Really?
Men have the same safe haven rights as women.
No it isn’t. Abortion doesn’t involve a child. Child support is an entitlement that belongs to the child, not the mother. Before there is a child, no parental responsibilities have attached to either partner. Once there is a chid, both partners have equal rights and responsibilities. Unless the woman was raped, both partners also have abolulte and total ability to avoid becoming parents. If they decide to assume a risk, then they have decided to assume a risk. Men do not have a right to risk free sex. They just don’t.
Wait a minute. It’s “incredibly onerous” for the woman to have to pay the ‘father share’ of the baby costs, but only a “minor inconvenience” for him to do it? Say what?
And the state has an interest in equal rights where possible. If the state wanted to say “you had sex, you raise the result” to everyone, that’s fair and equal and that’s fine. If the state wants to say “the woman may opt out. The man - no way” that’s a tad less fair and equal, what?
Also I should note that states with Safe Haven Laws apparently see a certain merit to letting people absolve themselves of parenting responsibility. Perhaps you should ask them about the compelling interest?
Mm-hmm. What about before the child is born? If the man loses is say in what happens due to the act of having sex, but the women gets a second chance to ‘rectify’ the situation, explain how that’s fair or equal?
To the first bit: irrelevent terminology detail. To the second: some of us prefer a solution that has equal rights more than some of the time. If the man cannot choose to abort the child against his partner’s will(as the woman can), then he should be given an option that is as close to functionally equivalent with that as possible.
Tell you what; I’m totally cool with only letting the man write off his resonsibilities within three months of being made aware that the pregnancy/child occured. That should end all objections, 'cause there’d be no “child” at that point either. (Assuming the woman didn’t conceal the issue, anyway.)
Look, I get that you’re opposed to letting people burden the state with their children. But we do. And this line that the man was screwed as soon as he screwed but the woman gets a special limited time exception is a load of crap.
She is not required to inform the father of the pregnancy . Supposedly, the act of intercourse is considered enough notice that a child may have resulted, and it’s the burden of the man to find out if the child was a result. Unless he actively registers as the parent of the father (and that’s only true in 33 states) she may give the child up for adoption without his consent. The supreme court on 3 occasions has ruled that he has a constitutional right to oppose an adoption if he has established a relationship with the child, however, his ignorance of the child’s existence is not just cause for failing to support and establish a relationship with the child.
True, later on, if he learns of the child’s existence he can petition (depending on the state of course) to give exception based on the mother’s attempt to deny him the knowledge but then he must still then go through an active proceeding to prove his fitness as a father.
The mother can up and move, and then file for an interstate adoption, and then there is no federal mechanism to inform the father at all.
In Doe Vs Queen in S. Carolina (http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/HTMLfiles/COA/3221.htm), the birth mother moved to another state, told the father that she had had an abortion, then she filed for a restraining order when he tried to find her, and the court still ruled against him because he failed to file for parentage in a timely manner. He didn’t even know he had a child until the adopted parents lawyer informed him.
It’s onerous for her to have to pay BOTH shares, which is what you’re demnanding, not just the father’s share. It’s even more onerous to tell her that if she can’t pay BOTH shares, she has to give away her baby.
There isn’t even a ghost of an equal rights issue here. A mother has no rights that a father doesn’t have.
The compelling interest is in preventing babies from being deposited in dumpsters. The concern is for the BABY with safe haven laws, not for the parents (either of which can avail themselves of the laws).
What about it?
Have you not read any of this thread? It’s the biology that isn’t equal, son. Abortion rights are about protecting bodily autonomy, not about preventing births. Men don’t have rights during pregnancy because it doesn’t involve their physical bodies. That’s all there is to it.
He already does have that choice. He doesn’t have to stick his dick in a fertile woman’s body. When he does, he assumes the risk. Pregnancy does not involve his physical body, so all puling about perceived “unequal rights” During pregnancy are completely fallacious and legally ignorant.
I have a brother who has to pay the price of child care (due to a divorce) - in addition, in his case, to being an active parent who takes on more than half of the burden of raising the kid directly. And that extra payment is no “minor inconvenience” - as a result of it he can’t even afford an apartment!
It’s an onerous cost for both sides, thanks. Your wild hyperbole about it being pennies for the father turning into gold bars for the mother is not impressive.
Really? The father can unilaterally decide to abort the child over the mother’s objections? Who knew?
I’m not impressed by arguments from complete untruth, thanks.
Are you saying that the father can avail himself of safe haven laws over the objections of the mother, the way the mother can get an abortion over the objection of the father? That’s very interesting!
