?

If he supposedly loved that child before he found out, yes, he is.

Your 'well he loved the kid before' is daft. Things change - and I think it is damn reasonable for someone on finding out they are not the father to have a change of heart on the child.

Anyone who would have that "change of heart" is not reasonable, they are assholes. It is quite obvious that any such person never cared a bit for the child in the first place.

Say you come home to find your boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife in bed with someone else... well - you loved them before you found out - you gotta keep loving them after you find out yes? It would be almost inhuman to have a change of heart yes?

Actually, I wouldn't stop loving someone after that, although I wouldn't be with them either. It would be hard.

Of course there is a HUGE difference. In this case, your feelings change because of actions taken by the loved one. In the other, your feelings change because of actions taken by another. Your example would be closer if it were, "So, you come home and find your mother cheating on your father, so you stop loving your wife."

Another good example, as it would pull in the actual case here - genetics - would be, "You fiind out your child has Down's, so you stop loving him."

I suppose the 'not the kids fault' gets trotted out here... well - It is not the fathers fault he was decieved either. Really the mother should be told to go find the biological father and get child support from him. Unless you don't think the biological father in this case has any obligation to provide support...

Unless we are talking about an infant who is unaware of what is going on, having the father that child has loved and looked up to suddenly go, "Sorry, your mum was mean to me so now I hate you," and to suddently have to deal with an entirely different "father" who has never been a part of that child's life would be detrimental to the child.

And no, it isn't the father's fault he is deceived. But if he is inhuman enough to take that out on the child, that is his fault.


Practical effect on the man being able to remove himself from responsibilities is is he does not have to support a child.

Actually, he abandons a child. There is a child, and he abandons it. So, the practical effect is that there is an abandoned child.

Practical effect on the woman having an abortion is she does not have to support a child.

There is no child to abandon. ((Not to mention that the "practical effect" also includes a great deal of physical stuff that is not pleasant.)) Thus, the practical effect is that there is no child. No one is abandoned, because there is no one to abandon.

Practical effect on the man being able to remove himself from responsibilities is is he does not have to support a child.
Practical effect on the woman having an abortion is she does not have to support a child.

I'm sorry biology is not fair, but in the end it is what we have to work with. A woman should have full control of her biological functions but when a kid is created it should have to be supported by them or an adopted family

The woman has her body and health on the line she has the right to make that decision. The guy only has money on the line, its not about the right to body for him

See, this is why I'm glad I'm gay. Shit like this can never happen to me.

However, I have to admit the OP does have a fair point. I think there should be legal possibilities for a man to severe himself from the process, at least in cases where it is CLEAR a child was never intended to be conceived, and that he took reasonable measures to ensure as such.

I mean, heck, the poor guy used a condom. Should he have his own life future mortgaged in order to support a child he never wanted and took the necessary steps to avoid making? It's not like he's been strolling around, planting his seed in every garden, and then pretending he shouldn't take responsibility for his actions.

I'll never buy the "Well, he had sex, so he had it coming" argument. Saying you agree to the possibility of having a child just by having sex is bullshit. Sex isn't just means to an end(procreation). Sex is also a means of showing your love for someone, a natural pulsion, and much more. Those who take reasonable steps to avoid procreation and have sex should not be held accountacle for statistical anomalies, like a condom breaking or a pregnancy despite taking the contraceptive pills.

On the other hand, it does cause a baby to be born without support. Then again, if the mother is morally against abortion, but knows she can't support the baby alone, there is always adoption. I don't think poor Sally is fit to be a good single-mother, especially if she doesn't quit her drinking. Maybe that child would be better off with people who actually know what they're doing.

Just because a man's right to choose is a progressive idea does not mean that it is wrong. Social progress always starts out as a radical idea and its supporters seen as subversive merely for their desire to change the status quo to better promote freedom, equality, justice, etc.

There really is no excuse not to accept that a man should have equal power over his decision to become a parent that a woman has. If she can get an abortion procedure, he should get an equivalent legal remedy.

Just because a man's right to choose is a progressive idea does not mean that it is wrong. Social progress always starts out as a radical idea and its supporters seen as subversive merely for their desire to change the status quo to better promote freedom, equality, justice, etc.

There really is no excuse not to accept that a man should have equal power over his decision to become a parent that a woman has. If she can get an abortion procedure, he should get an equivalent legal remedy.

But an abortion procedure is a medical procedure allowing her to have control over her body

Paper abortion has nothing to do with a mans health or body

Just because a man's right to choose is a progressive idea does not mean that it is wrong.

No one said a man shouldn't have a right to choose. We're just discussing what choices he should be able to make. What is being proposed here actually gives men *more* control over their lives than women, by giving men the opportunity to severe all ties to a child that may or may not then be supported.

If we ever instituted the "paper abortion", it would have to be equally available to both men and women. Both would have to be able to abandon their children with no obligations. Otherwise, it would be discrimination.

Social progress always starts out as a radical idea and its supporters seen as subversive merely for their desire to change the status quo to better promote freedom, equality, justice, etc.

If anyone could point out how this better promotes freedom, equality, and justice, that would be nice. All I see is men trying to abandon their children, simply because women have the right to make their own medical decisions.

There really is no excuse not to accept that a man should have equal power over his decision to become a parent that a woman has. If she can get an abortion procedure, he should get an equivalent legal remedy.

He does have equal power over the decision to become a parent. If a child is born, both have the exact same legal obligations to that child. Any "legal remedy" is not equivalent to abortion, as one constitutes abandonment of a child, and the other constitues no child being there at all.

What a man doesn't have is equal power to determine whether a child is born. Unfortunately, we can't give men that right until they can get pregnant. So you get to work on that.

Like I said, if we institute any such "legal remedy", both parents would have to have equal access to it. A woman would have to be able to cut all legal ties to any child before it was born and with no consideration as to what happened to it.

Just because a man's right to choose is a progressive idea does not mean that it is wrong. Social progress always starts out as a radical idea and its supporters seen as subversive merely for their desire to change the status quo to better promote freedom, equality, justice, etc.

There really is no excuse not to accept that a man should have equal power over his decision to become a parent that a woman has. If she can get an abortion procedure, he should get an equivalent legal remedy.
Man' right to choose isn't a new or radical idea, it's a rehash of the traditional concept of ownership of his child and the woman giving birth to the child. I'm not sure what "status quo" your referring to, but the whole idea of a woman's right to choose is only a few decades old. Men have had the say in abortions and custody for much longer than that.

There really is no reason for a man to have any say in abortion procedure, given that it isn't his body being used to house and grow the child. the question is one of a person's legal right to own and use their own body how they see fit. If a woman wishes to carry a child to term or to abort the child within the legal limits, she has every right to do so because it is her body that enables the baby to grow and survive. The man that got her pregnant, be he her husband or boyfriend, has no say in how she decides to use her body. There is no reason to grant such rights over another person's body simply because he had sexual intercourse that resulted in pregnancy. Even if he is supporting her throughout her pregnancy, at best he can decide how much support he is willing to give her, not whether she will have the baby or not.

If he supposedly loved that child before he found out, yes, he is.

Anyone who would have that "change of heart" is not reasonable, they are assholes. It is quite obvious that any such person never cared a bit for the child in the first place.

And no, it isn't the father's fault he is deceived. But if he is inhuman enough to take that out on the child, that is his fault.
If you view human emotions as so simplistic that if you love someone once based in no small part on one understanding therefore when you find that the situation was completely different you should have no change in feelings then I don't think you are really in a position to talk about inhumanity.

You seem to be saying it is almost wrong for a man to be upset that he is not really the father of what he thought was his child.

And you also seem to be saying that in this case the biological father does not or should not have any obligation to support the kid.


Another good example, as it would pull in the actual case here - genetics - would be, "You fiind out your child has Down's, so you stop loving him."

Well - since you were not fundamentally decieved about the child and your relation to them then I am not sure exactly how this is closer than finding out a loved one is cheating on you...

That said - I know people who have aborted babies because the child/foetus/future child had downs syndrome. Are they evil or inhuman for doing so?

Man' right to choose isn't a new or radical idea, it's a rehash of the traditional concept of ownership of his child and the woman giving birth to the child. I'm not sure what "status quo" your referring to, but the whole idea of a woman's right to choose is only a few decades old. Men have had the say in abortions and custody for much longer than that.

There really is no reason for a man to have any say in abortion procedure, given that it isn't his body being used to house and grow the child. the question is one of a person's legal right to own and use their own body how they see fit. If a woman wishes to carry a child to term or to abort the child within the legal limits, she has every right to do so because it is her body that enables the baby to grow and survive. The man that got her pregnant, be he her husband or boyfriend, has no say in how she decides to use her body. There is no reason to grant such rights over another person's body simply because he had sexual intercourse that resulted in pregnancy. Even if he is supporting her throughout her pregnancy, at best he can decide how much support he is willing to give her, not whether she will have the baby or not.

I agree with you in part and disagree with you in part. I disagree with your first point about the status quo. In ancient Rome (or Greece?) there was the idea of pater familias which boiled down to a man's right to take care of his children or not regardless of what anyone else wanted. This extreme rule made it legal to neglect or even kill your child. Obviously this sounds as foreign and as far from the status quo as can be. Even then though, women had the right to abortions. The idea was that a woman was in charge of the preganancy but the man was in charge of providing for the child and family.

Anti abortionism probably started with Hippocrates. It is part of the Hippocratic oath. The students of Hippocrates were sworn to never perform abortions. It is unclear to me whether this was part of a celebration of life (this same oath also prohibts euthanasia) or if it is out of concern for the safety of the woman as a patient.

In America, it seems that abortions were illegal not so much out of the celeberation of life type thinking but because of safety issues. Lets face it, surgery was just not as safe in the past as it is now.

The whole modern religious aspect is fairly new. In the past there was the idea that abortions were evil because the fetus died before it could be baptised and was therefore damned. I think this changed at some point and I think there were abortions where holy water was used and a blessing said for the fetus am I right on this guys? Then the whole celeberation of life thing picked up during the past century but I do not think this was the original religious opposition to abortions.

I am not familiar with any accounts of men being in charge of their women's abortion decisions. Of course most of the physicians and legislators were men but that does not seem to be your point. You seemed to mean the husbands. Maybe you are referring to another culture's treatment of abortion, I am just going off the Western culture's treatment of abortion.

As to your second point, i agree wholeheartedly that a man should not be able to stop a woman from giving birth to his child. However, he should be entitled to (after giving her adequate notice of course) declare that conception was not his intended purpose and that as such he should not be reposible for the child in anyway if she chooses to go through with the pregnancy and keep the child. The difficulty comes with well what about revocation? Would the man still have standing to oppose adoption or to seek custody? I would suggest that he had in fact waived such rights.

If you view human emotions as so simplistic that if you love someone once based in no small part on one understanding therefore when you find that the situation was completely different you should have no change in feelings then I don't think you are really in a position to talk about inhumanity.

If your love is based on whether or not your sperm was involved, that *is* inhuman, and it isn't love. It's more like ownership.

You seem to be saying it is almost wrong for a man to be upset that he is not really the father of what he thought was his child.

Upset? No, not at all. Presumably, he has been cheated on. However, if he has been raising that child he is, for all intents and purposes, and in all ways that matter, the father of that child. To suddenly want to pull away based on the actions of the mother demonstrates that he never really loved that child in the first place.

And you also seem to be saying that in this case the biological father does not or should not have any obligation to support the kid.

No, I'm saying that introducing the biological father and removing the known father at this point would be more detrimental than leaving the biological father out of it.

As far as I am concerned, in this discussion, the welfare of a child is more important than what any whiny bastard thinks they should be able to do.

Well - since you were not fundamentally decieved about the child and your relation to them then I am not sure exactly how this is closer than finding out a loved one is cheating on you...

Your relationship with the child is the exact same as it always was. Your biological connection is not what you thought it was - which has nothing to do with your past interactions with the child and everything to do with your past interactions with the mother. As such, abandoning a child because you found out it wasn't yours makes about as much since as abandoning a child because the child has Down's or leaving your spouse because you found out your mother cheated on your father.

That said - I know people who have aborted babies because the child/foetus/future child had downs syndrome. Are they evil or inhuman for doing so?

Once again, in an abortion, there is no child to support. I don't agree with aborting on the basis of Down's Syndrome, as a child with Down's can lead a very full life. However, I can see where someone would do it.

However, that is not what we're talking about. We're talking about abandoning a child because you find out that their genetics are not what you thought. If a parent decided that they no longer cared about their child because of a Down's diagnosis, I absolutely would see that as inhuman.


In America, it seems that abortions were illegal not so much out of the celeberation of life type thinking but because of safety issues. Lets face it, surgery was just not as safe in the past as it is now.

Actually, abortion was not illegal in the US until *after* it became relatively medically safe. When it was performed by midwives with herbs and sticks, abortion wasn't illegal. It wasn't exactly condoned, but as per English common law, it was legal up until the quickening pretty much throughout the US. Once doctors began performing abortions as medical procedures, legislatures accross the country began to outlaw it.

I am not familiar with any accounts of men being in charge of their women's abortion decisions. Of course most of the physicians and legislators were men but that does not seem to be your point. You seemed to mean the husbands. Maybe you are referring to another culture's treatment of abortion, I am just going off the Western culture's treatment of abortion.

In traditional marriage culture, the man of the family pretty much had power over decision making. Even as late as a generation ago, women quite often had to get their husband's permission to have any medical procedures which affected reproduction. When my fiance's mother decided to have a tubal ligation, for instance, she had to get her husband's permission. That was in 1979.

As to your second point, i agree wholeheartedly that a man should not be able to stop a woman from giving birth to his child. However, he should be entitled to (after giving her adequate notice of course) declare that conception was not his intended purpose and that as such he should not be reposible for the child in anyway if she chooses to go through with the pregnancy and keep the child. The difficulty comes with well what about revocation? Would the man still have standing to oppose adoption or to seek custody? I would suggest that he had in fact waived such rights.

But a woman has no such "right". Should a woman also be able to sign a little paper before birth and therefore give up all rights and obligations to the child that is born? Should she have a legal right to abandon that child with no regard given to its welfare?

Just because a man's right to choose is a progressive idea does not mean that it is wrong.
The idea that men have the right to abandon children they don't want to rear is not "progressive" by any stretch of the imagination. Notions of tricksy womenfolk who dupe poor men into having babies are not "progressive." Complaints that men don't have enough control over what women do with their bodies are not "progressive." Male anger at not being completely in charge of the reproductive process is not "progressive."

None of these are new, or radical, ideas. They are about as traditional as it gets. Now, that doesn't automatically make something wrong either, but let's not bullshit around about this being a "progressive" stance to take. It's not.

Those physical processes do not create any legal obligations. The existence of a child creates legal obligations.

Your logic here would be like saying, I shot a gun, I didn't kill someone. When clearly, the RESULT of you shooting the gun is the death or injury of someone. You are responsible for the results of your choices.

Those physical processes create a child. The creation of a child creates legal obligations.

The creation of a child cannot occur without those physical processes which are solely under the control of one individual yet creating obligations for two other individuals without their consent.

For men, the right to choose how their body participates in reproduction ends with the sexual act.

Does this mean that in your opinion, having sex with someone is consent to be a parent?

I still don't see what's so hard about women choosing to abort or adopt if the man cuts himself off from legal responsibility. I agree that the man should have to pay the abortion costs if he gets a paper abortion and she then chooses to abort.

I just don't understand why anybody would think that women should be allowed to trick men into thinking that they are on birth control for purposes of recieving child support. That's just wrong. And it DOES happen; don't dismiss it. I realize I may care a little too much about this particular part of it, but that's because it happened to a great friend's brother. His girlfriend told him she was on the pill, but she was not. He is now paying child support and had to drop out of college because he could no longer afford tuition.

Anyway, why should women be allowed to do that? They aren't even charged with fraud or anything when it happens. It's just "hey, she got you! That's what you get for being born with a Y instead of an X. Maybe you should have thought about THAT before you were born!"

If your love is based on whether or not your sperm was involved, that *is* inhuman, and it isn't love. It's more like ownership.
So... In those rare cases where hospitals mix up the babies - parents who want to switch for their own children when the mistake is discovered several months/a few years later are inhuman?

Is it wrong for people to want to have children that are genetically theirs? Are parents-to-be who opt for test-tube babies or surrogate mothers rather than adoption inhuman?

What is it that makes billions of people around the world want to have their own children who are their own relation? Inhumanity according to you...


No, I'm saying that introducing the biological father and removing the known father at this point would be more detrimental than leaving the biological father out of it.

As far as I am concerned, in this discussion, the welfare of a child is more important than what any whiny bastard thinks they should be able to do.

Seeing as you can't force someone to love/care then I assume when you are refering to the childs welfare in the case of a guy who bizarrely does not want to have responsibility for a child that is not his then I assume you mean welfare=support.

If support for the child is what's important then go pick a random man/woman on the street and doc his/her pay for the next 18 years.


Your relationship with the child is the exact same as it always was. Your biological connection is not what you thought it was - which has nothing to do with your past interactions with the child and everything to do with your past interactions with the mother.
I just find the attitude that you expect a guy to have the same feelings for a child regardless of wether they find out they are the not real father realy bizarre. He might want to keep supporting the child that is is, he might not. If he does not then why the hell should he? It is not his child.

Your logic here would be like saying, I shot a gun, I didn't kill someone. When clearly, the RESULT of you shooting the gun is the death or injury of someone. You are responsible for the results of your choices.

Not at all. It is simply pointing out the reality of the situation. Parents have no legal obligations to each other. Men, at least, have no legal obligation to any processes going on in the woman's body. The legal obligations exist if and only if a child exists.

Those physical processes create a child.

Not necessarily.

The creation of a child creates legal obligations.

The existence of a child creates legal obligations. Unless you're going to advocate mass abandonment of infants on the streets, someone must be responsible for that child. At present, unless specific legal steps are taken to change this, those obligations fall upon the parents of that child.

The creation of a child cannot occur without those physical processes which are solely under the control of one individual yet creating obligations for two other individuals without their consent.

They obviously aren't solely under the control of one individual. They are under the control of one individual throughout most of the proceedings, yes. Believe me, if we could find a way to make men share in that, I'm sure we would. But the process wouldn't even be begun without the participation of the man, so to say that the processes are under the sole control of one individual would be false.

When men and women have sex (together, anyways), they are both consenting to the possibility of a pregnancy. And, as Bottle has pointed out, that is where a man's necessary participation in the reproductive process ends.

Does this mean that in your opinion, having sex with someone is consent to be a parent?

Having sex with someone is consent to the possibility of becoming a parent, especially if you are a man. As a man, your physical participation in reproduction ends at copulation. This is a biological fact that we have no control over. If a pregnancy occurs, and a child is born, both the mother and father are now parents, whether they like it or not.

This discussion, however, centers on the legal obligations of a being a parent. The question here isn't really about the choice to be a parent. It is whether or not a biological parent should have automatic legal obligations. ((Well, everyone is focusing on whether or not a man should have automatic legal obligations, but the question really should be whether or not any parent has automatic legal obligations))

Personally, I don't think anyone should have legal obligations that are forced upon them initially. I have a very, very, very low opinion of anyone who will not willingly take responsibility for their children and take on those legal obligations, but I don't think the best situation is to force them. These people are no better than those who neglect and abuse their children, and I don't think those people should be responsible for a child either.

I just don't understand why anybody would think that women should be allowed to trick men into thinking that they are on birth control for purposes of recieving child support. That's just wrong. And it DOES happen; don't dismiss it. I realize I may care a little too much about this particular part of it, but that's because it happened to a great friend's brother. His girlfriend told him she was on the pill, but she was not. He is now paying child support and had to drop out of college because he could no longer afford tuition.

Anyway, why should women be allowed to do that? They aren't even charged with fraud or anything when it happens. It's just "hey, she got you! That's what you get for being born with a Y instead of an X. Maybe you should have thought about THAT before you were born!"

Yes because every single one of us women out there are these evil bitches whose only plan is to dupe some poor (financially and otherwise) man into being the sperm donor for our evil progeny. Yes, you've hit the nail exactly on the head. Now we shall have to have our evil spies come and take you out (better watch your back!).

[/sarcasm]

Just because it happens in SOME cases doesn't mean it happens ALL THE TIME or that it's really this big huge thing we absolutely must consider at all times. We also must not forget that men can be just as "tricksy" as women.

And actually I do think that you could file charges against a woman for fraud on that basis.

We must also keep in mind that neither condoms nor the pill are ever 100% accurate (and the pill must be taken at the same time daily in order to reach it's maximum potential accuracy). I have friends that use 3 methods of birth control in order to make damn sure that they don't get pregnant (condom, the pill, and spermicide). It seems to me that you must acknowledge the risk of using one method of contraception.

And I would go on to further say that yes, consent to sex is assumption of the risk of pregnancy. We know it's a possibility, but we do it anyways.

Every time I have sex I think about the potential of getting pregnant. This is a risk I assume and were I to become pregnant I would gladly take up my duty to the child (as would my partner).

I just don't understand why anybody would think that women should be allowed to trick men into thinking that they are on birth control for purposes of recieving child support.

Do you know anyone who believes this?


Is it wrong for people to want to have children that are genetically theirs? Are parents-to-be who opt for test-tube babies or surrogate mothers rather than adoption inhuman?

Is it wrong to want a child that is biologically related to you? Of course not.

Is it wrong to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to achieve that when you could give an already born child a good home, I absolutely think so. It isn't inhuman, just incredibly selfish.

But there is a difference between wanting a child that is yours and abandoning one that you have raised as yours because you find out you are not biologically related. In that case, if you truly loved that child in the first place, you may be upset that they are not biologically yours, but you would not suddenly cease to care about them.

Seeing as you can't force someone to love/care then I assume when you are refering to the childs welfare in the case of a guy who bizarrely does not want to have responsibility for a child that is not his then I assume you mean welfare=support.

No, I'm not. You cannot force someone to love/care for a child, and that is precisely why I think the legal obligations of parenthood should not be initially forced on anyone. If someone wants to be an irresponsible bastard, get that person out of the child's life before they have a chance to scew it up.

However, once a parent has already taken on those responsibilities, they should not be able to skip out on them. If that parent turns out to be a dirtbag, the damage has already been done - the dirtbag is already a significant part of the child's life. Expecting at least the smallest amount of parenting - the monetary support - is not unreasonable when you have already voluntarily taken on that responsibility. T

I just find the attitude that you expect a guy to have the same feelings for a child regardless of wether they find out they are the not real father realy bizarre. He might want to keep supporting the child that is is, he might not. If he does not then why the hell should he? It is not his child.

If find the suggestion that finding out something about the genetics of a child could change your feelings towards them bizzarre. If it does, I think it is exceedingly clear that you never loved the child in the first place. You loved your own penis, apparently.

Meanwhile, that child is now his. He has voluntarily taken on care of that child and has participated in that child's life. For all intents and purposes, the child is his. He voluntarily took on that responsibility, and he should not be let out of it just because he and the mother have relationship issues. If he was really that worried about paternity, he should have had a test done in the first place.

Not necessarily.


Strictly true, however in the situation concrened in this thread the pregnancy does lead to a child. Without the child there are none of the obligations that this thread is discussed.

In the context of this thread the pregnancy leads to a child unless the mother-to-be aborts it.

The prospect of miscarriage/still birth has nothing at all to do with the mans (or womans) legal obligations that are being discussed in this thread.

Strictly true, however in the situation concrened in this thread the pregnancy does lead to a child. Without the child there are none of the obligations that this thread is discussed.

In the context of this thread the pregnancy leads to a child unless the mother-to-be aborts it.

The prospect of miscarriage/still birth has nothing at all to do with the mans (or womans) legal obligations that are being discussed in this thread.

Of course they do. In the case of miscarriage or stillbirth, there are no legal obligations, just as there are no legal obligations in the case of abortion. As such, it becomes exceedingly obvious that it is not the pregnancy that creates these legal obligations, but the existence of a living child - a human being in need of care.

Thus, the difference between actual abortion and the "paper abortion" option become exceedingly clear. In an actual abortion, there is no child, and thus no legal obligations - same as with a miscarrige, stillbirth, or no pregnancy at all. In a "paper abortion", there likely is a child and what a person signing such a document would be doing is abandoning that child - cutting all legal obligations to that child without regard to the situation that puts the child in. At present, no human being has this option. Parents who wish to cut their legal ties to a child must ensure that the child will receive adequate support, generally by signing those ties away to another set of parents or an agency dedicated to finding such parents.

What you wish to do is allow one parent (and one parent only, from the sounds of it, since you have yet to respond to the fact that this same legal construct, if allowed, would have to be equally allowed to both men and women) to cut those ties without making any such arrangements.

3) Sally should have the child taken away and she should be charged with harming the baby (drinking whilst pregnant will do that)

4) I think the man should be able to cut himself off so long as he doesn’t mind never seeing his child

I agree.

-snip first bit-snip-
Care to answer the case for parents of switched babies? Inhuman and evil?


No, I'm not. You cannot force someone to love/care for a child, and that is precisely why I think the legal obligations of parenthood should not be initially forced on anyone. If someone wants to be an irresponsible bastard, get that person out of the child's life before they have a chance to scew it up.

However, once a parent has already taken on those responsibilities, they should not be able to skip out on them. If that parent turns out to be a dirtbag, the damage has already been done - the dirtbag is already a significant part of the child's life. Expecting at least the smallest amount of parenting - the monetary support - is not unreasonable when you have already voluntarily taken on that responsibility. T

I like how the guy who was cheated on is the bad guy... but anyway.

If the man does not want anything to do with the mother or the child that is not his when he discovers the parentage of the child then the only support you are talking about is monetry.

The is no good reason why the guy should provide the monetry support rather than some random person in the street. Even less reason why he should provide it rather than the biological father.

Have the woman track down the biological parent and get him to provide the financial support. How is that in any way less reasonable than having a guy who does not want to have anything to do with a child that is not his provide the cash?


If find the suggestion that finding out something about the genetics of a child could change your feelings towards them bizzarre. If it does, I think it is exceedingly clear that you never loved the child in the first place. You loved your own penis, apparently.
WTF? This is finding out the child has NO relation to you at al and that you had no part in bringing it into the world whatsoever. That someone else did and is freeloading.


Meanwhile, that child is now his. He has voluntarily taken on care of that child and has participated in that child's life. For all intents and purposes, the child is his. He voluntarily took on that responsibility, and he should not be let out of it just because he and the mother have relationship issues. If he was really that worried about paternity, he should have had a test done in the first place.
He took on the responsibility based on the belief the child was his. If he wants to continue the responsibility on finding out this is not the case that should be his choice. You seem to feel he should be punished for having a little trust in the relationship...


Can I ask a personal question? Well - I'm going to ask it, can you answer it?

Were you abandoned? You seem to have serious issues with the idea a man does not want to look after a child that is not his. Your issue seems to be almost solely about abandoment and you obviously feel very passionately about it. Your posting seems to indicate that somebody - ANYBODY - should be there as a father regardless of wether they are the biological parent or not. You seem to feel that whoever was in a relationship with a woman when she gives birth is forever bound to love and support the child - regardless of wether it is his or not.

