Anything for you. Women who give their kids up for adoption are not “abandoning” their children. Women who drop off their children at a hospital are not “abandoning” their children. Women who put their kids in dumpsters or who have no intention of caring for their child at all are the ones who “abandon” them, and abandoning your child is against the law and subject to severe penalties.
I think I may have confused you by using the term the way it is meant to be used as opposed to your interpretation. Your constant misuse of words to make a political points leads to problems communicating and makes me wonder if you are even interested in debate. No wonder you got lost.
Just out of curiosity, shouldn’t a man be expected to prove that was the source of the sperm for the pregancy in question? What if the woman simply denies that he’s the guy that knocked her up. What then? How do you prove otherwise? What’s to stop any asshole off the street from claiming he’s the “father” of any woman’s pregnancy.
Also, as maximum C points out, how do you break a stalemate?
Allow me to chime in with Razorsharp, Stoid, catsix, and Blalron in support of “opt out”, the “male abortion”, or whatever you want to call it: the idea that men should be able to decide whether they want to support a child, rather than being at the mercy of the woman’s choice.
Unfortunately, I doubt this debate will be very different from the last one, or the one before that, or the one before that…
I’m talking about during pregnancy, not afterwards, and specifically in cases where a man wants to force a woman to have a baby against her will when she wants to get an abortion.
As for the “opt out,” no way, man. Men are responsible for their own sperm. If you don’t want to have a kid with a woman. don’t stick your dick in her.
But, on the other hand, why should the mere fact that a mans sperm fertilized the egg obligate him to do anything? Who knows where the sperm came from or whether it was even obtained by honest means?
I know more than one man that has been duped into thinking he’s having protected sex. I know at least 2 that have kids because of it.
Don’t think for a minute that all women are wonderous caregivers.
One of those men was surprised, 6 years after the fact, with a letter stating that he was the father, and would begin paying child support immediately.
I think men should have an “opt out” option, just like woment do, but there needs to be accountability on both parts.
In Texas, both at common law and under the statutes of the State, the natural father has a continuing and primary duty to support his legitimate children See Lane v. Phillips, 69 Tex. 240, 243, 6 S. W. 610, 611 (1887); Tex. Fam. Code 4.02 (1970) (husband’s duty). 1 That duty extends even beyond dissolution of the marriage,
No, it just speaks of “legitimate children” and “dissolution of the marriage”. Two things found within the “marriage contract”.
Sheesh… the use of semantics does not make a valid rebuttal.
To Hell with government interests. Supposedly, in America, the individual is of paramount importance.
Thanks, I think. Now, your liberal side is beginning to show. One of the tactics liberals use to squelch thought that runs contradictory to the liberal ideology, is to label the “offender” with a label that conveys a negative connotation. As those who may oppose “affirmative action” are often branded as “racist”, Maximum C brands me a mysoginist for my unappologetic expose of the fallacy and hypocrisy of what is misappropriately termed “freedom of choice”.
Oh, here we go with what I call “Victimization Feminism”.
First, if “SHE’S GOT A DAMN BABY IN HER BELLY FOR NINE MONTHS”, it’s there because that is the “choice” that she made.
Yeah, and you can count your lucky stars that you get to live about ten years longer than the average man.
Right and here, again, is another example of where the man is beholden to the “choice” of the woman.
Nope, ‘we’ don’t. Responsibility such as that shouldn’t be forced upon anyone, whether they’re a woman or a man. Women are already exempt from being ‘forced to take responsibility’ (that always sounds like enduring their punishment), and men should be as well.
I wonder how many men would be happy to go through menstruation if it never meant that someone else could never saddle them with being a parent when they don’t want to be or paying child support for 18+ years to a woman who chose unilaterally to have a kid and raise that kid all by herself with nobody’s help but lots of his money.
I have met women who have bragged about how much money they were getting in child support from guys, about how it better be enough for them to live on because they certainly were not going to get a job, about filing for Protection From Abuse orders under false pretenses (as in against someone who had never been violent to them) thus screwing the guy out of his money, making sure he could never take the kid away, and screwing over a few other rights of his to boot.
My opinion is that if a woman chooses to have a child and support it, especially knowing that the man in question does not want to have a child, her decision to be a single mother and raise that child on her own means exactly that - raise the child on her own. And raising a child on her own does not involve someone else’s money which she can forcibly take away from him, ruin his credit, garnish his paycheck and have him sent to prison if he doesn’t cough up enough cash. That is not a just situation.
It’s the man’s responsibility to protecthimself, not to take a woman’s word for anything, especially a woman he does not intend to have a relationship with. Nobody is forcing these guys to fuck anybody. When a man has sex with a woman, he knows that pregnancy is a potential result, and he knows that he’ll have to take responsibilty for any children which are produced by that pregnancy. He is accepting that risk every time he has sex. Sex has consequences. If you can’t deal with the consequences, don’t have sex.
What about a scenario wher a man tells a woman he loves her and wants to have a child with her. She gets pregnant. Three months into the pregnancy, the guy starts porking another woman and he then decides that he wants to “opt out” of the first relationship and any responsibility for the child? Is that OK?
If we say that’s not ok, for a guy to change his mind , then how do we prove which guys are mind-changers and which ones sincerely never wanted a kid? What’s to stop every woman from claiming that “he said he wanted a baby?” How do we prove otherwise?
pre-natal DNA testing of amniotic fluid can be done at ten weeks. However it is not typically done or recommended for simple paternity tests, because it is highly invasive and poses a significant risk to the woman and the fetus. It’s a test that is only recommended for compelling medical reasons.
Non invasive DNA testing of fetal cells in maternal blood can be done in the second trimester, but 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester. Also, delaying abortions until the second trimester would usually necessitate an intact D&E procedure (the so-called “partial-birth” abortion") which most pro-lifers hate like poison.
I should have said that the extraction of amniotic fluid is done for medical reasons. The DNA testing of said fluid is incidental. It’s the extraction of fluid that’s risky.
What a woman has sex with a man, she knows that pregnancy is a potential result, and she knows that should have to take sole responsibility for any children which are produced by that pregnancy, which she carried of her own free will.
No, she has equal responsibility with the man that knocked her up. I can’t believe we’re even deabating the legitimization of fathers abandoning their children.
Count me in with allowing men to opt out, too. If I can’t be forced to give 18 years to a baby, then neither should the father.
But if he opts out, he opts out for good and gets no say in that baby’s life anymore. No coming after the mother with a lawyer 10 years hence saying he wants visitation rights, no holding her back from moving across the country or to another country because he changes his mind and wants to be a daddy. No take backs. He has no more right to have any part in the child’s life.
Of course, if this is “male abortion”, it’s perfectly reasonable to keep things completely equal. You either opt out before the baby is born, or you are a father. You don’t get to change your mind 6 years down the road.
I’m sure there are still any numbers of problems with this scenario, but my sense of fairness tells me that if my right to an abortion remains protected, he shouldn’t be any more obligated than I am to deal with the consequences of an unintended pregnancy.
Putting a child up for adoption is not “abandoment” it’s taking responsibilty. Please don’t compare it to some scumbag who doesn’t want to pay child support.
Can one of you pro “opt-out” people please address this question that I asked a little while ago: