Ahhh…an appeal to the present “law” to end the debate.
Fine. In the states that do not recognize homosexual marriages…please do not try to pretend that same sex unions are in any way, shape or form a “marriage”.
Because legally, they “aren’t”. Just accept it.
End of debate, right? :rolleyes:
(And do I really need to bring up the “legal” status of folks with a wee bit too much melatonin in the 1800s?)
In case anyone is interested, here is an old thread on this topic, followed up by this related thread.
Nothing new under the sun . . .
Note the magazine’s agenda.
THIS is the institute they say did the study:
http://www.agi-usa.org/
http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
The study seems to be much wider than “Love Matters” would have us think.
More cites on why abortions are performed:
Dang it, my linking skills are pretty sorry today.
As I’ve stated before ( probably in one of the threads minty has just linked to ), life’s not fair. All things being equal, yes men should have 50/50 rights in the matter. Unfortunately, all things are not equal. Since biologically women are the only ones that can incubate and bring a child to term, with all the attendant burden on the mother, women must be granted “unequal legal rights” in this matter. A pity, but that’s just the way it is. Biology trumps “fairness” in this case - Or more accurately, biology determines what is fair.
If only men incubated the children, a la seahorses, the same logic would apply, only in the other direction.
Interesting. In the case of men having rights to their own children, life simply isn’t fair.
So why don’t we start telling women “yeah, he knocked you up and ran away, but you can’t get him for child support because he doesn’t want the kid. Life’s not fair, honey.” Let’s try that and see how high that would fly.
That’s probably a debate in and of itself. But let’s say that she should – and the parents agree that abortion is the best choice. In your view, would the father be able to trump the wishes of the parents?
But in my previous post, I used “woman” to mean “a grown up person recognized as an adult under our legal system.” Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
there are two people necessary to create a fetus. One male, one female. Presumably both have equal responsabilities toward their decision making relative to the actions involved.
Once born, it is standard in our society that both biological parents have equal responsability toward the child.
During gestation, however, only one has responsabilities towards the child. Only one must go for examinations. Only one needs to take vitimins and restrict their activities and consumables during gestation. That fact is a biological reality that shows no promise of changing in the near future.
Because of that fact, I am comfortable w/giving the greater decision making responsability towards the one person who has the only physical responsability at the time. Should science alter the biological issues in the future, I’m willing to alter my stance.
WV_Woman: Wring beat me to the punch :). During gestation, for very sound ethical reasons IMHO, the pregnant woman must have final say. After birth, responsibility must be shared, because the rights of the child, from the point of birth to the point of legal majority, trumps the rights of the parents to deny responsibility ( unless said responsibility is voluntarily transferred to a third party, i.e. adoption ).
Your comparison is apples and oranges.
As a matter of fact, I propose exactly that. I don’t think that men should be held hostage to a woman’s choices, as we have also argued before in these forums.
Because that attitude punishes the child. The state has an interest in seeing that all children receive adequate support, and forcing the man to pay child support furthers that interest.
Ideally, the state would pay for the care of every child. Until the state does so, though, forcing the biological parents to provide that support, either directly or indirectly, is the best we can do. Making child support something you can just opt out of would defeat the whole purpose of the child support regime. If child support were optional, 99.72% of non-custodial parents would opt out. Offering a prenatal opt-out (as some “father’s rights” advocates do) is no more rational than allowing one post-natal, which is why that idea will also never fly. Remember, unsupported children become wards of the state and the state has to pay for their care. The state is, therefore, reasonably interested in trying to minimize the number of unsupported children. Your suggestion would increase the number of unsupported children, and is therefore contrary to the best interests of society.
Child support is about ensuring that children are cared for. Taking away child support “just because you don’t want to have a child” is, frankly, irresponsible. A woman’s right to an abortion is, quite frankly, orthogonal to the child support issue. Child support doesn’t enter the picture until the child is born. If you want child support to be an abortion issue, then you also have to admit that the father has a duty to provide financial support for the mother of his child while she is pregnant, something which I don’t see you offering.
I started this thread because I know a kid (late teens) who got his girlfriend pregnant. He desperately wanted the baby, she didn’t. He begged her not to do it and even looked into his legal options (this happened in Kentucky, where he was promptly told by Kentuckians for Life “tough shit.”) He would have been able to take care of the kid but of course she’s gonna do whatever she wants so she tromped on out to the clinic and had it done.
Had she said yes, he definitely would have paid her off to not abort the baby. I would think there are men out there who want their children enough to do the same.
Did anyone see the article about some guy in Ohio being forced to pay child support for a child that isn’t his? Some Ohio court upheld it, too. Gimme a while and I’ll find the cite.
Here it is:
http://archive.nandotimes.com/noframes/story/0,2107,500196150-500268074-501400133-0,00.html
WV_Woman: Yup, this is the self-mobile incubator theory of womanhood. He obviously didn’t care too much about her. He just wanted a baby. Well, guess what? Having sex with random women is no way to get a baby. If you want one that badly, there are thousands of babies out there just waiting to be adopted. Knocking up women is not the answer.
Ok lemme get this straight. She hos around, marries a man she knows isn’t the father, bilks him, and HE’S the bad guy because he doesn’t wanna pay for a kid that isn’t his?
If a man had pulled that, he’d have to pay her back every penny.
I am all for equality and all that but I am appalled at the laws in the favor of women in this country that are downright unfair, and yet you won’t see many women saying “what about men’s rights?”
And I am appalled that you consider a boy in his late teens having a kid a good idea.
WV I think KellyM was responding to your friend who didn’t want his g/f to have an abortion (lesson to learn there - if you’re absolutely against abortion, probably shouldn’t have sexual relations w/some one who has alternate views).
and child support is to support the child. There may be some rare cases amongst the well to do where c/s payments are huge, but that’s a different debate (that we’ve already had).
Stoid shrug It’s happened before. What, teenagers are mature enough to have sex but they cannot be mature enough to raise a child?
Wring I agree. It’s a bad idea to have sex with someone when you know that they will abort your child if there is an “accidental” pregnancy.
Ditto for a pro-life girl having sex with a guy who is just gonna hand her 300 bucks and disappear if she gets preggers.l
Yes, child support is there to support the child, but should I grab you and inform you that you’re gonna pay 500 bucks a month for MY baby, just because you had sex with me around the time I got pregnant with another man’s babby?
can we get a clear prediction of how many straw men you’re going to use WV? I can only store so many.