Bottle,

A man's right to choose is a progressive idea because it seeks a novel way to have more freedom and equality. Men should be just as free to decide to be legally obligated to financially support a child as a woman. Men have NEVER had this right. I challenge you to prove me wrong. Furthermore, a man's right to choose gives him no power over a woman's right to choose it just makes things equal. Nobody is saying that a man should be able to force a woman to have or not have an abortion. Supporters of a man's right to choose are merely allowing a man to forfeit any rights or obligations that he may have to a baby that has not been born yet through a proper legal procedure that gives the woman actual notice if he knew that the woman was pregnant and he might be the father or through constructive notice if she tried to deceive him or keep him in the dark until the baby was born.

Care to answer the case for parents of switched babies? Inhuman and evil?

Have they been loving and raising that child for years and now they wish to dump it off in favor of a child they have never known? In that case, yes, inhuman.

I like how the guy who was cheated on is the bad guy... but anyway.

He isn't, necessarily. In the discussion of cheating, obviously the cheater is the "bad guy." However, that doesn't make the man cheated on a saint, either. If he demonstrates, through his actions, that he is also a "bad guy," then he is.

If the man does not want anything to do with the mother or the child that is not his when he discovers the parentage of the child then the only support you are talking about is monetry.

Not necessarily. People divorce all the time and don't want to interact with each other, but do it anyways because they *gasp* love their children! Believe it or not, good parents want what is best for their children, and will even go so far as to see a person they don't like if that is what is best.

The is no good reason why the guy should provide the monetry support rather than some random person in the street. Even less reason why he should provide it rather than the biological father.

There is no good reason why any human being should be able to neglect and abandon a child.

Have the woman track down the biological parent and get him to provide the financial support. How is that in any way less reasonable than having a guy who does not want to have anything to do with a child that is not his provide the cash?

Having an unwilling parent in a child's life isn't a good thing. However, in this case, the legal parent is already a part of that child's life. Having them disappear from that child's life isn't going to fix anything. In fact, it will most likely increase that child's feelings of abandonment. Meanwhile, introducing a new unwilling parent into that child's life is going to unnecessarily disrupt it.

WTF? This is finding out the child has NO relation to you at al and that you had no part in bringing it into the world whatsoever. That someone else did and is freeloading.

If your love is based on whether or not your penis was involved, then you don't love the child, you love your penis instead. A man who wishes to have nothing to do with a child he has been raising for years simply because he finds out his penis didn't cause that child to be born, then he never cared for the child at all.

He took on the responsibility based on the belief the child was his. If he wants to continue the responsibility on finding out this is not the case that should be his choice. You seem to feel he should be punished for having a little trust in the relationship...

Yes, it sucks. If I take responsibility for a child thinking that child is going to be a football player, and it turns out that he is a klutz, can I give up legal responsibility? If I take responsibility for a child thinking that the child is my cousin, and then fiind out that the child isn't, do I get to give up the legal responsibility?

The choice to take on responsibility for a child is not a flippant decision. If you do so, you are in it for the rest of the time that child is a child, and if you are worth anything, for the rest of that child's life.

Can I ask a personal question? Well - I'm going to ask it, can you answer it?

Were you abandoned?

No. My father was less than responsible, but he never sought to cut all ties with me, legal or otherwise.

You seem to have serious issues with the idea a man does not want to look after a child that is not his.

Not at all. If a woman has a child and an unrelated man doesn't want to look after it, that is just fine. I have a problem with any adult who takes on the responsibility of looking after a child, who claims to care for that child, and then wishes to abandon that child for any reason. The reason could be, "My penis didn't do it." The reason could be, "I had a mid-life crisis." The reason could be, "I'm a crackhead." The reason could be, "The voices told me I shouldn't." The reason doesn't matter. Anyone who takes on the responsibility to raise a child, claims to care for that child, and then seeks to abandon that child is a deadbeat, plain and simple

Your issue seems to be almost solely about abandoment and you obviously feel very passionately about it.

That's because that's what this is. As I pointed out before, my concern in these situations is not the parents who ended up with a child they don't want. They are obviously irresponsible. My concern is for the welfare of the child.

Your posting seems to indicate that somebody - ANYBODY - should be there as a father regardless of wether they are the biological parent or not.

Hardly. I have said nothing that even comes close to saying this.

You seem to feel that whoever was in a relationship with a woman when she gives birth is forever bound to love and support the child - regardless of wether it is his or not.

Not at all. I think anyone who willingly takes on the responsibilities of raising a child is bound to that responsibility. I think anyone who claims to love another, but would abandon them because of the actions of someone completely different is a liar.

If a man feels that he should only be a part of a child's life if he is the father of that child, the only responsible thing he can do is demand a paternity test when the child is born, and then walk away then if the child is not his. If his love is dependent upon the involvement of his penis, then he needs to make sure that he isn't going to scew up a child's life down the line.

Bottle,

A man's right to choose is a progressive idea because it seeks a novel way to have more freedom and equality. Men should be just as free to decide to be legally obligated to financially support a child as a woman. Men have NEVER had this right. I challenge you to prove me wrong. Furthermore, a man's right to choose gives him no power over a woman's right to choose it just makes things equal. Nobody is saying that a man should be able to force a woman to have or not have an abortion. Supporters of a man's right to choose are merely allowing a man to forfeit any rights or obligations that he may have to a baby that has not been born yet through a proper legal procedure that gives the woman actual notice if he knew that the woman was pregnant and he might be the father or through constructive notice if she tried to deceive him or keep him in the dark until the baby was born.

No a womans right to abortion is about the right over body ...

Paper abortion is the right to abandon an already born child ...

You are right it is more freedom but do you think the right to abandon a child legaly should be a right someone should have.

And if so do you think the female should have the same right?

Not necessarily. People divorce all the time and don't want to interact with each other, but do it anyways because they *gasp* love their children! Believe it or not, good parents want what is best for their children, and will even go so far as to see a person they don't like if that is what is best.

There is no good reason why any human being should be able to neglect and abandon a child.

Having an unwilling parent in a child's life isn't a good thing. However, in this case, the legal parent is already a part of that child's life. Having them disappear from that child's life isn't going to fix anything. In fact, it will most likely increase that child's feelings of abandonment. Meanwhile, introducing a new unwilling parent into that child's life is going to unnecessarily disrupt it.

The scenario is the father does not want anything to do with the child. In such a scenario he would obviously not be providing the social side of the support of the child. The ONLY support left to provide after he is not providing the social side (which nobody can legally force anyone to do - you cant force love) is the financial side.

The is NO reason why he should have to financialy suport the child if it is not his. None at all. If the mother needs financial support she should go find the biological father and make him cough up the dough.

Seeing as the only support being provided in this case is financial then it does not matter to the childs welfare wether it comes from the biological father or the other dude.

The scenario is the father does not want anything to do with the child. In such a scenario he would obviously not be providing the social side of the support of the child. The ONLY support left to provide after he is not providing the social side (which nobody can legally force anyone to do - you cant force love) is the financial side.

The is NO reason why he should have to financialy suport the child if it is not his. None at all.

Yes, there is. He took on that responsibility willingly, and it isn't a "just for a couple of years responsibility." When you take on custody of a child, that is a life decision. You don't get to just back out of it later. If he isn't comfortable with that decision, then he shouldn't make it.

And maybe he is unwilling to provide anything more than financial care. Unfortunately, that is all we can legally require. Of course, a man who could actually look his child in the eye and say, "Sorry, mommy lied to daddy, so daddy doesn't love you anymore. Shove off, kid," is a monster. I wouldn't care if we took *all* his assets and gave them to the child, although I would recognize it as illegal.

Seeing as the only support being provided in this case is financial then it does not matter to the childs welfare wether it comes from the biological father or the other dude.

Yes, it does. Introducing a *new* uncaring parent on top of the old deadbeat will disrupt a child's life. It will bring even more feelings of abandonment. Imagine being a young child and knowing that, not only does your daddy not love you anymore, but this new guy that you've been told is your daddy doesn't love you either. No one wants you. Yeah, that's a wonderful thing to do to a child. :rolleyes:

At least, if the old parent is still around, the child won't feel completely abandoned by someone who supposedly loved him.

Yes, there is. He took on that responsibility willingly, and it isn't a "just for a couple of years responsibility." When you take on custody of a child, that is a life decision. You don't get to just back out of it later. If he isn't comfortable with that decision, then he shouldn't make it.
I don't see the difference between a guy discovering the child is not his the day it is born and walking out and discovering a year later that it is not his and walking out.

The child is not supported by him in either case and the mother has to either support it on her own or find the real father.


Yes, it does. Introducing a *new* uncaring parent on top of the old deadbeat will disrupt a child's life. It will bring even more feelings of abandonment. Imagine being a young child and knowing that, not only does your daddy not love you anymore, but this new guy that you've been told is your daddy doesn't love you either. No one wants you. Yeah, that's a wonderful thing to do to a child. :rolleyes:.

And what part of that is the guys fault? That's an issue created by the mother, and in part the biolgical father. They should be the ones to resolve it. Shit -there are hundreds of abandoned children out there - do I have a responsibility to provide love, affection or care for them because their fathers skipped out on them? hell no.


As to the 'penis love' thing - aside from the whole issue of people (male and female) wanting to raise their own biological children rather than other peoples - you seem to feel that if a mans penis IS involved then BECAUSE his penis was involved he should support the child (in the non-duped-dude case). And presumeably the reason I am not paying child suport for any of the billions of children in the world today is because my penis was not involved in creating any of them. If the mans penis involvement is enough to justify him paying child support then the lack of involvement should exclude him from it.

If a guy is not the biological parent he should not have to support a child unless he took on the responsibility knowing the child was not his - adoption, the wife/gf fessed up while still pregnant.

If he finds out the day of the birth or a few years later it still stands.

I don't see the difference between a guy discovering the child is not his the day it is born and walking out and discovering a year later that it is not his and walking out.

If a guy finds out on the day it is born, he never makes the decision to care for that child. He never takes on the legal responsibilities to that child. He has no emotional ties to that child.

None of these things can be said of a man who decides to walk out a year into the child's life.

And what part of that is the guys fault?

The part where his love is tied to his penis. The part where he will stop doing what is best for a child because his feelings towards that child's mother have changed.

That's an issue created by the mother, and in part the biolgical father. They should be the ones to resolve it.

The issue of biological parentage is created by the mother, and perhaps the biological father (if he ever knew what was going on). The issue of abandonment is an issue created by the father who is willing to abandon a child he supposedly loved.

Shit -there are hundreds of abandoned children out there - do I have a responsibility to provide love, affection or care for them because their fathers skipped out on them? hell no.

No, you don't. But if you take on responsibility for a child and care for that child for years, you absolutely do have a responsibility to provide that. And, if you don't, you are scum.

As to the 'penis love' thing - aside from the whole issue of people (male and female) wanting to raise their own biological children rather than other peoples - you seem to feel that if a mans penis IS involved then BECAUSE his penis was involved he should support the child (in the non-duped-dude case). And presumeably the reason I am not paying child suport for any of the billions of children in the world today is because my penis was not involved in creating any of them. If the mans penis involvement is enough to justify him paying child support then the lack of involvement should exclude him from it.

Not once he has already taken that involvement on, no it shouldn't. It keeps him from being involved initially if he so chooses, yes. But the decision to take responsibility for a child is not one you can just take back a few years in. Once you make that decision, it is made and it is (or should be) permanent.

Remember, we aren't talking about a woman having a child and the father immediately finding out that he is not the biological father. We are talking about a man who willinly raises a child, and when he finds out later, wishes to abandon that child.

If "my penis wasn't involved" was really a legal out, then any man who adopted a child would be able to abandon it willy nilly because not having a penile involvement would be enough to "exclude him" from that responsibility.

If a guy is not the biological parent he should not have to support a child unless he took on the responsibility knowing the child was not his - adoption, the wife/gf fessed up while still pregnant.

If he finds out the day of the birth or a few years later it still stands.

No, it doesn't. Once again, the decision to raise a child is not something you can back out of down the road just because your feelings are hurt.

If I have a child that I wish to be an heir - that I wish to carry on the family line, but then find out when he is 3 that he will be sterile, do I automatically get to cut off all ties to him? Of course not. I willingly took on that responsibility, and finding out something that I don't like about that child doesn't absolve me of it.

Once you make that legal choice, you are stuck with it, sorry if you don't like it. Sort of like joining the army. Once you join, you're stuck with their rules until they decide you can go. You don't get to say, "Oh, but I thought boot camp would be easier!" or "Oh, but I thought I'd get to go to Harvard," and get out of service.

Does this mean that in your opinion, having sex with someone is consent to be a parent?
I suppose that, from a certain perspective, it does mean that for men. Men's right to choose their role in reproduction ends with the sexual act, so that's the cut off for their "choice" in the matter. If a pregnancy occurs, the man has absolutely no say in whether or not it will continue to the point at which a child is born (in my opinion).

Women's bodies continue to participate in reproduction throughout pregnancy so their choice extends as long as their body's involvement does. I very sincerely wish that men and women were equally able to physically participate in pregnancy, but our biology is not equal in this area.

In my opinion, men and women should have precisely the same legal obligation to their born children. This obligation is to the child, and exists regardless of how or why it was produced (since the child didn't determine any of that).

The fact that women have the right to control whether or not their own bodies participates in the production of a child does not in any way infringe on men's right to do precisely the same thing, nor does it require that men be granted special exemptions for their responsibilities to any of their born children (since, again, these responsibilities are TO THE CHILD, not to the woman) in the name of "equality."

