It doesn’t work this way. What you personally want is irrelevant. You agreed to support that baby when you came.
The infamous Baby M surrogacy contract had a clause that surrogate mother Mary Beth Whitehead would have to abort the fetus if biological father William Stern requested it. The lower court, who sided with Stern on every other matter, struck this clause down, saying “The decision to abort lies slowly with the mother.”
Of course, Whitehead had to give the nastiest possible spin to this clause: I was told that I had to have amnioceneisist and, if it should one finger was missing, I had to abort or the Sterns could just walk away.
So if I decide to leave before a child support order is made that’s irrelevant? I’m pretty sure it would be because they wouldn’t get any money out of me.
Regardless, in your own words “Assuming a risk of pregnancy does not equate to agreeing” to a baby. So I reject your assertion of an agreement for child support.
Interesting malapropism.
It doesn’t matter what you agree to. The courts will order you to pay child support, and if you don’t pay they’ll attach your wages. So go nuts working for cash under the table for the rest of your life just to spite some woman you came in.
When men can carry fetuses, we’ll talk.
Lemur has it right. People who insist stubbornly “I’m not going to cooperate with the law” find out the law does not care. Bit by bit, the noose tightens. You can’t get anything from tax returns to drivers licenses (in some places) without knuckling under. You don’t get to pick the rules you live under. The rules are set, and barring a major shift in public opinion, you either do odd jobs for cash or you do what you are told.
If the mother ends up on welfare, the debt does not even go away - ever. You owe it to the state to pay back your share of her welfare. Even bankruptcy does not erase the debt.
The guy has only one choice in this debate, to paraphrase Dr. Strangelove. Don’t allow women to sap your precious bodily fluid.
Any man who has sex with a woman who is too drunk to consent is vile. Any man who has to get a girl drunk so she can “consent” to have sex with him needs a jail cell. A wasted chick is the same as a girl drinking juice laced with a date rape drug.
I’m glad my son’s father is a** man**.
Huh?
What if the guy is drunk and a sober woman has sex with him?
I suspect a great deal of sex occurs between drunk people.
Suggesting the woman is raped in every case actually demeans the woman.
She is an adult (for this I will say she is an adult…underage drinking is another matter) and responsible for her own decisions.
A man and a woman both going out and getting loaded makes him no more responsible than her.
I 100% agree a guy who gets a woman loaded so she cannot resist or has sex with a passed out woman or gives her a date rape drug should be jailed for a long, long time.
But if you are going to toss every man in jail who gets laid while drunk then the US will double its prison population overnight.
Do the women who have sex with drunk guys get to go to prison too?
Having veto, by definition, implies that you only have the power to prevent another’s decision from getting carried out. You have no power to actually make that decision in the first place. If having veto is 100% of the decision power, than how many % of the decision power is the ability to make the decision itself?
SOLELY with the mother.
In a telepoe call that Bill Stern taped, Mary Beth Whitehead told him to pretend I had an abortion." This was after he and his wife had seen the baby and kept it for a month before Whitehead came back threatening suicide if she didn’t get HER baby back. She continually referred to the child as “MY baby,” but threw a shit fit when Stern said the same thing. “You’re always saying that. MY baby. It’s OUR baby.”
That’s what I said. It’s more common than you think. I didn’t say all drunk sex = rape.
Contintuing a pregnancy - apart from miscarriages - is a yes/no situation. There’s no ‘yes, the father wants the pregnancy to continue, and she can still say no.’ Not if his veto means anything other than giving his opinion with no legal weight.
Exactly. There are four scenarios:
100% decision power:
- Yes, he wants the pregnancy to continue –> it continues.
- No, he does not want the pregnancy to continue –> it is terminated.
Abortion veto power:
- Yes, he wants the pregnancy to continue –> it continues.
- No, he does not want the pregnancy to continue –> up to the mother.
Continuation veto power:
- Yes, he wants the pregnancy to continue –> up to the mother.
- No, he does not want the pregnancy to continue –> it is terminated.
No decision power:
- Yes, he wants the pregnancy to continue –> up to the mother.
- No, he does not want the pregnancy to continue –> up to the mother.
Calling either of the veto powers equivalent to 100% decision power is disingenuous and misleading. Note that I am not actually taking any sides in this argument.
But these four scenarios will not all apply to the same couple at any given time. If she is pregnant and wants an abortion and his opposition is allowed to prevent her having an abortion, in that scenario he has 100% veto power. And that is the scenario that matters, as far as they are concerned. What is disingenuous is pretending that it isn’t really 100% because he might not have that power in a different (and wholly irrelevant, to them) scenario.
That doesn’t make any sense. Your second and third scenarios both include possibilities where the man can decide what happens to the pregnancy regardless of what the woman wants. That means it is 100% his decision.
Not true. With “Veto Power”, if the man wants a certain outcome, he can force it (hence, the meaning of “Veto”). If he wants the other result, then he cannot force it - the mother decides. SO it’s 50% his decision.
The real question in all cases is - what if the man and woman want a different outcome? In our world, the woman decides. In the hypotheticals above, either they both need to agree one way or one way wins out.
I.e.
Man has right to veto abortion - then they must both agree on abortion or no abortion.
Man has right to demand abortion - they must both agree on carrying to term or abortion happens.
This is like the AND and OR in computer logic. A AND B is one way, A OR B is the other.