In cases where the biological father wants a woman to carry the child to term, but the woman wants to abort the pregnancy, law currently states that the biological father has no right to prevent the abortion.

This guy's contention is that, because of the equal protections act in the constitution, if a man may not force parenthood on a woman, then in a case where a the mother does not want an abortion but the biological father does, a woman may not force parenthood on a man by requiring him to pay child support.

quote:

---

Leftover Mog had this to say about John Romero:
Saw that in the paper the other day, its such a load of crap, its not roe v wade for guys, its "hay lets be dead beat dads!"

---

Double Standard.

quote:

---

Leftover Mog had this to say about Cuba:
The main problem withthis is it woudl effectivly be the end of child support, no matter waht the father's feelings on abortion are, if the relationship with the mom goes south and they break up, he'll claim he didn't want it and will then be absolved of all responcibility

---

Wrong that carries its own set of finacial responcibilities. This stipulation doesn't carry the same weight nor does it apply under similar circumstances.

quote:

---

We all got dumber when Leftover Mog said:
The main problem withthis is it woudl effectivly be the end of child support, no matter waht the father's feelings on abortion are, if the relationship with the mom goes south and they break up, he'll claim he didn't want it and will then be absolved of all responcibility

---

Sure, since all men are irresponcibile pigs and would do anything to avoid paying child support.

Fact: If the guy is a deadbeat enough not to pay child support and you can't support the child yourself- GIVE IT UP FOR ADOPTION OR ABORT IT FOR CRAPS SAKE. WE HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE.

And I think Mog is right, actually. With this case as precedent, a court will basically be unable to enforce child support payments.

That said, I do agree with this guy.

Maradon! fucked around with this message on 03-16-2006 at 12:02 AM.

Clearly, you shouldn't be able to say 'I never really wanted my 12 year old daughter anyway!' But I fail to see how giving men an option before the child is born to refute parenthood could be so bad.

I could only see this working (Haphazardly) if it required the father to -prove- he took every precaution and lacked any intent to impregnate the woman. That means, any time his cock was in her vagina without a rubber, he'd fall short of the burden of proof.

quote:

---

Peanut butter ass Shaq LeMiere booooze lime pole over bench lick:
They're going to be attempting to prove whether the father had any intent of fathering a child, or taking appropriate precautions to avoid pregnancy.
That is, for the most part, fucking impossible.

I could only see this working (Haphazardly) if it required the father to -prove- he took every precaution and lacked any intent to impregnate the woman. That means, any time his cock was in her vagina without a rubber, he'd fall short of the burden of proof.

---

Wrong. In cases where the genders are transposed, women do not need to prove that they took every precaution in order to maintain their right to an abortion. The entire reproductive rights issue is centered around the woman's right to have intercourse in any manner that she wants and still have the legally protected right to an abortion - to be free from the responsibilities of parenthood.

To say that reproductive rights apply to women and not men is a textbook example of a gender-centric double standard, and exactly the sort of thing that the equal protections act was drafted to address.

If a mother wants to avoid the responsibilities of parenthood, under current stare decisis she is legally protected from the wishes of the father, and she does not need to furnish evidence of any kind in order to maintain this legal protection. There is no reason that this should not work in the other direction.

Maradon! fucked around with this message on 03-16-2006 at 01:54 AM.

quote:

---

Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while Maradon! gently hums:
Wrong. In cases where the genders are transposed, women do not need to prove that they took every precaution in order to maintain their right to an abortion. The entire reproductive rights issue is centered around the woman's right to have intercourse in any manner that she wants and still have the legally protected right to an abortion - to be free from the responsibilities of parenthood.

To say that reproductive rights apply to women and not men is a textbook example of a gender-centric double standard, and exactly the sort of thing that the equal protections act was drafted to address.

If a mother wants to avoid the responsibilities of parenthood, she is legally protected from the wishes of the father. There is no reason that this should not work in the other direction.

---

I'm not sure what obscure libertarian prayer book taught you that little gem, but it's complete bullshit. The system is not designed to allow women to fornicate with abandon, nor to evade the responsibilities of parenthood. In accepting a pregnancy, a woman accepts rather serious health risks also, even in developed countries, while there is no equivalent risk or commitment for men.

This, on the other hand, would be nothing more than another way for men to dominate women by telling them when they can and can't have children, and by allowing men to choose whether or not they should have responsibility for their actions, in essence giving them the right to knock anyone up and then completely avoid consequences, displacing all of the risk onto women.