And the fact that providing equal rights for the parents would result in some babies being raised without vampirically leeching off an unwilling absent father is a sad, sad effect of equal rights. Too bad equal rights are in the constitution, huh? (Gender being a protected class and all.) Guess you’re just going to have to vote to increase welfare support for all those single parents out there to compensate - *that *solution, at least, is constitutional!
Abortion? Hello? Anybody in there?
Utter tripe, old man. Women have rights over their body only because they’re granted by the state. (At least until the anti-abortion people take over.) There is nothing biological forcing the state to grant the right to terminate the pregnancy, nor is there anything biological preventing the state from granting the men from terminating their own relationship to the pregnancy.
The woman had the choice to abstain too, but she *also *gets more rights before the fetus is born! Welcome to the thread!
And your argument by false assertion of fallaciousness is unimpressive too, I might add.
I’m still waiting for someone to address why You shouldn’t have put your dick in her if you didn’t want to be saddled with an unplanned pregnancy
is substantively different than you should’ve kept your legs crossed if you didn’t want to be saddled with an unplanned pregnancy
If one parent says they don’t want custody of the kid, it automatically goes to the other parent, and the parent that didn’t want custody has to pay child support. If both parents don’t want custody of the kid, the kid is put up for adoption and neither parent has to pay child support, because they aren’t legal parents any more.
If a woman dumps a child in a mans lap, he certainly has the option to put the child up for adoption. Or he can be the custodial parent.
Look, you guys are looking at it from the point of view of fairness to the parent. But our law is not based on fairness to the parent, but fairness to the child. Adoption is not legal so that parents can get rid of children, it is present so that children without parents can get parents. And so on. All you have to do is look at it from the perspective of the rights of the child, and the unfairness melts away.
It isn’t substantially different. Neither men nor women can force each other to have abortions. Anyone who has a baby growing in their tummy can decide for themselves whether to have an abortion, it doesn’t matter what gender that person is. But you can’t force someone ELSE to have an abortion, neither can you force someone else not to have an abortion.
Or we could outlaw abortion and then everyone would be happy, right? Because then everything would be equal, and equality is more important than anything else.
It’s blindingly obvious that these statements are equally valid.
If a man or woman absolutely, positively does not want to cause a pregnancy to happen, he/she should make absolutely, positively sure that his/her gametes do not connect with anyone else’s gametes.
The only difference is that a woman can still choose to terminate a pregnancy after conception. She’s not absolved of any responsibility. She still has to deal with an unwanted pregnancy.
I really don’t give a shit how onerous it is for the man. He made the choice to get a woman pregnant. He has to deal with the consequences. There is certainly no rational basis to argue that the poor, put upon dad should be relieved of his responsibilities at the cost of the the mother or the taxpayers.
Men have the same control over their own bodies that women have over their own bodies, and men have tital control over where they puty their sperm.
Are you saying the mother can do that?
[quote]
the way the mother can get an abortion over the objection of the father?[./quote]
This is a bullshit false equivalence. An abortion does not involve a child and does not involve parental rights or responsibilities by either party. Yiu cannot equate an abortion to a child. If there is an abortion, there IS no child.
There is no such thing as an unwilling father, and this issue does not involve the slightes issue of equal rights.
Abortion is a bullshit false equivalence. Hello? anybody in there.
I don’t know what you think any of this paragraph means. The state recognizes the right to privacy and bodily autonomy. Biology dictates that bodily autonomy will involve different issues.
A man has exactly the same rights over his own body as a woman has over hers. Abortion rights are about protecting bodily autonomy, not about birth control. Welcome to the the thread. The woman has control during pregnancy because she’s the one that’s pregant. That’s biology. Deal with it.
You mean like how the law forbids the rich from sleeping under bridges and stealling bread? Or how it forbids same sex marriages of heterosexuals, at least in my state? Or permits gays and lesbians to marry people they can’t fuck?
Here’s how it plays out: unplanned pregnancy? Her, you have options, him, tough fuckin’ titty
Don’t like it, keep it in your pants. Spare me the bitching and whining about the existence of abortion; it’s the parents’ job to support the child, not the taxpayer.
and yet a woman doesn’t have to keep it in her pants, she has months to weigh the consequences and still decide to opt out, even over the fathers objections.
He’s not a loser for not keeping it in his pants. He’s a loser for walking away from his own flesh and blood, because he’d rather have some spare money for a boat or whatever than help make sure his own child has the best chances in life.
Have all the sex you want. But man up when it is time to man up.
Well, given that a scary fraction of reported rapes are false, and that the incentives for claiming a false rape pale in comparsion to getting a forced marriage or a sweet payment for 18 years, I’d say the oops I am pregant crowd is far from a tiny fraction…