UPDATE: I should be careful to specify something here. I believe that men and women should have equal legal obligation to their born children; if men are given the legal right to get out of their obligations to a child before it is born, then women must be granted precisely the same right. I tend to think that this would create more problems than it would solve, and would help a particular subclass of selfish adults at the expense of the welfare of many, many children, but I would be willing to debate that point.

The problem with the father being able to opt out is that there would be no reason for any father to pay anymore, even if he did not actually prefer an abortion.

Example:
Silly and Ballie are both against abortion, be it for religious, moral or other reasons. Silly knows Ballie won't abort, but he doesn't want to pay. All he needs to do is to tell her to abort, and that he wasn't going to pay for the baby. Ballie gets the baby anyway. Silly now hasn't been involved in an abortion, but doesn't have to pay, and therefore lives happily ever after.


Disclaimer: With jolt barely working, I haven't read much of the thread. Apologies for repetitions.

The problem with the father being able to opt out is that there would be no reason for any father to pay anymore, even if he did not actually prefer an abortion.

Example:
Silly and Ballie are both against abortion, be it for religious, moral or other reasons. Silly knows Ballie won't abort, but he doesn't want to pay. All he needs to do is to tell her to abort, and that he wasn't going to pay for the baby. Ballie gets the baby anyway. Silly now hasn't been involved in an abortion, but doesn't have to pay, and therefore lives happily ever after.


Disclaimer: With jolt barely working, I haven't read much of the thread. Apologies for repetitions.

The problem with the father being able to opt out is that there would be no reason for any father to pay anymore, even if he did not actually prefer an abortion.

Example:
Silly and Ballie are both against abortion, be it for religious, moral or other reasons. Silly knows Ballie won't abort, but he doesn't want to pay. All he needs to do is to tell her to abort, and that he wasn't going to pay for the baby. Ballie gets the baby anyway. Silly now hasn't been involved in an abortion, but doesn't have to pay, and therefore lives happily ever after.


Disclaimer: With jolt barely working, I haven't read much of the thread. Apologies for repetitions.

The problem with the father being able to opt out is that there would be no reason for any father to pay anymore, even if he did not actually prefer an abortion.

Example:
Silly and Ballie are both against abortion, be it for religious, moral or other reasons. Silly knows Ballie won't abort, but he doesn't want to pay. All he needs to do is to tell her to abort, and that he wasn't going to pay for the baby. Ballie gets the baby anyway. Silly now hasn't been involved in an abortion, but doesn't have to pay, and therefore lives happily ever after.


Disclaimer: With jolt barely working, I haven't read much of the thread. Apologies for repetitions.

Parents have no legal obligations to each other. Men, at least, have no legal obligation to any processes going on in the woman's body. The legal obligations exist if and only if a child exists.


So all medical expenses incurred for a pregnancy and birth are the sole responsibility of the pregant woman then?
No child yet exists, so the potential father bears no responsibility for them?


Not necessarily.


The only time those physical processes are relevant to this discussion, it is necessary.


The existence of a child creates legal obligations.

No, the creation of a child creates legal obligations. The existence of a child merely sustains them.


They obviously aren't solely under the control of one individual. They are under the control of one individual throughout most of the proceedings, yes.


If 2 individuals consent to sex with birth control, they have consented to sex, nothing more.

If the birth control fails, you are now saying that the female enjoys the right to solely decide for both parties whether or not they will create a child and therefore create legal obligations for both individuals.

You can rant all you want about deadbeat dads and misogynist men and who really loves whom and where your respect lies, but none of that has anything to do with the issue.

Your position is inconsistent and irrationally biased to your own gender.

I suppose that, from a certain perspective, it does mean that for men. Men's right to choose their role in reproduction ends with the sexual act, so that's the cut off for their "choice" in the matter.

Consent to sex does then equal consent to parenthood, but only for one gender.

Well, now you're honest about your bias at least.


UPDATE: I should be careful to specify something here. I believe that men and women should have equal legal obligation to their born children; if men are given the legal right to get out of their obligations to a child before it is born, then women must be granted precisely the same right.

They have that right with adoption.

No a womans right to abortion is about the right over body ...

Paper abortion is the right to abandon an already born child ...

You are right it is more freedom but do you think the right to abandon a child legaly should be a right someone should have.

And if so do you think the female should have the same right?
The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that "paper abortions" would have the eventual, possibly inevitable, effect of decriminalizing child abandonment, especially if it is granted to both sexes. And if it isn't, then it's discrimination.

While I agree that there should be an easier way to remove parental rights from deadbeats who do not want their born children, this particular idea is completely wrong-headed. There is no way to apply it fairly. If it's not unfair to women, then it is unfair to born children.

Let's consider:

1) It is absolutely naive to assume that only men who are "duped" into not using a condom will invoke such a privilege. Men are just as, if not more, likely to be the ones doing the "duping" to persuade women to let them have sex without condoms. Some men will say anything -- they'll promise to marry the woman, they'll promise to take care of any child. Hell, personal experience for illustration, I once broke up with a guy who kept hounding me about the wonderful experiences of motherhood, and how he really loved me and thought we could get married, and didn't I really want a baby of my own (we'd been dating three weeks), all just because he didn't want to use a condom. And every year, hundreds of such selfish men then complain that they were taken advantage of if the woman gets pregnant. Many of them will even whine about being asked to chip in on abortion costs.

2) If women are not equally given the privilege of a "paper abortion," then this would be giving men legal permission to abandon their children and the women they impregnate, while leaving women burdened with all the parental responsibilities. Considering the common, selfish motivations described above, how are we going to make "paper abortion" be about stopping men from being taken advantage of, rather than giving men a legal tool that will allow them to take advantage of women?

3) If we do give women as well as men the "paper abortion" privilege to abandon their children, then can anyone tell me how this will not effectively legalize child abandonment? Every year, hundreds of children are simply abandoned by selfish, irresponsible adults. With "paper abortions," all they would have to do is get some piece of paper, and it will be entirely legal for them to do it, without having to go through proper channels and authorities.

4) And that's another thing -- what exactly are these "paper abortions" anyway? What kind of document are they? Who drafts them? Who issues them? Who signs them? Do they have to be witnessed? Do they have to be filed anywhere, the way birth certificates, marriage licenses, and divorce decrees do? If not, then they are nothing but a "get out jail free" card for guys who don't like condoms. If yes -- if they are just like the other family documents -- then guess what? They're not much different from existing paperwork to relinquish parental rights, are they? So, then, what the hell do we need "paper abortions" for?

So all medical expenses incurred for a pregnancy and birth are the sole responsibility of the pregant woman then?
No child yet exists, so the potential father bears no responsibility for them?
Are you implying that person should be able to buy the right to control another person? You seem to be implying that by connecting pregnancy and parenthood to the paying of money.

The only time those physical processes are relevant to this discussion, it is necessary.
Then how do you propose to guarantee it? You'd have to have a successful birth absolutely guaranteed to make pregnancy applicable to this discussion of parental rights.

No, the creation of a child creates legal obligations. The existence of a child merely sustains them.
Wrong. There is no legal obligation to be a parent to a child who is not born. If you say otherwise, then I am sure you can cite the specific laws that list those obligations and that penalize people for not fulfilling them during pregnancy.

The fact is, a father-to-be who pays prenatal medical bills is NOT legally obligated to do so. He does so by choice.

An actual father of a born child IS legally obligated to either provide support for that child or else to legally relinquish his parental rights (exactly the same as the actual mother). But he cannot do that before the child exists because his obligations don't exist until the child exists.

If 2 individuals consent to sex with birth control, they have consented to sex, nothing more.

If the birth control fails, you are now saying that the female enjoys the right to solely decide for both parties whether or not they will create a child and therefore create legal obligations for both individuals.
Exactly. Because the only way that child can be created is if she consents to be the SOLE bearer of all the physical risks and burdens of pregnancy. Since she carries ALL the risk, she carries ALL the authority.

You can rant all you want about deadbeat dads and misogynist men and who really loves whom and where your respect lies, but none of that has anything to do with the issue.

Your position is inconsistent and irrationally biased to your own gender.
And your argument highlights another problem with the false "equality" argument of the people advocating paper abortions. It plays into the hands of anti-choicers who like to try to equate embryos with children.

4) And that's another thing -- what exactly are these "paper abortions" anyway? What kind of document are they? Who drafts them? Who issues them? Who signs them? Do they have to be witnessed? Do they have to be filed anywhere, the way birth certificates, marriage licenses, and divorce decrees do? If not, then they are nothing but a "get out jail free" card for guys who don't like condoms. If yes -- if they are just like the other family documents -- then guess what? They're not much different from existing paperwork to relinquish parental rights, are they? So, then, what the hell do we need "paper abortions" for?

May I ask...what the hell kind of "existing paperwork" are you talking about? With VERY few exceptions in some states, there IS NO existing paperwork to relinquish paarental rights. It doesn't exist. That's exactly what these "paper abortions" are, paperwork to relinquish parental rights.

There is no option, other than adoption, to do so, in most circumstances.

Consent to sex does then equal consent to parenthood, but only for one gender.

Well, now you're honest about your bias at least.




They have that right with adoption.
Again, you are wrong. This whole argument has been based on the idea of a man who doesn't want a child and a woman who does. Let's reverse it. It sometimes happens that the man does want the child but the woman doesn't. A woman cannot put her child up for adoption unless the father agrees. If he does not agree, then any adoption will be invalid and the child will have to be returned to the custody of the father, who can then seek enforcement of child support payments from the mother. Even laws that allow women to abandon their infants to appropriate authorities, such as police or hospitals, with no questions asked, are not absolute. Such laws only work if the other parent doesn't turn up demanding to know where his baby is. And if that does happen, then the woman could conceivably be charged child abandonment.

So you see, the mother is just as legally bound to the child as the father is.

May I ask...what the hell kind of "existing paperwork" are you talking about? With VERY few exceptions in some states, there IS NO existing paperwork to relinquish paarental rights. It doesn't exist. That's exactly what these "paper abortions" are, paperwork to relinquish parental rights.

There is no option, other than adoption, to do so, in most circumstances.

Wrong terms. I was thinking of adoption documents. Parents relinquish their rights when they put a child up for adoption.

Now, since you're the lawyer, care to address the other questions in that paragraph?

Wrong terms. I was thinking of adoption documents. Parents relinquish their rights when they put a child up for adoption.

Now, since you're the lawyer, care to address the other questions in that paragraph?

not fully, not at 2 in the morning.

I will say only a few things:

1) claims of "a lot" or "many" or "most" without substantiation are hardly serious arguments

2) I've already said I would have no problem with women given equivalent rights to terminate legal responsibilities to a child even though they can bring that child to term.

3) You discuss legalizing abandonment. Legalized abandonment already exists. In many states mothers can drop new born children at a hospital or police station, no questions asked, and walk away. Given that such form already exists for mothers to quite legally abandon their new born child provided the father is unknown or can not be contacted, are you seriously suggesting that men would abuse this MORE than women? You're saying men shouldn't have the right to "legalized abandonment" while at the same time, in several states, legalized abandonment exists already for women?

It is already absolutly, totally, completely legal for women to abandon their newborn children, in the majority of states in this country. Since the question of "would this legalize child abandonment" argument is irrelevant since child abandonment IS already legal, for women, the question is "would this legalize child abandonment for MEN?" The answer, of course, is yes. Now the question that needs to be asked is "why should women have the option to legally abandon their children, and men should not?"

By the way, some info on these provisions:

http://www.adopting.org/adoptions/legalized-abandonment-state-safe-haven-laws-and-programs.html

Also worth noting that while some of the states require the mother AND father to do so, or allow EITHER parent to do so, in the majority of states with those laws, those laws apply ONLY to the mother, the MOTHER can legally abandon the child in an appropriate place and walk away. The father can not.

If a guy finds out on the day it is born, he never makes the decision to care for that child. He never takes on the legal responsibilities to that child. He has no emotional ties to that child.

None of these things can be said of a man who decides to walk out a year into the child's life.
So - he can cut the emotional ties. So what? Why the hell should he then have financial ties that can just as easily come from the real father?


The part where his love is tied to his penis. The part where he will stop doing what is best for a child because his feelings towards that child's mother have changed.
You seem fine with him deciding on wether he will love the child based on parentage if he has a paternity test right after birth. What is wrong with him deciding to continue the love based on a parternity test a year later?

The descision to love is still based on wether the guy is the real parent.

Seriously?

'Sally' goes into hospital and has her baby. She exclaims "I love her" when she first sees the baby. She looks after the baby for a couple of days in hospital. As she is leaving she is told "oh - we mixed the babies up, that is another womans child - but as you have declared your love and have an emotional bond to the child then you are an inhuman monster if you want to switch the child because your vagina was not involved in the creation of the baby you are holding"


The issue of biological parentage is created by the mother, and perhaps the biological father (if he ever knew what was going on). The issue of abandonment is an issue created by the father who is willing to abandon a child he supposedly loved.
The whole situation was created by the mother, with a little biological help from the biological father.The responsibility to the child for abandonment rests with the mother fr creating the situation to start with.


No, you don't. But if you take on responsibility for a child and care for that child for years, you absolutely do have a responsibility to provide that. And, if you don't, you are scum.
No. If you take on the responsibility on the understanding it is your child and then find out it is not then you owe the kid and the mother nothing.


If "my penis wasn't involved" was really a legal out, then any man who adopted a child would be able to abandon it willy nilly because not having a penile involvement would be enough to "exclude him" from that responsibility.

