So you support a mans right to abandon his own flesh and blood, because the mother didn’t abort him/her. You trivialize the fact that both men and women know the possibility that a child will be conceived. That is a fact. Yes there are consequences and she is the one who has to bear them by either having a child and raising it for 18 years, or having a painful abortion. You seem to be oblivious to the fact that there is a third person in this equation. His child
l Yes I really treat women like helpless victims because I fight for them to have the choice to have a child or an abortion. Lol. Women always take the responsibility because biology is destiny. If they get pregnant they have to get an abortion or go through childbirth. I think that is taking responsibility ..what you were saying Is that men should not have to support a child of his own , after all he didn’t want it. I wonder how you would feel if a dad abandoned his kids because “he didn’t want them”.Actually you are the one who is saying men should have no responsibility. And please don’t hold yourself morally superior by saying I am falsely accusing you of something You never said. All you have done here is accuse me of saying things that are ridiculous and attributing them to me.You sound like you can give it but you can’t take it
It is not "his child" any more or less than the child conceived by sperm from a sperm donor. The woman does not have to bear the "consequences". She can give the kid up for adoption "abandoning her own flesh and blood". You throw all kind of emotional stuff but seem oblivious to the fact that we are talking about Law. Just because you have certain personal emotional attachments this not justification for forcing your personal beliefs on others through physical violence (LAW). Others in society may not share your emotional attachment. I understand your moral argument .. but this is not about religious belief or personal morals. This is about Law and in this society ... the Law gives a woman the choice to "abandon her own flesh". The Law does not force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term (despite the fact that some people have strongly held personal moral/religions belief). The Law does not force the woman to be financially responsible for the consequences of her unilateral decision to carry a pregnancy to term. Yet ... you think the Law should force a man to be financially responsible or the consequences of a woman's unilateral decision to carry a pregnancy to term. This is obvious hypocrisy in law. It is a violation of the rule of law. 1) Equality under the law 2) one person is not to be made responsible for the actions of another. You think others should be made to be legally responsible for the consequences of the personal moral beliefs of others. (violating 2 of the Rule of Law). I take it then you think that women should be held responsible for the personal moral/religious beliefs of those on the religions right who want to ban abortion. While you are welcome to this belief. I do not share it. .
See post 178. On the one hand you claim to be for law being made that would force others to be responsible for the consequences of the personal moral beliefs of others. Now you are claiming something else ... that the women should have a "choice"... which violates the personal moral beliefs of others. This is hypocrisy. Another thing. Supposed it was against the man's personal moral beliefs to abort "his own flesh an blood". By your reasoning the woman should be forced to carry the pregnancy to term on this basis.
Well as you say, the law is the law. I don’t see this hypocrisy you see . I see the third person born of this union...and they are both financially responsible for it, as she is for the nine months of expenses .Comparing a sperm donor to a willing participant is quite different. The sperm donor has to sign all kinds of agreements as does the sperm recipient. Now if a man and woman are having sex he can ask her to sign a legal document relieving him of any responsibility if there should be a pregnancy. I don’t understand the underlined above
I agree that when men get pregnant they should get to make the choice of whether or not to carry the pregnancy to term. I do not believe in forcing my personal beliefs on others through physical violence (Law). You, on other hand, believe that one person should be forced (through physical violence) to be responsible for consequences of the personal beliefs of the other party to sex.
I do not say "the law is the law" as a defense for violation of the rule of law. Second, people that do try to use this defense for bad law are either not that bright or prone to logical fallacy. . These comments do not address the hypocrisy I pointed out. Your above statement commit's a second hypocrisy unless you believe the woman should not be able to give a child up for adoption. Do you really think that a woman should not be able to give her child up for adoption ? A man can sign all the document's he likes prior to having sex with a woman - this will not relieve him of the financial consequences should the woman decide to carry a pregnancy to term. What you are saying is false.
