Yep, but he was drunker; and dumber. His son from his first fling had just turned 17 and his child support was coming to an end just as the her child by him was born. She quit working and home schooled the child; devoting full time to making him as miserable as humanely possible. They were both incredibly hot and good looking when this happened (Kardasion style hot); now both of them look like they been through hell. All I know is “There is a just and righteous God”. 
I’d like to hear that from some legal type.
For instance, let’s assume a jurisdiction where the death of a fetus resulting from a criminal action is in itself an independent crime (I believe it’s the case in some US states). Let’s assume the mother (along with the fetus) is murdered. Couldn’t the father sue for damages for the death of his unborn child?
Anyway, we were talking about countries where the husband’s agreement is required for an abortion. Quite obviously, in those countries the husband is presumed to be the father before birth.
I’m not an attorney, so I don’t know.
What are the rights of adoptive kids to pursue support from their biological parents?
How about children born from sperm or egg donors? Do they have a right to support from their biological parents? How about infants left at the fire station, do they have right to support from their biological parents?
Also, I’m assuming when you say “their” you mean the parents. Do one or both parents have to consent to adopt out their kid?
That’s never kept men from being accused of rape. Why should it disqualify a woman from the same accusation?
It does, I know; but it shouldn’t. What is just when applied to men is apparently unjust when applied to women
Regardless of deception on the part of the woman?
If he was drunk (as cited) could the guy make informed consent to this?
No, adoption severs all legal ties between birth parent and offspring. The biological parents are no longer responsible for supporting the child, the adoptive parents are. That is the entire point of adoption. Depending on the jurisdiction and what year the adoption took place they might not have the legal right to know their birth parents’ identity. Ditto for sperm/egg donars as long the donation was done via a licenced clinic, and not a “private arrangment”. Indeed alot of sperm is shipped in from anonymous donors overseas (I understand Denmark is a major exporter). “Safe Haven Law” babies are in the same boat as adoptive children, except that since there isn’t any documentation re the birth mother at all they can’t trace her like regular adoptive child might.
Both parents have to be represented in termination or adoption proceedings, and neither parent has the right to give the child up for adoption over the objection of the other. In circumstances where one or both parents may be unknown (such as unknown father or abandonment), locating the parents to notify them of the proceedings may be difficult or impossible, but an attorney representing each parent must be hired and make at least a good faith effort to find the parent and notify them of the proceedings.
If she wants an abortion and he doesn’t, and he can stop her, the choice is his.
Same decision reached in Roche v Roche here in Ireland last year. Complicated by the fact that the Irish constitution protects the right to life of the “unborn”. The court held that “unborn” meant “in the womb” and not “in a petri dish in a freezer”.
In this case the man’s choice carried the day, but as Diogenes says it’s a different issue where the embryos aren’t already in the woman’s body. Furthermore, if the court had accepted the woman’s argument that frozen embryos are “unborn”, in a future case where the man wanted them to be born and the woman didn’t, there’s a possibility she could have been compelled to have them implanted in her, which is a pretty horrifying prospect. I didn’t have any problem supporting the decision that was reached.
IRC, Japan requires the male partner for most cases. Since the marital status of the woman is self-reported, it’s conceivable (no pun intended) that a married woman could get any male to go along with her to provide consent. Of course, if the husband found out and took exception to it, there would be legal consequences to that.
Do you have a cite for the US importing “a lot” of sperm? It was my understanding that this was mostly within the States.
Yep. Same as for a woman.
Lack of consent doesn’t became a thing until you are so drunk that you are physically unable to give consent or resist sex (i.e. you are passed out, unintelligible, etc.) This is the same for men as for women.
Is it rape if a guy says “Hey honey, don’t worry about the condom, I’m fixed
?” Of course not, that is absurd.
Rape law protects against rape, not your own poor choice of sex partners.
Where were they going to implant them? Artificial womb?
If “life begins at conception,” then unfreezing embryos is premeditated murder.
I read the book “The Girls Who Went Away” about interviews with women who were forced to give their babies up for adoption pre-legal abortion. The stories are heartbreaking. Every one of them either had a bunch of children as soon as possible, or never gave birth again.
Yes and yes. He made the choice to get drunk. I also really don’t think you want to make “I was drunk” into a legitimate excuse for fathers to abandon their children.
Irrelevant question. The embryos themselves don’t have anything to do with the dicussion at hand. The issue is whether a man should have any say about what a woman can do with her own body. If her body’s not involved, then the fundamental question has changed.
Where did this meme come from that men are constantly being accused of rape for having sex with drunk partners? Cite?
As far as I know, it’s only rape if the other person is so incapacitated that they don’t know what’s happening or can’t physically say yes or no.
Even then its more of a he said, she said thing and almost never gets prosecuted unless some the guy actually gets seen dragging a passed out chick from the bar into his car. It generally comes down to “what were you doing drunk at his place anyway Missy?” and can get even messier and meaner after that.
Presumably he would be able to find a surrogate to carry them to term.
If you ask me, they BOTH sound like douches.
I didn’t say it was a logical decision. Actually, I read the decision in full and I do think the Supreme Court was basically fudging the issue because it didn’t want to have to deal with the consequences (apart from the one I already pointed out, it would also have rendered certain common forms of contraception illegal). And the right-to-life crowd were certainly not happy about it. But it was clearly the best decision from a feminist point of view - even though in this case it was the man whose choice carried the day.
Bullshit. The issue is why women get a second chance to say they don’t want to have a kid but men don’t. No one wants to make a woman have an abortion or have the child. What we care about is the fact that the woman can have an abortion and therefore not have to support the child, but a man does not have any corresponding option.
It’s not like most abortions are for medical reasons–they are because the women does not want to have a child to support. Women have an option to get out of support that men don’t, and many men find this unfair. That is the whole debate. Reframing it as men wanting to control women’s bodies is just a strawman and possibly ad hominem. (He wants to control a woman’s body. That makes him evil, so we can ignore his arguments.)