The one case I've seen so far that merits such a thing is the one where the psycho doctor actually used a sperm sample from her lover (left over after oral sex) to inseminate herself artificially and managed to force him into paying child support even though he had never engaged in behavior where it's possible to conceive a child.

quote:

---

Peanut butter ass Shaq Bloodsage booooze lime pole over bench lick:
I'm not sure what obscure libertarian prayer book taught you that little gem, but it's complete bullshit.

---

This is all straight from the mouth of planned parenthood, the ACLU, and all the other leftie groups that have ever defended abortion. I have no stance on whether or not it's bullshit.

quote:

---

The system is not designed to allow women to fornicate with abandon, nor to evade the responsibilities of parenthood. In accepting a pregnancy, a woman accepts rather serious health risks also, even in developed countries, while there is no equivalent risk or commitment for men.

---

And yet "Except-for-the-health-of-the-mother" abortion bans are labeled gross violations of human rights. No, among other things, the right to fornicate with wild abandon without any fear of parenthood is precisely what the reproductive rights movement is about.

quote:

---

This, on the other hand, would be nothing more than another way for men to dominate women by telling them when they can and can't have children, and by allowing men to choose whether or not they should have responsibility for their actions, in essence giving them the right to knock anyone up and then completely avoid consequences, displacing all of the risk onto women.

---

Which is precisely what women currently have the legally protected right to do.

The bottom line is this: no biological father may force a woman to become a mother - why should a woman be allowed to force a man to do the same?

Maradon! fucked around with this message on 03-16-2006 at 02:17 AM.

quote:

---

Verily, Maradon! doth proclaim:
Wrong. In cases where the genders are transposed, women do not need to prove that they took every precaution in order to maintain their right to an abortion. The entire reproductive rights issue is centered around the woman's right to have intercourse in any manner that she wants and still have the legally protected right to an abortion - to be free from the responsibilities of parenthood.

To say that reproductive rights apply to women and not men is a textbook example of a gender-centric double standard, and exactly the sort of thing that the equal protections act was drafted to address.

If a mother wants to avoid the responsibilities of parenthood, under current stare decisis she is legally protected from the wishes of the father, and she does not need to furnish evidence of any kind in order to maintain this legal protection. There is no reason that this should not work in the other direction.

---

So.. men get away with just dumping their cum and being tired for a night, while women go through pain and possibilities of never having kids again?

Cool. You're cool.

quote:

---

When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent LeMiere said:
So.. men get away with just dumping their cum and being tired for a night, while women go through pain and possibilities of never having kids again?

Cool. You're cool.

---

If the woman was raped it's a whole other scenario. I see this as an equal responsibility thing. There ARE other options. You could avoid sex. You could have an abortion (which admittedly can have side effects leaving you unable to have kids in the future).

Likewise, I fail to see where this comes into play in a healthy relationship. If Lyinar and I were married and wanted kids, we'd try for them. Otherwise, there's birth control. If one of us wanted kids and the other didn't, to the point that one is trying to control the other with having kids (or denying having kids) then it should be fairly evident. People who know us would know what's going on and be able to be called in court. I fail to see where this turns women into any sort of slave.

If anything I would think it would be a harsh but necessary wake-up call for all these women who think "if I have a baby with him, it'll make him love me more/again/for the first time, and he'll have to stay".

I don't frankly see why if someone's out having casual sex and gets pregnant, then decides to keep the baby, that's the problem of the other person. The Pregnancy costs (IE WHILE PREGNANT) yes, because the father got her knocked up. He's partially fiscally responsible during the period she's pregnant, I would say, whether she chooses an abortion or carrying the child to term. When the child is BORN, however, his responsibilities end. The MOTHER can choose to keep the child or put the baby up for adoption, but I would say the guy's financial responsibility ends if he wants no part of the child's life.

Right now, any given time a guy has sex, he can potentially find himself tied financially to someone he may have met overnight in a bar for eighteen years because she wants to keep a baby they conceived in a night of passion. Now if she wants to get rid of the pregnancy, the man should help. He helped cause the situation, he should help see it through to whichever conclusion it comes to.

Women have an easy-out when it comes to responsibility, I see no reason men shouldn't be given the same option.

Condom broke? Doesn't matter.

Lied to about being on the pill? Doesn't matter.

Taken advantage of while drunk? Doesn't matter.

Unless you're a minor being raped by an adult, you have to pay child support if she decides to keep the baby.

Blindy. fucked around with this message on 03-16-2006 at 10:31 AM.

Likewise, it keeps mothers from seeking restitution years later. If X woman has a child with Y man, and Y doesn't know about the child, then a decade later finds out about the kid when the kid wants to learn about his parentage, and X woman says "Well let's talk about child support" then Y can tell her to go fuck herself.