I wanted to ask what are women going to do when they make viable "good enough" sex robots face it no matter how many other qualities a woman brings to the table getting the penis into a vagina or the woman's power in her ***** is the main reason men deal with women if we ever get the tech to replace a woman with a robotic version and help women if they are programmed to be better companions how long women will have that advantage. I'm not trying to be crude but a programmed to order woman consort who can meet sexual, emotional needs, cook, clean, make home repairs and well lots of other options a human woman is suddenly less of a need unless your an alpha male and female human the elite caste the betas maybe to but get down to the working sort a sex bot might be preferred. And would force women to depend on other aspects. Women also might need male bots if not desirable choices at the same time a average looking woman might not have many options if the men leave the field opting for robotic lovers as the other side of the coin. That could be the true equality the removal of the one biological thing women have that men want and will put up with a lot of crap to get and show how hypocritical society and feminism and men's rights are as this shift goes to the very poor breeding, the elite men and women marrying being well able to be desirable and then the center opting for robots that might be interesting to look into as a futurist.
Im trying to figure out What you’re saying. What are you talking about “forcing personal believes through physical violence? Where is there any violence?
First of all I think Roe v. Wade is a very good law. Whoever said anything about not being able to give a child up for adoption? When a woman carries a child for nine months it is not just a little simple thing to give away her child. It is hers and the man who impregnated her. Do you really think a woman should put her child up for adoption if daddy doesn’t want to support it? Let me guess are you a man without a uterus who sees children as something to give away? . A man can sign legal documentation signed by the woman as well that he will not be responsible financially . That is what sperm banks do. I have a gay friend who did that with a man. The irony is he wants to develop a relationship with the child which she is fine with.
The purpose of Law is to give Gov't the power to punish (through any means necessary such as coercion, physical violence, imprisonment or even death) those who violate that law. Making law is then one group forcing their beliefs on others through physical violence. This is Political Science 101. Most do not understand that when they vote in a referendum (Say on banning booze) ... the question of the referendum is not "Do you like Alcohol". The question of a referendum is "do you have sufficient justification to force your personal dislike of alcohol on others through physical violence (LAW - "the heavy hand of the State") So then - sufficient justification is not - "because I do not like alcohol" or "because God does not like alcohol" as neither of these is a legitimate answer to the question at hand. If one does not like alcohol - don't drink. Your dislike for alcohol is not a valid reason to force others not to drink. God does not like it is not a valid reason either - Prove that God doesn't like alcohol. So then - there is a difference between 1) Having a personal or religious belief and 2) forcing that belief on others through Law Making a Law is giving the Gov't permission to use physical violence to punish those that violate the law. Sadly, through 12 years of school we manage not to teach kids the main principle on which this nation was founded, and the basics of civics such as legitimacy of authority, and the Rule of Law. We also manage not to teach the basics of Philosophy (logic, logical fallacy, what constitutes a valid argument). Ignorant sheep are easier to control. It is one thing to have a personal moral belief such as those you have expressed - it is quite another to come up with a coherent justification for why other people should be forced to comply with that belief.
Good that you agree with R v W. There may be hope for you yet. All you have shown so far however is that you are for individual liberty - that you agree with. The problem is that belief in individual rights, freedoms, equality, justice and liberty is not belief in liberty "only for things you agree with". Everyone believes in that. Belief in individual liberty, equality and justice means believing in individual liberty, equality and justice for things you disagree with. If you do not believe in individual liberty for things you disagree with - then you really do not believe in individual liberty (and all the other things mentioned) at all. LOOK - the woman has the right to "abandon her own flesh and blood". No one said it was simple and this has nothing to do with anything. The Fact of the matter is that the woman has this right and with this right comes the ability to avoid any financial responsibility for that child. The man has no such "EQUAL RIGHT". Are you for equality ... or just for equality for women ? Since when can two gay men have a child ? Why did you bring this up ? The fact of the matter is that there is no documentation that a man can sign, prior to having sex with a woman, where he can avoid financial responsibility should the woman he has sex with get pregnant and decide to carry the pregnancy to term. Sperm donor is a special exemption which is the equivalent of adoption prior to the child being born. If there was such a document ... do you not think men would be using this document ? There is no such document.