Wrong. If you take on responsibility knowing the kid is not yours then that is very different to not wanting to keep responsibility if you discover a child you thought was yours is in fact somebody elses


Once you make that legal choice, you are stuck with it, sorry if you don't like it. Sort of like joining the army. Once you join, you're stuck with their rules until they decide you can go. You don't get to say, "Oh, but I thought boot camp would be easier!" or "Oh, but I thought I'd get to go to Harvard," and get out of service.
Not really - this is more like going to a job interview in a Bank, accepting the job, then being told that you are actually going to be in the army for the next 18 years.

I suppose that, from a certain perspective, it does mean that for men. Men's right to choose their role in reproduction ends with the sexual act, so that's the cut off for their "choice" in the matter. If a pregnancy occurs, the man has absolutely no say in whether or not it will continue to the point at which a child is born (in my opinion).

Women's bodies continue to participate in reproduction throughout pregnancy so their choice extends as long as their body's involvement does. I very sincerely wish that men and women were equally able to physically participate in pregnancy, but our biology is not equal in this area.

In my opinion, men and women should have precisely the same legal obligation to their born children. This obligation is to the child, and exists regardless of how or why it was produced (since the child didn't determine any of that).

The fact that women have the right to control whether or not their own bodies participates in the production of a child does not in any way infringe on men's right to do precisely the same thing, nor does it require that men be granted special exemptions for their responsibilities to any of their born children (since, again, these responsibilities are TO THE CHILD, not to the woman) in the name of "equality."

UPDATE: I should be careful to specify something here. I believe that men and women should have equal legal obligation to their born children; if men are given the legal right to get out of their obligations to a child before it is born, then women must be granted precisely the same right. I tend to think that this would create more problems than it would solve, and would help a particular subclass of selfish adults at the expense of the welfare of many, many children, but I would be willing to debate that point.

Woman already have this right. It is called abortion.

All of this "participation" business is a feminist argument meant to disempower men. A parent has a responsibility to provide for a child. If a woman does not want this responsibility she does not have to accept it. She can abort the baby. A man should have the same right to "participate"( if you will), in the decision to financially support an as of yet unborn child.

So all medical expenses incurred for a pregnancy and birth are the sole responsibility of the pregant woman then?
No child yet exists, so the potential father bears no responsibility for them?

Legally? Yes, unless the two are married (in which case all of their assets are shared anyways), the man is not legally responsible for a woman's healthcare.

The only time those physical processes are relevant to this discussion, it is necessary.

Those processes are always relevant, considering that the entire discussion is trying to equate ending those processes with ending legal responsibility for a child.

If 2 individuals consent to sex with birth control, they have consented to sex, nothing more.

Consenting to sex is also consenting to the risks that go along with sex. In other words, both consent to the risk of a pregnancy occurring (along with various STDs). Pregnancy occurs within a woman's body, so she is the only one that can end it. As such, sex for a man is necessarily consent to the possibility of fathering a child.

If the birth control fails, you are now saying that the female enjoys the right to solely decide for both parties whether or not they will create a child and therefore create legal obligations for both individuals.

I am saying that the woman enjoys the right to control her own body and make her own medical decisions. Yes, in the end, her decisions are a determinant in whether or not a child is created. This is not, however, an inequality in the law. It is an inequality in biology. As soon as men can get pregnant, they will be the sole deciders in whether or not their pregnancies go to term.

You can rant all you want about deadbeat dads and misogynist men and who really loves whom and where your respect lies, but none of that has anything to do with the issue.

Yes, actually, it does. If such a legal construct were available, then everyone who used it would be a deadbeat parent. As such, the issue of deadbeat parents is extremely relevant.

Your position is inconsistent and irrationally biased to your own gender.

Not at all. First of all, if you had read my posts, you would see that I am all for keeping unwilling parents out of a child's life, as I think it creates a better situation for the child. You would also see that I am in favor of treating men and women equally in this regard, which is more than I can say for most of the participants int he thread.

I have equal respect for both men and women who abandon their children. That is to say, none.

Consent to sex does then equal consent to parenthood, but only for one gender.

Well, now you're honest about your bias at least.

It isn't a personal bias. It is a biological bias. Are you under the impression that men and women participate equally in pregnancy?

They have that right with adoption.

Incorrect. First of all, while one can begin making arrangements for adoption before birth, no decision is final until after birth. Parents can sign all the papers they want, but the final papers must be signed after birth, as one obviously cannot adopt a child that does not yet exist. Second of all, adoption does not allow a person to get out of legal responsibilities to a child without seeing to that child's welfare. Parents can give up those responsibilities and custody of the child only in the case that adoptive parents or an agency that will adequately provide for the child's welfare until finding such parents have been found.

The "paper abortion", on the other hand, allows a parent to cut all ties to a possible child before that child is even born. It also removes the obligation to ensure that the child's welfare is seen to. Thus, the two are far from the same.

Meanwhile, a woman does not have any more right to an adoption, currently, than a man. While people certainly try to get around it, a mother cannot legally put a child up for adoption without the consent of the father or, if she cannot contact the father, effort being made to do so. As the law currently stands, adoption requires the consent of *both* biological parents.

they made the choice, the decision when they had sex that night.



exactly. the father does have the choice, if he knows that he cant support a possible child then he should not have sex. if he want to have sex he needs to come to terms with the possible outcome of having sex.

Oh, come now, you're going to hold a man responsible for 18 years for having sex with some hot chick (or worse, ugly) he met while he was shitfaced in college? You get less than that for most crimes. Simple fact is, men don't have equal protection under the law, and the courts are severely prejudiced. It's her body, but it affects the man just as much long term.

I do want to add something to that post of mine:

I believe that the topic of an individual's right to "divorce" themselves from their children is an important topic. It is absolutely worth discussing. I am simply tired of people trying to equate that topic with the subject of abortion. The two are totally different issues, and each is very emotionally charged on its own. The last thing we need is to further muddle both topics by mashing them together.

you just want another amen from me don't you? going on admit it

So - he can cut the emotional ties. So what? Why the hell should he then have financial ties that can just as easily come from the real father?

You're being ridiculous. He may be enough of a monster to pretend to love a child for several years and then just cut his own emotional ties, but he cannot cut the child's emotional ties. Those have already been formed. And if he was thinking about what was best for the child, he wouldn't attempt to walk out on those ties.

You seem fine with him deciding on wether he will love the child based on parentage if he has a paternity test right after birth. What is wrong with him deciding to continue the love based on a parternity test a year later?

The fact that love doesn't work that way? Anyone who thinks it does has never in their life actually loved anyone.

If you found out that your mother (or you child, if you have one) didn't actually share half of your genetics, would you be able to automagically stop loving them?

The descision to love is still based on wether the guy is the real parent.

Once you love someone (if you really do), the decision-making is over. You can't just decide one day, "I don't want to love this person anymore," and have it work. If it does, you never really felt love in the first place.

'Sally' goes into hospital and has her baby. She exclaims "I love her" when she first sees the baby. She looks after the baby for a couple of days in hospital. As she is leaving she is told "oh - we mixed the babies up, that is another womans child - but as you have declared your love and have an emotional bond to the child then you are an inhuman monster if you want to switch the child because your vagina was not involved in the creation of the baby you are holding"

That's a wonderful strawman. Now, would you like to join the real conversation, where we are talking about people who have raised a child for quite some time?

The whole situation was created by the mother, with a little biological help from the biological father.The responsibility to the child for abandonment rests with the mother fr creating the situation to start with.

That is one the most idiotic statements I have ever heard. If someone wrongs you, that automatically makes them responsible for all of your irresponsible actions? Well, hell, I guess I'm not responsible for anything I ever do wrong, since people have wronged me. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, you always seem to assume that the mother knew that her husband/boyfriend/etc. was not the biological father. Why is that?

No. If you take on the responsibility on the understanding it is your child and then find out it is not then you owe the kid and the mother nothing.

Once you take on the responsibility for the child, you owe the child that responsibility as long as it is a child. Period.

Wrong. If you take on responsibility knowing the kid is not yours then that is very different to not wanting to keep responsibility if you discover a child you thought was yours is in fact somebody elses

No, it isn't. If you take responsibility at all, you have to do so knowing that the decision you make is there for life. If you don't like that fact, don't make the decision to do so.

Not really - this is more like going to a job interview in a Bank, accepting the job, then being told that you are actually going to be in the army for the next 18 years.

That analogy has nothing at all to do with what we are talking about. You claim that the father took a very specific responsibility, that lasts, say, 18 years, but under one false pretense. He knew he was taking on an 18 year responsibility. If he had any qualms about that, he should have been a responsible adult and confirmed the information he was using to make that decision.


May I ask...what the hell kind of "existing paperwork" are you talking about? With VERY few exceptions in some states, there IS NO existing paperwork to relinquish paarental rights. It doesn't exist. That's exactly what these "paper abortions" are, paperwork to relinquish parental rights.

There is no option, other than adoption, to do so, in most circumstances.

Adoption is a way to relinquish parental rights. The difference between adoption and the "paper abortion" being advocated is that (a) adoption proceedings cannot take place until there actually is a child (which really makes sense, when you think about it) and (b) adoption proceedings don't equate to abandonment. When a child is put up for adoption, the parents relinquish parental rights and responsibilities, but someone else agrees to take them on. Thus, the welfare of the child is still considered in the proceedings, instead of just the whining of people who don't want to be responsible human beings.


Woman already have this right. It is called abortion.

Wrong. Abortion does not cut a woman's parental ties to a born child. It does not allow her to get out of the obligations she has to an actual born child. As such, it is not the same.

You wish to give men the right to cut all obligations to an actual child, even before that child is born. If that "right" is given, it must be given equally to both men and women. A pregnant woman must be legally able to sign the exact same document that you are advocating for a man, so that, the minute she gives birth, she has no legal ties or obligations to her child.

All of this "participation" business is a feminist argument meant to disempower men.

Really? It disempowers men to point out that they don't get pregnant?

A parent has a responsibility to provide for a child. If a woman does not want this responsibility she does not have to accept it. She can abort the baby. A man should have the same right to "participate"( if you will), in the decision to financially support an as of yet unborn child.

It isn't the "same right", however. In the man's case, there very well might be a child - and that child will need support. In the case of abortion, there will not be - and thus no support will be needed. As such, the two are not the same - not even close.

If you want them to have the same right, under this construct, both have to be able to decide not to support a child, with no regard as to whether or not a child is born.

Oh, come now, you're going to hold a man responsible for 18 years for having sex with some hot chick (or worse, ugly) he met while he was shitfaced in college? You get less than that for most crimes. Simple fact is, men don't have equal protection under the law, and the courts are severely prejudiced. It's her body, but it affects the man just as much long term.

I'm going to hold a man or woman responsible for the results of their actions.

And yes, men do have equal protection under the law. They don't have "equal protection" under biology. If you find a way to get men pregnant, they will, and then everything will be wonderful and equal. Make sure that the pregnancy process in men is exactly the same. Oh, and they have to start menstruating every month from puberty to menopause too.

And yes, men do have equal protection under the law.

Once again no, they do not. And I'm not even talking about abortion here.

Let me repeat myself from earlier. In many states mothers can drop new born children at a hospital or police station, no questions asked, and walk away. Given that such form already exists for mothers to quite legally abandon their new born child provided the father is unknown or can not be contacted, are you seriously suggesting that men would abuse this MORE than women? You're saying men shouldn't have the right to "legalized abandonment" while at the same time, in several states, legalized abandonment exists already for women?

It is already absolutly, totally, completely legal for women to abandon their newborn children, in the majority of states in this country. Since the question of "would this legalize child abandonment" argument is irrelevant since child abandonment IS already legal, for women, the question is "would this legalize child abandonment for MEN?" The answer, of course, is yes. Now the question that needs to be asked is "why should women have the option to legally abandon their children, and men should not?"

By the way, some info on these provisions:

http://www.adopting.org/adoptions/le...-programs.html

Also worth noting that while some of the states require the mother AND father to do so, or allow EITHER parent to do so, in the majority of states with those laws, those laws apply ONLY to the mother, the MOTHER can legally abandon the child in an appropriate place and walk away. The father can not.

Now whether we accept this as a "good thing" or not, it already exists in 47 states. And of those 47 states, in 35 of them the mother, and ONLY the mother can take her living, breathing child, hand it over to the authorities and WALK AWAY. She can remove any legal responsibilities from herself. In 35 states in this country a mother can take her already born child and sever every single legal tie she has with it, she can abandon it to the authorities, in most she need sign nothing except maybe a single page of intent. And you know the absolute best part? She doesn't even need to prove paternal consent. Not only can she abort her pregnancy, without any consent from the father, she can abandon her child after the birht...without any consent from the father, in 35 states in this country.

In fact, and I'll have to try to find the case here, but it was reasonably new, in one of those states, a mother gives up that child. The father finds out, tracks it down, and takes it as his own. It was his biological child the other gave up, abandoned, without his consent. When he finally gets it back, he sues for child support. It goes to court and know what the judge said? He said "nope, under law she abandoned the child, she severed all legal connections to the child, she does't have to pay anything, she gave it up".

She can hand over her living, breathing child, give it up, and walk away with absolutly no criminal charges what so ever. In those same 35 states were the father to do that he would face the possibility of a child endangerment charge.

So pray tell...where's your equal protection?

not fully, not at 2 in the morning.
I'll wait for you to be rested.

I will say only a few things:

1) claims of "a lot" or "many" or "most" without substantiation are hardly serious arguments
Bullshit. You do it, too. If we were debating an actual law that was in force or about to be passed, then we could be expected to have to come up with actual statistics to support our arguments, but since we're talking about some fantasy law you wish existed, I think we can be allowed a little leeway. In any event, I challenge you to show that my rhetorical examples are not realistic.

2) I've already said I would have no problem with women given equivalent rights to terminate legal responsibilities to a child even though they can bring that child to term.
It being 2am, maybe you missed that I wasn't talking to you in that post.

