If you really don’t want children, you need to take responsibility for birth control. If the thought of creating a child with this person doesn’t sit right with you, you need to use condoms or find another gal pal.
As I said, it’s not fair, but it’s more fair than giving the “non-custodial” parent control over what happens.
Yup, you could do that. But that would put the entire burden on one person, and that wouldn’t be fair. I mean, she didn’t get pregnant by herself, did she?
Yup, you could do that. But that would put the entire burden on one person, and that wouldn’t be fair. I mean, she didn’t get pregnant by herself, did she?
And why SHOULDN’T your friend pay child support. It IS his child, isn’t it?
how about the way it’s always been… if a guy wants to avoid conceiving a child outside of marriage, he should reserve sex for marriage, or get a vasectomy.
that should be obvious…isn’t it?
I don’t quite understand what you’re saying here. I didn’t stick it to anyone. I was merely pointing out that the system isn’t fair. Don’t cry to me because you have to pay 25% when I received 0% and actually survived. Just because a guy pays the money doesn’t mean it gives him a free pass to bitch about it. I absolutely think 25% of a parent’s income is fair, regardless of which parent makes more money. The custodial parent, if they’re working, is spending more than that on the child in most cases.
I guess if you’re going to bring this up again, I’ll repost my old refutations of it.
Gomez didn’t hold that illegitimate children had a right to child support. There’s no such thing as a constitutional right to child support; Gomez didn’t hold that there was. It held that illegitimate children couldn’t be treated differently from legitimate children unless the government could demonstrate an important state interest, and show that the law was substantially related to achieving that interest. In other words, they have a right to equal protection of the laws. The fact that it had to do with child support is tangiental; the same law applies if Texas wants to make illegitimate children attend segregated schools, use different water fountains, etc.
Neither the state nor the dissenting justices argued that the Texas law was valid because the duty of child support arose from the marriage contract in Gomez; rather, the state argued that it should be excused from having to provide for illegitimate children in its laws becasue of the complex factual questions that inevitiably arise surrounding parentage. The dissenting justices argued that the case should have been dismissed on jurisdictional grounds and didn’t reach the merits.
Gomez wasn’t an anomaly of a sneaky Court; quite the opposite. It was firmly in line with precedent. The Court had previously ruled that Equal Protection prevents the invidious discrimination against illegitimate children in bringing wrongful death cases, Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68 (1968), and state worker’s compensation claims, Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U.S. 164 (1972). It would go on to similar decisions concerning government benefits, Social Security Claims, etc. However, even if none of the above were true, it still wouldn’t explain how the decision in Gomez undermines Roe, or why none of the post-Roe cases of the last 30 years addresses this conflict.
So basically, the OP posits:
The Supreme Court conspired to delay the Gomez decision because
It would have undermined their decision in Roe.
They didn’t, and it doesn’t. First, both decisions were 7-2, but it wasn’t the same 7 and the same 2. White and Rehnquist dissented in Roe; Stewart and Rehnquist dissented in Gomez. This means White would have been inexplicably participating in a conspiracy to protect a decision with which he dissented, and Stewart refused to do so. Only Rehnquist remained firm, although he inexplicably failed to ever mention the conspiracy in dissent in Gomez. This makes the moon hoax look plausible by comparison.
Secondly, just because one perceives an apparent conflict in the law doesn’t mean there is one. Me, for example, I think that the fact that you can vote or die in a war at 18 but you can’t drink a beer until you’re 21 is stupid and the laws are conflicting. That’s not a legal argument, however, and if I tried to take it to court couched in those terms it would get dismissed so fast I’d get the dizzies. They seem to be in conflict and offend my sense of equity but actually deal with different areas of the law, different state and federal issues, etc.
It’s the same with Roe and Gomez. They may offend your sense of fairness, but legally, they aren’t in conflict. They deal with different areas of the law. Any constitutional scholar and any constitutional law hornbook will tell you the same thing. At least six lawyers posting to this thread [note: refers to original thread] are telling you the same thing, and they aren’t in the habit of agreeing with each other. Rather, they are paid to do the opposite, and having to all be in agreement irritates them like an hour they can’t bill. It has nothing to do with ideology. Those two decisions just plain deal with different areas of the law.
I said nothing about plagiarism. Just repetition.
Can you explain what debate you are starting with the OP of this thread that wasn’t started in the other thread of the same title?
In the past, these statements applied to the ladies as well, back before women had choice. It was bullshit then, and it’s bullshit now. Today, women have choice, men still do not. I agree with Kalhoun on this
pervert, if abortions were as safe and easy as a haircut, would it make robertligouri’s idea ok?