At the end of the day the law needs to acknowledge that it is perfectly possible to prevent a pregnancy from coming to term and any damage that comes with it.

Edit: The whole dilemma about people changing their mind after the fact could be solved quite easily. Upon becoming aware of a pregnancy, the woman is obligated to formally notify the father. This notification is the basis of any possible later claim of child support, if no documented good faith-effort is made to notify the father, the woman can never, ever claim child support against him. Upon recieving notification the father is under obligation to either do nothing and thus accept whatever course the woman takes or notify her of his intent to not raise the kid while filing this whole mess of paperwork with a court. He is thus liable to pay a part of whatever abortion procedure a qualified physician reccomends in the specific case of the mother or part of the costs resulting from the pregnancy and adoption if abortion is medically inadvisible or the mother morally objects to it.

This of course would need a lot of exceptions and specific rules, but you get the gist of it.

Mod fucked around with this message on 03-16-2006 at 11:17 AM.

quote:

---

Mod wrote this stupid crap:

Edit: The whole dilemma about people changing their mind after the fact could be solved quite easily. Upon becoming aware of a pregnancy, the woman is obligated to formally notify the father. This notification is the basis of any possible later claim of child support, if no documented good faith-effort is made to notify the father, the woman can never, ever claim child support against him. Upon recieving notification the father is under obligation to either do nothing and thus accept whatever course the woman takes or notify her of his intent to not raise the kid while filing this whole mess of paperwork with a court. He is thus liable to pay a part of whatever abortion procedure a qualified physician reccomends in the specific case of the mother or part of the costs resulting from the pregnancy and adoption if abortion is medically inadvisible or the mother morally objects to it.

This of course would need a lot of exceptions and specific rules, but you get the gist of it.

---

This brings up another problem; what if she doesn't know who the father is? Do we order genetic testing on every possible subject? Not to mention results on genetic tests don't come quickly to say the least.

quote:

---

Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Lyinar Ka`Bael absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
A man doesn't make a baby all by himself. She chose not to take proper precautions just the same as he did. Sage, you talk of a man being able to dominate a woman and tell her when she can have kids. What about the woman in this situation telling a man he has to pay not only for his own mistakes or oversights, but hers as well?

---

It's not him paying all by himself, as some people are pretending. It's accepting responsibility for his part. The alternative is that the man can force the woman to have an abortion solely because he doesn't want to accept his part in what happened.

If they have sex, both have to accept the possible consequences. Which means the possibility of child support/having a child.

quote:

---

Bloodsage had this to say about Duck Tales:
It's not him paying all by himself, as some people are pretending. It's accepting responsibility for his part. The alternative is that the man can force the woman to have an abortion solely because he doesn't want to accept his part in what happened.

If they have sex, both have to accept the possible consequences. Which means the possibility of child support/having a child.

---

The issue is that the woman tends to have all the options when it comes to damage control when something goes wrong for whatever reason and men have none at all. Not even an agreed-upon contract about what to do in case of pregnancy would be enforcable in court. The general tenor of advice to men when it comes to reproductive rights seems to be "Die a virgin", which would cause a massive cry of outrage if someone were to suggest a similar approach for women.

quote:

---

Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while Mod gently hums:
The issue is that the woman tends to have all the options when it comes to damage control when something goes wrong for whatever reason and men have none at all. Not even an agreed-upon contract about what to do in case of pregnancy would be enforcable in court. The general tenor of advice to men when it comes to reproductive rights seems to be "Die a virgin", which would cause a massive cry of outrage if someone were to suggest a similar approach for women.

---

So?

I fail to see the inherent injustice in a doctrine of "be responsible for your actions." Women take all the risks in a pregnancy, so it makes sense that they have more options and/or choices.

It's not like one can say the risks are shared in any way.

quote:

---

From the book of Bloodsage, chapter 3, verse 16:
So?

I fail to see the inherent injustice in a doctrine of "be responsible for your actions." Women take all the risks in a pregnancy, so it makes sense that they have more options and/or choices.

It's not like one can say the risks are shared in any way.

---

I'd say financial ruin for a man forced into fatherhood is a viable risk. Perhaps the risks in pregnancy and birth themselves belong to a woman (and the risks inherent in abortion), however, the burden of parenthood is shared by both even if the man didn't agree to it.