3) You discuss legalizing abandonment. Legalized abandonment already exists. In many states mothers can drop new born children at a hospital or police station, no questions asked, and walk away. Given that such form already exists for mothers to quite legally abandon their new born child provided the father is unknown or can not be contacted, are you seriously suggesting that men would abuse this MORE than women? You're saying men shouldn't have the right to "legalized abandonment" while at the same time, in several states, legalized abandonment exists already for women?

It is already absolutly, totally, completely legal for women to abandon their newborn children, in the majority of states in this country. Since the question of "would this legalize child abandonment" argument is irrelevant since child abandonment IS already legal, for women, the question is "would this legalize child abandonment for MEN?" The answer, of course, is yes. Now the question that needs to be asked is "why should women have the option to legally abandon their children, and men should not?"
Another problem with answering posts when you're too tired. I already addressed this issue in another post.

Legal abandonment only works if (a) the father never comes looking for his baby, and (b) the mother cannot be traced for the father to take action against her, even if just civil action. The whole purpose of the "no questions asked" approach is to allow a woman to escape being traced later because if she can be, then the child and its other parent may very well come back to haunt her. As far as I know, this has not happened because I don't know of any case in which a woman did this unless she was already alone and desperate. In such cases, it is extremely unlikely that a father will materialize. But considering that it does happen that absentee fathers sometimes do contest the adoptions of their biological children, you cannot say it could never and will never happen. And as far as I know, the only thing protecting the woman from being bound by parental obligations in such a case would be her anonymity.

By the way, some info on these provisions:

http://www.adopting.org/adoptions/legalized-abandonment-state-safe-haven-laws-and-programs.html

Also worth noting that while some of the states require the mother AND father to do so, or allow EITHER parent to do so, in the majority of states with those laws, those laws apply ONLY to the mother, the MOTHER can legally abandon the child in an appropriate place and walk away. The father can not.
Not true. Not even a little bit true. Reading the laws listed in the link you provided:

1 - Alabama - does not identify who is allowed or not allowed to abandon a child at a hospital or emergency room.

2 - Arizona - anyone can bring a baby to a designated place; it doesn't even have to be one of the parents.

3 - Arkansas - does not identify who is allowed or not allowed to abandon a child at a hospital etc; does make provision for finding out if the child has been reported missing -- you know, just in case, the father is looking for his baby or if someone might be guilty of kidnapping or custodial interference.

4 - California - couldn't open the bill document.

5 - Colorado - says that a parent may abandon a child by handing it over to a firehouse, but does not say which parent it has to be.

6 - Connecticut - could not open bill document.

7 - Delaware - could not open bill document.

8 - Florida - the state program assumes that the person abandoning the baby will be the mother but does not require that it be so; also the program specifically states that the safe haven law does not affect laws governing fathers' rights.

9 - Georgia - could not open bill document.

10 - Idaho - could not open bill document. Did you check this site before linking to it? Several of its links are dead.

11 - Illinois - specifically allows men to use the safe haven law to abandon babies at designated places. Quote from the legislative summary: "The Abandoned Newborn Infant Protection Act allows a parent to anonymously relinquish her or his newborn infant to the care and custody of a safe haven."

Need I go through the whole list? Your assertion that the majority of safe haven laws only apply to mothers is just plain wrong. None of the laws I read said anything at all about mothers only. Not one.

The FACT, Arthais, my friend, is that men DO have equal rights with women when it comes to parenthood -- equal rights and equal obligations. Your own list of laws shows this.

Once again no, they do not. And I'm not even talking about abortion here.

Ok, show me an inequality....


Let me repeat myself from earlier. In many states mothers can drop new born children at a hospital or police station, no questions asked, and walk away.

First of all, this isn't an actual legal thing. It is a policy designed to keep babies out of dumpsters. Much like the events some police stations hold where you can turn in a gun, no questions asked, it is not a matter of legality, but practicality. In other words, they're saying, "We're going to let you break the law, just this once, so you don't break it in an even worse manner."

And, if a man were in physical custody of an infant, and did the same thing, do you have any reason to believe he would be treated any differently?

Given that such form already exists for mothers to quite legally abandon their new born child provided the father is unknown or can not be contacted, are you seriously suggesting that men would abuse this MORE than women?

No such form exists. If you are talking about the "drop-off" policies, no forms are filled out at all. That's kind of the point of "no questions asked."

If you are referring to adoption, it isn't abandonment. Through the adoption process, the parents giving up legal responsibility must first find someone else willing to take on that responsibility.

You're saying men shouldn't have the right to "legalized abandonment" while at the same time, in several states, legalized abandonment exists already for women?

Once again, it isn't legal, any more than owning and carrying an unregistered pistol is legal simply because some police stations will allow you to turn them in without arresting you. "Legal immunity to prosecution" is not the same thing as making something legal. And, interestingly enough, the government can rescind that legal immunity at any time, for any person it has been granted to.

Meanwhile, even this form of "abandonment" is not the same as the legal option that is being presented to men. By bringing the infant into the hospital, a parent is ensuring that the infant will be taken care of (albeit by state funds, at least for a while). The "paper abortion" form includes no such provision. The person signing it need take no steps to ensure that the infant will receive any care at all.

And, while I don't see any specific provisions against fathers receiving the same treatment, I can explain why many laws may specifically state "mother". It is, once again, a matter of biology. Based on the fact that woman goes through pregnancy and a woman gives birth, she will be in physical custody of the child, whether a man is around or not. In order for a man to avail himself of these policies, he would first have to take the child from the mother's custody. There are two possible ways this would happen. One is that he intends to care for the child - he voluntarily takes on parental responsibility. The other is that he takes the child from the woman without her consent (obviously illegal, and not part of the legal immunity clause).

So pray tell...where's your equal protection?

That's all you've got? You have a law designed to keep babies out of dumpsters and.....nothing else?

The point of this law is not to grant any rights to mothers or fathers (although, to a point, I would argue that both should have that right). The point of this law is to save the lives of infants. It isn't a matter of equal protection, because the situations aren't equal. A father cannot be in physical custody of a child unless he has either taken it from the custody of the mother (ie. kidnapping) or willingly taken on parental responsibility. The same cannot be said of a woman. By virtue of giving birth, she will have physical custody of the child. And, if she is taking advantage of this policy, she obviously has not willingly taken on parental responsibility.

Not true. Not even a little bit true. Reading the laws listed in the link you provided:

*snip*

I suspected as much.

I suspected as much.
It's worth mentioning that ALL the laws I could open and read talked almost exclusively about the parties taking the babies, not the people handing them over. The laws identify what kinds of places qualify as safe havens, and they go into a lot of detail about indemnifying the people taking the babies against any liability to anyone else who might claim the baby later -- you know, like the other parent searching for the missing baby; this way the firemen who accept the abandoned baby can't be charged with kidnapping or custodial interference, too. Some of the laws -- not all of them -- also go into the "no questions asked concept," but they say nothing at all about negating parental rights and obligations -- except for those laws that specifically say that parental rights are NOT negated.

Do you understand yet that any validity your views may have is being destroyed by this wrong-headed form of argument? Do you guys love it so much because "paper abortion" seems somehow more sound-bitey than "severance of parental rights and obligations"? Well, I'd just remind you that "stay the course" was a great sound bite, but it didn't work, either.

I don't have time to respond to the rest, but just found this.

Personally I could care less what it is called. I agree "paper abortion" seems like a poor choice of words given the legal effect of it. "severence of parental rights and obligations" sounds just fine, and in fact I believe I used similar terms before. I simply used the term "paper abortion" as that is the term commonly thrown about. I simply used the vernacular of the argument that has been going. While it's a stupid term, I didn't coin it. Why are you so hung up on words? A car's "boot" doesn't look anything like footware, but it's a common slang term in the UK.

The phrase should nto be taken literally, it's simply the nomenclature adopted for this discussion, I'm unsure why you're so hung up on it.

I don't have time to respond to the rest, but just found this.

Personally I could care less what it is called. I agree "paper abortion" seems like a poor choice of words given the legal effect of it. "severence of parental rights and obligations" sounds just fine, and in fact I believe I used similar terms before. I simply used the term "paper abortion" as that is the term commonly thrown about. I simply used the vernacular of the argument that has been going. While it's a stupid term, I didn't coin it. Why are you so hung up on words? A car's "boot" doesn't look anything like footware, but it's a common slang term in the UK.

The phrase should nto be taken literally, it's simply the nomenclature adopted for this discussion, I'm unsure why you're so hung up on it.
Why are YOU hung up on it? 48 pages have been spent explaining over and over to you exactly why it is both nonsense and counter-productive to your argument. Yet you insist on it, despite the fact that you are undermining your own issue by it. Fine, be that way, go forward under that banner and be dismissed as a crackpot every time.

Unfortunately, it's beginning to seem like an appropriate dismissal. Really, A, I respect you but that attempt to throw safe haven laws at me and Dempublicents did not go well for you. Fyi, I read the links people post, so when you link, please make sure you're not handing me some rope to hang you with.

On the other hand, I suppose it does make sense to give a nonsense name to a nonsense argument.

Are you implying that person should be able to buy the right to control another person? You seem to be implying that by connecting pregnancy and parenthood to the paying of money.


No, I don't seem to be implying that at all.


Then how do you propose to guarantee it? You'd have to have a successful birth absolutely guaranteed to make pregnancy applicable to this discussion of parental rights.


I don't have to guarantee anything.
The discussion revolves around a situation where a pregnant individual is carrying a pregnancy to term and another individual may or may not be consenting to the legal obligations that will be created.

If the pregancy is not going to be carried to term, then no one has any legal obligations being created and the issue doesn't exist.


Wrong. There is no legal obligation to be a parent to a child who is not born. If you say otherwise, then I am sure you can cite the specific laws that list those obligations and that penalize people for not fulfilling them during pregnancy.


Perhaps you answered this to the wrong quoted section?
I said nothing about a legal obligation to any child not born.


An actual father of a born child IS legally obligated to either provide support for that child or else to legally relinquish his parental rights (exactly the same as the actual mother). But he cannot do that before the child exists because his obligations don't exist until the child exists.


Unilaterally? A father can simply announce they they will not be legally obligated to the child? Although, still the discussion has been about the fact that women have a pre-emptive choice that men do not.


Exactly. Because the only way that child can be created is if she consents to be the SOLE bearer of all the physical risks and burdens of pregnancy. Since she carries ALL the risk, she carries ALL the authority.


The physical risks and burdens are not the only results of her decision though.
She's not carrying ALL of it unless you pretend that you are not creating a child at the end of it.


And your argument highlights another problem with the false "equality" argument of the people advocating paper abortions. It plays into the hands of anti-choicers who like to try to equate embryos with children.

That's not a "problem". You don't abandon something that is right simply because you don't like the people that benefit from it. Nor does it make sense anyway. The entire argument is treating embryos in exactly the same fashion as the pro-choicers.

And, if a man were in physical custody of an infant, and did the same thing, do you have any reason to believe he would be treated any differently?

So - The only way a man can discharge responsibility of a child is to sue for custody, then without telling the mother drop the baby off at a hospital?

Meanwhile, even this form of "abandonment" is not the same as the legal option that is being presented to men. By bringing the infant into the hospital, a parent is ensuring that the infant will be taken care of (albeit by state funds, at least for a while). The "paper abortion" form includes no such provision. The person signing it need take no steps to ensure that the infant will receive any care at all.
Sorry - All the mother is doing is ensuring that the baby will not die of exposure before it is discovered. How on earth is this ensuring the baby will be taken care of in a better way than a father leaving when he knows the mother is there to look after the baby?

*snip*


This is easily settled. When men begin taking the risk of death and permanent injury in childbirth they will earn the right to decide whether or not that birth occurs. Until then...

You are still comparing apples to oranges. Women are NOT allowed to unilaterally reliquish responsibility to a child any more than a man is. Once a child exists a woman has exactly the same burden. No one has shown differently in this thread. The burden is on y'all, my friends, and you're far from meeting it.

This is easily settled. When men begin taking the risk of death and permanent injury in childbirth they will earn the right to decide whether or not that birth occurs. Until then...

You are still comparing apples to oranges. Women are NOT allowed to unilaterally reliquish responsibility to a child any more than a man is. Once a child exists a woman has exactly the same burden. No one has shown differently in this thread. The burden is on y'all, my friends, and you're far from meeting it.

again untrue in many states. Legalized abandonment. Now as someone pointed out, while this may be technically allowable to either party, once again the woman in the situation almost always has custody.

If the pregancy is not going to be carried to term, then no one has any legal obligations being created and the issue doesn't exist.

Exactly, and this is precisely the reason that any attempt to equate medical abortion with the legal construct in which a father could negate all parental rights and responsibilities, with no regard given to any child that is born, is ridiculous.


So - The only way a man can discharge responsibility of a child is to sue for custody, then without telling the mother drop the baby off at a hospital?

No, if he has to sue for custody, it is clear that the woman wants to keep the child, and thus doing so would clearly be removing her rights.

Sorry - All the mother is doing is ensuring that the baby will not die of exposure before it is discovered. How on earth is this ensuring the baby will be taken care of in a better way than a father leaving when he knows the mother is there to look after the baby?

Wrong. By dropping an infant off at a safe haven, the woman puts the child in the hands of government officials that will either see that the child is placed in foster care (ie. taken care of) or put up for adoption (ie. taken care of). Both processes, while they have their flaws, are highly regulated and are legally required to see to the welfare of the child. A man who just walks away does not know that the woman will look after the baby. He doesn't know that she has the means to do so, and has made no effort to ensure that she can.


again untrue in many states. Legalized abandonment. Now as someone pointed out, while this may be technically allowable to either party, once again the woman in the situation almost always has custody.

The term "legalized abandonment" is a misnomer, as I have already shown. The action of abandonment is still illegal. However, if it is done in a certain manner, the government agrees not to prosecute (ie. immunity to prosecution). This is akin to deals with informants that grant them such immunity or programs in which unregistered guns will be taken with no questions asked. The actions are still illegal, just as they always were. These particular people, however, will not be prosecuted for them.

Meanwhile, yes, the woman almost always has custody. Of course she does. That's a product of the fact that the woman is ALWAYS the one who is pregnant and gives birth. Once again, you are complaining about a biological difference, not a legal one. As soon as men get pregnant and give birth, they will often have physical custody of their children at birth, too!

This is easily settled. When men begin taking the risk of death and permanent injury in childbirth they will earn the right to decide whether or not that birth occurs. Until then...

You are still comparing apples to oranges. Women are NOT allowed to unilaterally reliquish responsibility to a child any more than a man is. Once a child exists a woman has exactly the same burden. No one has shown differently in this thread. The burden is on y'all, my friends, and you're far from meeting it.
Pretty much, yeah.

There are two issues being debated:

Who has what rights regarding whether or not a child will be birthed?

and

Once a child has been birthed, what responsibilities/rights do the biological parents have in regards to that child?

Biology ties our hands somewhat with the first question. Men are not burdened with any of the physical realities of bearing a pregnancy or giving birth, so it is obviously unreasonable to give them control over other people's bodies by letting them decide whether or not somebody else will remain pregnant or give birth. If we wish to set up a legally equal system, we will recognize that each individual has the right to choose how their own body participates in their own pregnancies, and that no individual (male or female) has the right to make such decisions for anybody else.

With the second question, biology is not a factor. There is no biological reason why a male human being would be innately less capable of fulfilling parental responsibilities than a female human being. I believe legal equality thus also dicates that both parties have equal rights and responsibilities as parents.

The net result of all this? Well, men get to enjoy the benefits of not ever having to be pregnant or give birth in order to produce biological offspring. Men never have to make decisions about whether or not they will abort a pregnancy, nor do they ever have to endure the medical processes necessary to terminate a pregnancy. Men do not have to deal with any of the social or cultural repercussions of having an abortion (or giving birth). Men are not physically compelled to face a pregnancy in the way that the woman experiencing it must do.

On the other hand, men also have a shorter window of time in which they are empowered to control whether or not they produce biological offspring. They can control their own bodies, but their own bodies don't participate in pregnancy, so they don't get say in that portion of the process. I can understand why some men may feel frustrated at this lack of control.

Of course, I would still happily trade places with them when it comes to this aspect of human biology! I'd be more than willing to accept the requisite lack of control over the birth of biological children, if it meant that I could reproduce without ever having to be pregnant or give birth. :D

again untrue in many states. Legalized abandonment. Now as someone pointed out, while this may be technically allowable to either party, once again the woman in the situation almost always has custody.

Again, that's false. We are to assume that a man never has the child in his care and that women are lawbreakers. It is against the law to abandon a child without consent of the father if you know who the father is. It's illegal.

We are talking about legal acts. The LAW does not favor women. You've not shown that it does. You are asking for a law that punishes law-abiding women for the acts of non-law-abiding women and that will never happen.

Pretty much, yeah.

There are two issues being debated:

Who has what rights regarding whether or not a child will be birthed?

and

Once a child has been birthed, what responsibilities/rights do the biological parents have in regards to that child?

Biology ties our hands somewhat with the first question. Men are not burdened with any of the physical realities of bearing a pregnancy or giving birth, so it is obviously unreasonable to give them control over other people's bodies by letting them decide whether or not somebody else will remain pregnant or give birth. If we wish to set up a legally equal system, we will recognize that each individual has the right to choose how their own body participates in their own pregnancies, and that no individual (male or female) has the right to make such decisions for anybody else.

With the second question, biology is not a factor. There is no biological reason why a male human being would be innately less capable of fulfilling parental responsibilities than a female human being. I believe legal equality thus also dicates that both parties have equal rights and responsibilities as parents.

The net result of all this? Well, men get to enjoy the benefits of not ever having to be pregnant or give birth in order to produce biological offspring. Men never have to make decisions about whether or not they will abort a pregnancy, nor do they ever have to endure the medical processes necessary to terminate a pregnancy. Men do not have to deal with any of the social or cultural repercussions of having an abortion (or giving birth). Men are not physically compelled to face a pregnancy in the way that the woman experiencing it must do.

On the other hand, men also have a shorter window of time in which they are empowered to control whether or not they produce biological offspring. They can control their own bodies, but their own bodies don't participate in pregnancy, so they don't get say in that portion of the process. I can understand why some men may feel frustrated at this lack of control.

Of course, I would still happily trade places with them when it comes to this aspect of human biology! I'd be more than willing to accept the requisite lack of control over the birth of biological children, if it meant that I could reproduce without ever having to be pregnant or give birth. :D

Neither of those two points are the subject of this debate. The paper abortion does not limit a right of a woman to give birth it merely relieves the father of any obligation to the child if she decides to birth it.

The paper abortion would define the status between baby and father before the baby was birthed unless he was not given proper notice of the pregnancy. Nothing discussed here really has anythingto do with what happens after the baby is born.

Neither of those two points are the subject of this debate. The paper abortion does not limit a right of a woman to give birth it merely relieves the father of any obligation to the child if she decides to birth it.

The paper abortion would define the status between baby and father before the baby was birthed unless he was not given proper notice of the pregnancy. Nothing discussed here really has anythingto do with what happens after the baby is born.

You cannot define the status of the baby and father before birth. Nothing in law does this.

That status can only be defined at birth or after. Thus, everything discussed here has to do with what happens after the baby is born.

again untrue in many states. Legalized abandonment. Now as someone pointed out, while this may be technically allowable to either party, once again the woman in the situation almost always has custody.

You didn't even mention that rights are not earned.

You cannot define the status of the baby and father before birth. Nothing in law does this.

That status can only be defined at birth or after. Thus, everything discussed here has to do with what happens after the baby is born.

Completely untrue.
There are a multitude of ways to legally define who will have what obligations in the event of something happening in the future.

You can define the status of anything before it exists/occurs, but the terms only come into play once the thing exists or the event occurs.

No, I don't seem to be implying that at all.

You do seem to be doing that. You connected the two concepts in your statement. The fact that you're denying it now indicates that you didn't mean to imply it. Too bad you chose simple denial over clarification, though.

I don't have to guarantee anything.
To make the kind of connection between pregnancy and parenthood that you are trying to make, yes, a successful birth has to be guaranteed.

The discussion revolves around a situation where a pregnant individual is carrying a pregnancy to term and another individual may or may not be consenting to the legal obligations that will be created.
You and others keep saying that, and you can go on saying it, but it is still negated by the fact that being pregnant and being a parent are two completely different things -- both functionally and legally. Men and women share equally in the burdens of parenthood, but only women can be pregnant. Don't like it? Take up parenthood with Western civilization and take up pregnancy with God.

If the pregancy is not going to be carried to term, then no one has any legal obligations being created and the issue doesn't exist.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with abdication of obligations that only come into existence AFTER a child is born.

Perhaps you answered this to the wrong quoted section?
I said nothing about a legal obligation to any child not born.
I believe you did.

Unilaterally? A father can simply announce they they will not be legally obligated to the child?
Twisting my words, or just failing to comprehend?

BEFORE THE BIRTH, there is no child, and thus, there is no legal obligation. You were trying to claim a legal obligation on the part of a father to pay for prenatal medical costs. No such obligation exists.

Although, still the discussion has been about the fact that women have a pre-emptive choice that men do not.
That's right, a pre-emptive choice about PREGNANCY. But no pre-emptive choice about a born child. Once the birth occurs, then the mother is just as bound as the father.

The physical risks and burdens are not the only results of her decision though.
She's not carrying ALL of it unless you pretend that you are not creating a child at the end of it.
So what?

And I will thank you not to drag your usual anti-abortion rants into this debate.

That's not a "problem". You don't abandon something that is right simply because you don't like the people that benefit from it. Nor does it make sense anyway. The entire argument is treating embryos in exactly the same fashion as the pro-choicers.
Thank you for proving my point by exploiting this debate to promote your own issue.

again untrue in many states. Legalized abandonment. Now as someone pointed out, while this may be technically allowable to either party, once again the woman in the situation almost always has custody.
Are you choosing to ignore the fact that your claims about legalized abandonment have been debunked by the law references you yourself posted? Everything you are saying about who gets to make use of safe haven laws is just plain wrong, A.

Are you choosing to ignore the fact that your claims about legalized abandonment have been debunked by the law references you yourself posted? Everything you are saying about who gets to make use of safe haven laws is just plain wrong, A.

Really? Go read Alabama's, first one off that list. Doesn't say anything about off parent consent.

now you're telling me if I happen to take my 3 day old child off for a little child, drop it at the police station, as a male, and walk away "no questions asked" without the consent of the mother this would be allowed?

Because that's exactly what the law as written provides for.

It all depends on one crucial question. Can the father take posession of the newborn without the consent of the mother? If not, then regardless of what the law says, only the mother can take advantage of it.

it has many side affects and some very serious problems can come about because of it its why the mini-pill was developed (contains only one hormone to reduce problems though less affective)

also you have to take it at a certain time everyday which is a nuisance don't you agree

I suppose you mean the 2% increase in breast cancer risk.

What the right doesn't tell you is that it reduces the risk for ovarian cancer by 80% (according to the female physiology class I took). This is because it stops ovulation. The ovary is a very poor design, as every time an ovulation occurs, a hole is ripped in it that has to be repaired.

Ovarian cancer is also much more often deadly than breast cancer, for a simple reason. It's harder to see, and is often not caught until the cancer spreads to other areas.

Really? Go read Alabama's, first one off that list. Doesn't say anything about off parent consent.
If you were in the room with me, I'd throw something at you. Did you happen to miss the big giant post in which I debunked your claims about safe haven laws and mentioned the Alabama law specifically?

now you're telling me if I happen to take my 3 day old child off for a little child, drop it at the police station, as a male, and walk away "no questions asked" without the consent of the mother this would be allowed?

Because that's exactly what the law as written provides for.
Which is exactly the opposite of what you originally claimed. Trying to change your own argument in mid-flight? When was the last time you let one of the low-brow trolls who usually try that tactic get away with it? What makes you think I'll let you get away with pulling the same cheap trick?

It all depends on one crucial question. Can the father take posession of the newborn without the consent of the mother? If not, then regardless of what the law says, only the mother can take advantage of it.
Again, you are ignoring the fact that I already debunked this false claim of yours by direct reference to the laws you posted. If you're going to yell at anyone to read them, yell at yourself. What you write here is just plain wrong. NEITHER parent can "take possession" of the newborn without the other's consent, and the laws make that CLEAR by making it clear that safe haven laws DO NOT affect parental rights. The only thing that stops the parent who uses safe haven laws from being prosecuted for custodial interference or even kidnapping is (a) the lack of another parent who comes looking for the child, and (b) the anonymity granted by the safe haven laws, so that the authority that took the child cannot say who it was who abandoned it with them. There is nothing else -- not one thing -- to stop a parent from bringing charges and a suit (for child support) against the other parent, if that parent relinquished a child without the other parent's consent. Period. Everything you are saying women are allowed to do, women are, in fact, NOT allowed to do, and everything you are saing men are not allowed to do, men, in fact, ARE allowed to do, just the same as women.

You do seem to be doing that. You connected the two concepts in your statement. The fact that you're denying it now indicates that you didn't mean to imply it. Too bad you chose simple denial over clarification, though.


I do not seem to be doing that. My point was clear. My point was to Dempublicents1 and she both understood it clearly and responded to it in precisely the context I presented it in free from the implications you are trying to overlay.

If she had misunderstood it also, I'd feel some obligation to clarify.


To make the kind of connection between pregnancy and parenthood that you are trying to make, yes, a successful birth has to be guaranteed.


No, the natural outcome of a pregnancy is the birth of a child. That is all that is needed for the discussion.


You and others keep saying that, and you can go on saying it, but it is still negated by the fact that being pregnant and being a parent are two completely different things -- both functionally and legally.

That isn't a fact, so it isn't negating anything.
Being pregnant and harvesting bananas are two completely different things.
Pregnancy is a part of the process of being a parent.
No matter how much you wish to live in a world where these two things can be unlinked they can't be in our world.


I believe you did.


Your beliefs are of no importance.
Demostrate that I did, because I did not.


Twisting my words, or just failing to comprehend?

BEFORE THE BIRTH, there is no child, and thus, there is no legal obligation. You were trying to claim a legal obligation on the part of a father to pay for prenatal medical costs. No such obligation exists.
.

In post #720 I quoted you saying: "An actual father of a born child IS legally obligated to either provide support for that child or else to legally relinquish his parental rights"

Also in post #720, I responded to that by asking, "Unilaterally? A father can simply announce they they will not be legally obligated to the child?"

We are both clearly discussing the situation AFTER birth.
So, why are you making accusations on my intent and comprehension?


That's right, a pre-emptive choice about PREGNANCY. But no pre-emptive choice about a born child. Once the birth occurs, then the mother is just as bound as the father.


So, it is your contention that somehow the woman is making a choice to stop being pregnant in much the same fashion she might choose to stop being a redhead and is in no way a choice to not have a child and not be a parent?


So what?

And I will thank you not to drag your usual anti-abortion rants into this debate.


So what??? You said she bears ALL the risk resulting from her choice, I stated she does not and briefly explained why.
So you no longer care whether she has the whole burden or not? Then why did you say it?