No, its not really about fairness. The position which holds that men should be afforded an “out” during early pregnancy because women are is entirely flawed. Women have more control over the early stages of a baby because of the biological necessities involved. Claiming a right to back out is similar to claiming a right to impose a diet, medicine, or other growth benifits on the mother to support the fetus. Males do not have the right to impose either choice on the female because we do not have the biological investment to back them up.
What I am saying is that a plea for a back door for men is quite silly on its face. I was proposing an equally silly means to equal the scales so to speak.
No, you did accuse me of plagarism in the first posting of RWDLS. Now, here, almost a year later there are others digging for evidence of plagarism. What’s the deal with that? (Actually, I take it as a compliment.)
Ain’t startin’ nuthin’ different, just making it an annual event. You got a problem with that? Evidently so, otherwise you wouldn’t be bringin’ it up.
So, what is the problem?
You asked for a legal analysis, Razorsharp. I gave you one. Any comment?
You didn’t seem to learn from the analysis the first time around, so why waste breath again? Bottom line, same as lin the ast thread, they are different issues. They don’t conflict. No conspiracy was necessary to hide the nonexistant conflict.
Well, it’s a waste of time and is highly annoying. Akin to the same person asking the same GQ over and over after they’ve been given an answer they simply refuse to accept but is perfectly correct.
Showing a military ID at a beer store allows an 18 year-old to buy beer in my area. Not sure if this varies state to state or not. Basically they waive the 21+ rule if you’ve got a drill sargeant who will kick your ass if you get drunk and fuck up.(By the way, I love the way you re-posted your exact post from the previous thread debunking the conflict between Gomez and Roe. I guess if Razorsharp is going to recycle bunk then it is fair enough for us to recycle debunking. Odds are the mods won’t stand for it for very long though.)
Enjoy,
Steven
Well, he claims to have revamped it for 2004, so maybe it’ll fly. They used to do the same with kids from the Air Force Base with military ID’s here, but here it was basically just looking the other way. The TABC (Texas Alcoholoic Beverage Comission) eventually clamped down on it.
I’ll let the mods decide. Enjoy.
I don’t think it’s a silly idea at all. Impossible to implement, perhaps, but not silly. Imagine a situation where the man doesn’t want the child, and neither the woman nor child would be harmed in the slightest if he was completely out of the picture. In such a case, wouldn’t it be just fine if he was allowed to decide for himself if he wanted that responsibility?
It’s the fact that the vast majority of women and children are hurt by absentee fathers that allows us to force men to be financially responsible for their progeny.
Well, it is certainly longer than last time. Doesn’t seem any more coherent or valid though. Remarkable how an issue so focused on the judiciary still fails to cite a single case.
I’m in Texas, and I remember an older senior in high school who signed up for the military right out of school being able to buy beer with his military ID. I thought it was legit. Guess it could have been a case of a shopkeep looking the other way. I never investigated the actual laws. We were just impressed that there was someone we could send on a beer run without him bringing cops back with him.
Enjoy,
Steven
I refer the gentle reader to my comments the last time the OP posted his little screed: “As you ‘will not be bothered’ to provide any authority for your legal claims, I hope you will understand that I will no longer be bothered to feed you.”
I regard that as excellent advice for anyone who thinks that a rational discussion might occur here.
I agree with ggurl.
Guys, you don’t want a baby, don’t have sex.
You know the risks ahead of time.
Irresponsible I say!
I have been with not very many men, but only one was intelligent enough to use a condom.
A woman should discuss this with a man before they have sex, that what she would do (keep or abort) if she got pregnant, then he will be more informed and make choices accordingly.
And if I could shoot monkeys out of …
Certainly there will be cases on the fringe where a father’s (or mother’s for that matter) involvement in a particular child’s life will not produce any detrimental effects. There are even cases where such involvement constitutes a danger to the child. But these cases are so far out of the ordinary case that it should require extraordinary evidence to demonstrate that it is true in a particular case. Absent such evidence, the father’s (and mother’s) responsibility to the child is pretty clear.
The point of this discussion, apart from Razorsharp’s reposting of an old OP, is whether or not the females ability to choose to abort the pregnancy during the first few months requires that the male be allowed a similar back door. This is the argument that I find silly. That a females overly individual control over the fetus is somehow unfair to the male. Its like saying that gravity is unfair to fat people.
How is this any more reasonable from just saying “Girls, you don’t want a baby, don’t have sex”
What if she lies or changes her mind?