As others have said, there's no reason a woman should be able to force a man into fatherhood or force him to lose his progeny, in rare cases where he might actually want to raise his child. Personally, I disagree with unregulated abortion on grounds of responsibility; if you don't want children, you should take precautions to avoid pregnancy, no? Nobody forces a woman to get pregnant, why should a woman be able to force a man to pay for it?

quote:

---

I wish Bloodsage would say this more often:
So?

I fail to see the inherent injustice in a doctrine of "be responsible for your actions." Women take all the risks in a pregnancy, so it makes sense that they have more options and/or choices.

It's not like one can say the risks are shared in any way.

---

The risks of having sex are shared, are they not? The risk of conceiving a child?

And considering that the mortality rate of pregnancies in the USA is somewhere around 0.017% it doesn't seem fair or logical to say that grants them the right to over rule the man's reproductive freedoms in every circumstance.

P.S. these numbers include deaths from complications resulting from an abortion.

Blindy. fucked around with this message on 03-16-2006 at 02:33 PM.

quote:

---

Kuroi Madoushi had this to say about Optimus Prime:
Personally, I disagree with unregulated abortion on grounds of responsibility; if you don't want children, you should take precautions to avoid pregnancy, no?

---

This is the worst argument in the history of the abortion debate. Today we have the ability to migitate the cost of certain conditions. Way back, the plague or the flu would be fatal, today one is extinct and the other something people between twelve and sixty laugh off. By your line of reasoning everyone who uses public transport during flu season has to allow himself to die should he contract it as a matter of 'responsibility'.

quote:

---

Mod wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
This is the worst argument in the history of the abortion debate. Today we have the ability to migitate the cost of certain conditions. Way back, the plague or the flu would be fatal, today one is extinct and the other something people between twelve and sixty laugh off. By your line of reasoning everyone who uses public transport during flu season has to allow himself to die should he contract it as a matter of 'responsibility'.

---

Pregnancy isn't an airborne disease so I fail to see the correlation. Additionally, abortion isn't a "cure" for pregnancy, it carries heavy risks, including death, itself. Your analogy would make more sense if it was based on someone allowing himself to die of skin cancer as the solution is as problematic as the disease at advanced stages.

Kuroi Madoushi fucked around with this message on 03-16-2006 at 02:49 PM.

quote:

---

A sleep deprived Kuroi Madoushi stammered:
Pregnancy isn't an airborne disease so I fail to see the correlation. Additionally, abortion isn't a "cure" for pregnancy, it carries heavy risks, including death, itself. Your analogy would make more sense if it was based on someone allowing himself to die of skin cancer as the solution is as problematic as the disease at advanced stages.

---

So you are against 'unregulated' chemotherapy?

quote:

---

Mod stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
So you are against 'unregulated' chemotherapy?

---

You know, I keep thinking of more things to say to your example. You can get a flu shot to protect yourself from the flu. Yes, it fails from time to time, but it has also been shown to be effective. With some kinds of cancer, there are preventative measures that can be taken; in the case of skin cancer, sunblock and appropriate clothing. As for unregulated chemotherapy, the point is moot. People don't contract cancer because they took a controllable risk without attempting to mitigate it.

Edit: I shouldn't have brought my personal stance on abortion into this particular debate. The point is that there should be equal protection under the law for both sexes and there isn't right now.

Kuroi Madoushi fucked around with this message on 03-16-2006 at 02:57 PM.

quote:

---

Bent over the coffee table, Kuroi Madoushi squealed:

Edit: I shouldn't have brought my personal stance on abortion into this particular debate. The point is that there should be equal protection under the law for both sexes and there isn't right now.

---

Of course! Men should have the option either to require an abortion or to walk away. Nothing else is just, because men deserve the choices.

quote:

---

If only Bloodsage hadn't said this:
Of course! Men should have the option either to require an abortion or to walk away. Nothing else is just, because men deserve the choices.

---

I don't think the argument is for requiring abortion, I think the argument is for signing away your parental duties and privileges in cases where you don't want the child.

Like I said before, the woman can give the child up for adoption or decide to try to raise it on her own. She doesn't have to abort. But it's at least giving the man a fraction of the control that a woman has for dealing with this situation.

quote:

---

Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Blindy. absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
I don't think the argument is for requiring abortion, I think the argument is for signing away your parental duties and privileges in cases where you don't want the child.

Like I said before, the woman can give the child up for adoption or decide to try to raise it on her own. She doesn't have to abort. But it's at least giving the man a fraction of the control that a woman has for dealing with this situation.

---

What this does is require zero responsibility of men. It places all of the responsibility and all of the conseqences and hard decisions squarely with the woman. All the man has to do is say, "Yeah, I'm not up for having a kid," and then walk away.

How equitable.