I have never made an anti-abortion rant let alone a "usual" one, so I will thank you to retract that and apologise for the false accusation or else support it.


Thank you for proving my point by exploiting this debate to promote your own issue.

I don't have an issue to exploit for. You are the one that is bringing in YOUR issue and arguing only what will promote it regardless of what is consistent.

So, it is your contention that somehow the woman is making a choice to stop being pregnant in much the same fashion she might choose to stop being a redhead and is in no way a choice to not have a child and not be a parent?


This I believe is better phrased than I have done. You have argued that the choice to be pregnant does not, in any way, equate to a choice not to be a parent.

If it did then you would have to admit that a woman has a choice, after conception, to not be a parent, yet a man does not. Then we run back into the problem again.

You cant unhook the pregnancy from the parenthood. A choice not to remain pregnant is a choice not to be a parent.

Neither of those two points are the subject of this debate. The paper abortion does not limit a right of a woman to give birth it merely relieves the father of any obligation to the child if she decides to birth it.

The paper abortion would define the status between baby and father before the baby was birthed unless he was not given proper notice of the pregnancy. Nothing discussed here really has anythingto do with what happens after the baby is born.

That's just absurdly false and you know it. The paper abortion has NO EFFECT prior to the birth of the child. It only has effect once the child is birthed. It's like saying selling a child into slavery is legal before it is born because it was decided before the birth. It doesn't change the time of effect at all by signing the contract earlier. The contract could be signed six years or one moment before it takes effect and it still has an effective time of after the birth.

I do not seem to be doing that. My point was clear. My point was to Dempublicents1 and she both understood it clearly and responded to it in precisely the context I presented it in free from the implications you are trying to overlay.

If she had misunderstood it also, I'd feel some obligation to clarify.
I pointed out precisely where and how your original statement created the impression I asked you about. Deny it and refuse to response intelligently, if you like. It will match the rest of your unrealistic argument.

No, the natural outcome of a pregnancy is the birth of a child. That is all that is needed for the discussion.
No, it isn't. Why it isn't has already been explained to you more than once, but since you seem to have a problem reading explanations, I guess you missed that.

That isn't a fact, so it isn't negating anything.
Being pregnant and harvesting bananas are two completely different things.
Pregnancy is a part of the process of being a parent.
No matter how much you wish to live in a world where these two things can be unlinked they can't be in our world.
No, it isn't, and yes they can. Proof = adoption. Proof = abandoment. Proof = infanticide. All those things prove that merely being pregnant is not, in and of itself, the precursor to being a parent.

Your beliefs are of no importance.
Demostrate that I did, because I did not.
Another already written explanation that you chose to ignore when it was written and now demand that I repeat. I've already told you why I think you made the assertion I was challenging.

What is with so many people these days? Every third argument in this forum goes like this:

Person 1: A
Person 2: By A, are you implying B?
Person 1: I never said A.
Person 2: Yes, you did.
Person 1: Prove it.
Rinse, repeat, ad infinitum.

Is this some new fad or something?

In post #720 I quoted you saying: "An actual father of a born child IS legally obligated to either provide support for that child or else to legally relinquish his parental rights"

Also in post #720, I responded to that by asking, "Unilaterally? A father can simply announce they they will not be legally obligated to the child?"

We are both clearly discussing the situation AFTER birth.
So, why are you making accusations on my intent and comprehension?
You might actually want to read the WHOLE argument -- or maybe you're having trouble following it, since it requires you to keep track of things that happen BEFORE BIRTH and things that happen AFTER BIRTH, but not to confuse the two.

AFTER BIRTH: BOTH the father and the mother are equally LEGALLY bound to the child unless both relinquish parental rights via adoption.

BEFORE BIRTH: There is no child for anyone to be LEGALLY bound to; therefore, neither the man nor the woman is LEGALLY bound to do anything for anyone. I emphasize "legally" because we are talking about legal bonds and legal obligations, not social or moral or ethical ones.

You made the incorrect assertion that the man is legally obligated to pay for the PRENATAL medical expenses of a fetus in utero that he is the father of. Prenatal = that means BEFORE BIRTH. Your assertion is untrue. There is no such obligation. I challenged you to show me that there was. You have not done so. You will not be able to do so, because it doesn't exist.

But the fact that the man is not bound to a fetus in utero does not in any way change the fact that he IS legally bound to his born children -- AFTER they are born. The obligation does not come into effect until AFTER the child is born.

Your incorrect assertions and unsupported arguments cannot close this legal gap between a fetus and born child. You cannot drag non-existent obligations into existence, and you cannot erase existing obligations, just by trying to forge some false connection between things that are not connected at all.

So, it is your contention that somehow the woman is making a choice to stop being pregnant in much the same fashion she might choose to stop being a redhead and is in no way a choice to not have a child and not be a parent?
As anti-choicers love to point out endlessly, if a pregnant woman does not want to be a parent, she can give up the baby for adoption. She doesn't have to abort. Abortion is about ending a pregnancy. Plenty of women who do want to be parents nevertheless decide to abort a given pregnancy, for a variety of reasons, some of which have nothing at all to do with babies or parenthood. This is what makes abortion a sad and difficult choice -- because often it is a necessary but unwelcome interruption to something the woman does want.

So what??? You said she bears ALL the risk resulting from her choice, I stated she does not and briefly explained why.
And you were wrong.

So you no longer care whether she has the whole burden or not? Then why did you say it?

I have never made an anti-abortion rant let alone a "usual" one, so I will thank you to retract that and apologise for the false accusation or else support it.
I maintain that you are one of the forum's most stalwart anti-abortion posters. I further maintain that your post, to which I made that response, was a clear attempt to link the "paper abortion" idea of reneging on parental obligations with your opinion about abortion.

But rather than start another argument which cannot do anything but turn into a personal war, I will retract this particular statement from this particular thread. I will also not bring it back to throw at you in the next abortion debate you get into. But that will not stop me from arguing with you in any future abortion debate.

I don't have an issue to exploit for. You are the one that is bringing in YOUR issue and arguing only what will promote it regardless of what is consistent.
And now you're accusing me of ignoring consistency at the same time that I'm being consistent? Makes about as much sense as everything else you've said so far. Keep in mind: Being consistent doesn't make an argument right. For instance, you've been consistently wrong every time you make an assertion of fact. What does that do for your argument? It doesn't make it right.

This I believe is better phrased than I have done. You have argued that the choice to be pregnant does not, in any way, equate to a choice not to be a parent.

If it did then you would have to admit that a woman has a choice, after conception, to not be a parent, yet a man does not. Then we run back into the problem again.

You cant unhook the pregnancy from the parenthood. A choice not to remain pregnant is a choice not to be a parent.
The precise differences between pregnancy and parenthood -- the ways in which they are not "hooked" to begin with -- have been explained over and over by me, Jocabia, Dempublicents, Bottle and others. You have failed to respond to any of our points -- at all, let alone in any attempt to bebunk or disprove them. Ignoring the evidence or reasoning that disproves your argument is not the same as winning your argument.

I pointed out precisely where and how your original statement created the impression I asked you about. Deny it and refuse to response intelligently, if you like. It will match the rest of your unrealistic argument.


You pointed out nothing.
You failed to comprehend what was posted.
The poster I posed the question to understood and answered intelligently while yet in stark opposition to my point of view.
I'm not going to take responsibility for your false impressions when you interject yourself into a train of conversation with someone else.


No, it isn't. Why it isn't has already been explained to you more than once, but since you seem to have a problem reading explanations, I guess you missed that.


Really.
So what then is the natural outcome of a pregancy if not the birth of a child?


No, it isn't, and yes they can. Proof = adoption. Proof = abandoment. Proof = infanticide. All those things prove that merely being pregnant is not, in and of itself, the precursor to being a parent.


Adoption: someone was pregnant, someone becomes a parent
Abandonment: someone was pregnant, someone became a parent, someone tried to ignore their responsibilities as a parent
Infanticide: someone was pregant, someone became a parent, a parent killed their child

In ALL of those things pregnancy leads to parenthood for someone and then other things occur.


Another already written explanation that you chose to ignore when it was written and now demand that I repeat. I've already told you why I think you made the assertion I was challenging.

What is with so many people these days? Every third argument in this forum goes like this:

Person 1: A
Person 2: By A, are you implying B?
Person 1: I never said A.
Person 2: Yes, you did.
Person 1: Prove it.
Rinse, repeat, ad infinitum.

Is this some new fad or something?


Only if you phrase it this way:
Person 1: A
Person 2: By A, are you implying B?
Person 1: I never said B.
Person 2: Yes, you did.
Person 1: Prove it.
Person 2: I don't have to, you just can't read.

You might actually want to read the WHOLE argument -- or maybe you're having trouble following it, since it requires you to keep track of things that happen BEFORE BIRTH and things that happen AFTER BIRTH, but not to confuse the two.

AFTER BIRTH: BOTH the father and the mother are equally LEGALLY bound to the child unless both relinquish parental rights via adoption.

BEFORE BIRTH: There is no child for anyone to be LEGALLY bound to; therefore, neither the man nor the woman is LEGALLY bound to do anything for anyone. I emphasize "legally" because we are talking about legal bonds and legal obligations, not social or moral or ethical ones.

You made the incorrect assertion that the man is legally obligated to pay for the PRENATAL medical expenses of a fetus in utero that he is the father of. Prenatal = that means BEFORE BIRTH. Your assertion is untrue. There is no such obligation. I challenged you to show me that there was. You have not done so. You will not be able to do so, because it doesn't exist.

But the fact that the man is not bound to a fetus in utero does not in any way change the fact that he IS legally bound to his born children -- AFTER they are born. The obligation does not come into effect until AFTER the child is born.

Your incorrect assertions and unsupported arguments cannot close this legal gap between a fetus and born child. You cannot drag non-existent obligations into existence, and you cannot erase existing obligations, just by trying to forge some false connection between things that are not connected at all.

You don't even know what you're responding to anymore do you?
I even went back to post# 720 and quoted them for you.

1. read it again
In post #720 I quoted you saying: "An actual father of a born child IS legally obligated to either provide support for that child or else to legally relinquish his parental rights"

Also in post #720, I responded to that by asking, "Unilaterally? A father can simply announce they they will not be legally obligated to the child?"

2. Neither you nor I are discussing prenatal anything.

3. The question of prenatal costs was raised with Dempublicents1 and is the portion of the thread where you go on about me some how "implying that person should be able to buy the right to control another person"

4. In that portion of the thread that you think you are responding to, I never aserted that the man is obligated to cover prenatal costs, I asked Dempublicents1 OPINION on whether the man ought to or not.


As anti-choicers love to point out endlessly, if a pregnant woman does not want to be a parent, she can give up the baby for adoption. She doesn't have to abort. Abortion is about ending a pregnancy. Plenty of women who do want to be parents nevertheless decide to abort a given pregnancy, for a variety of reasons, some of which have nothing at all to do with babies or parenthood. This is what makes abortion a sad and difficult choice -- because often it is a necessary but unwelcome interruption to something the woman does want.


The fact that there are other choices she can make to NOT be a parent other than abortion in no way demonstrates that abortion is not a choice to not be a parent.

The fact that a woman that may want to be a parent does not change the fact that by terminating a current pregnancy she is choosing to NOT be a parent THIS TIME.

How sad or difficult the choice to abort is has nothing to do with a discussion of legal rights.

You have avoided answering the question.


And you were wrong.


So, when I was 'wrong', your response was "So what?"
Fine, I'll have to remember your peculiar idiomatic use of that phrase in the future.

I maintain that you are one of the forum's most stalwart anti-abortion posters. I further maintain that your post, to which I made that response, was a clear attempt to link the "paper abortion" idea of reneging on parental obligations with your opinion about abortion.

But rather than start another argument which cannot do anything but turn into a personal war, I will retract this particular statement from this particular thread. I will also not bring it back to throw at you in the next abortion debate you get into. But that will not stop me from arguing with you in any future abortion debate.


I maintain that your feet are the size of Rhode Island.
It's easy to say when you aren't going to support it.
I retract the statement about your feet.
Your memory does not serve you well.
By the end of the last abortion thread I participated in, more than a few posters were quite bothered that I wasn't putting forward my own views.
I'm not sure how to have a "usual rant" without putting forward my own views and when pressed, my own views ended up being very close to Jocabia's, although we came to similar positions from different directions and for some different reasons.
I also believe that was only the second abortion thread I've participated in here, so perhaps this ranting anti-abortionist you're thinking of is someone else.

This I believe is better phrased than I have done. You have argued that the choice to be pregnant does not, in any way, equate to a choice not to be a parent.

If it did then you would have to admit that a woman has a choice, after conception, to not be a parent, yet a man does not. Then we run back into the problem again.

You cant unhook the pregnancy from the parenthood. A choice not to remain pregnant is a choice not to be a parent.

One causes the other, precludes the other, but they are not the same thing anymore than the choice to turn someone down for a date is the choice to not be a parent. When you end a pregnancy you are choosing to end a pregnancy. This results in not becoming possibly becoming a parent to ANOTHER child, but considering many, many abortions are had by women who are ALREADY parents, they are hardly choosing to not be a parent. There is not getting around it, my friend, biology says that while there is a link, they are not the same.

Meanwhile, a person can choose to not become a parent and many points in the process and pregnancy is not the last point at which that point can be made. However, pregnancy is the last point at which someone can decide to stop being pregnant. Logic isn't magic. You're just not employing it correctly.

Men cannot have the choice women have and a paper abortion does not make that so in any fashion. When women remove the potential for a financial obligation the financial obligation ceases to exist. When men do it in your 'paper abortion' the financial obligation still exists and still has the same rights, among the right to be cared for by its parents or someone choosing to take the place of its parents.