1- a woman cannot abandon her child. 2- a man does not have equal say in a pregnancy . HE KNOWS THAT! Who should have the final say? 3- this may come as a shock but lesbians are gay. You assumed it was a man. She signed an agreement as did the sperm donor.. 4- I don’t know if you are right. A woman has every right to make a legal agreement relieving sperm donor of any parental responsibility . Why do you say there can be no agreement? You have to go through a legal procedure
1) of course she can, she can give the child up for adoption thus avoiding financial responsibility for the consequences of her unilateral decision to carry a pregnancy to term. 2) Agreed .. nor should he be responsible for the consequences of a decision that he has no say in. As per the rule of law - one person is not to be made responsible for the actions of another 3) Fair enough ... but this situation has nothing to do with the situation at hand 4) Sperm donors do not have sex with the recipient .. There is no doc that gets a man off the hook from having sex. .http://www.alternativefamilylaw.co.uk/children/legal-paternity-sperm-donation/ The above link is from the UK (noticed after the fact) but the same is true in the US. http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1250&context=djglp
1 putting a child up for adoption is not “abandoning a child“ and giving up your child for adoption is a very painful thing for a woman. Obviously you are a man who has never carried a child to term 2-You keep saying that he should not be responsible for the consequences of the decision that he had no say in. He had a say in having sex knowing that the consequences could be his and her child. Biology is destiny...and he knew that. What if men married or not abandon their families with the excuse “I didn’t want a child” you keep forgetting there is a third person and you want the mother to have all the responsibility . 3 people draw up agreements all the time. And they become binding.
1) you are being obtuse. The woman has the right to abandon her financial obligations to her child. 2) Consent to sex is not consent to a child. The decision to carry an unintended pregnancy to term is the woman's choice. If that choice is made against the will of the man, this is then a unilateral choice to bring a child into this world. The woman, even though this was here unilateral choice, can avoid the financial consequences of that choice if she chooses. The man is not given the same option - the option to avoid financial responsibility (even though it was not his choice). This violates the Rule of Law 1) Equal Justice/Equal Rights 2) one person is not to be responsible for the actions of another Your claim "Biology is Destiny" is abject nonsense. If this were the case like it was in the middle ages when women were helpless victims I would agree with you. This however is the 20th century. An accidental pregnancy no longer necessarily results in the creation of a child. In the case of a condom breaking it is as simple as taking a pill. Your "what if men abandoned their families" is abject nonsense. In this case the man took part in the decision to procreate. In law, two things are needed to be found guilty (responsible). 1) Men's rea 2) Actus rea. Actus rea means you have to have committed the crime .. Mens rea is you have to have intended it. In your example there is both. The man was part of the decision to procreate and he intended it. In the case we are discussing the man has no part in the decision to procreate and there was no intention to procreate. 3) What part of "there is no agreement that can be drawn up that the court will recognize" do you not understand ? If you want to continue claiming this nonsense then show that such an document exists. I have already given you a link that states otherwise.
The bottom line is men who create a child don’t have any responsibility because the woman didn’t have an abortion or give it up for adoption. You’re lucky you can ignore the little child who is his, and pretend he doesn’t exist for his daddy. It isn’t fair that men don’t have to carry a fetus and all the health risks. It isn’t fair that men don’t have to go through child birth. I guess you want men to have the only say....tough!
Or she can take the baby, leave it in most states with a police officer or at a fire station or at a hospital ER and walk off and completely abandon the child. I would argue for the responsibility if the child wasn't conceived in trickery, if a woman says she is on the pill and isn't its fraud to steal the man's money and de to the amount should be felony fraud and in more than one jurisdiction stealthing which is sexual battery - so two felonies. The woman should be charged, sent to prison and the financial obligations to the child left up to the man he might opt to take custody or agree to pay or should be able to say nope the child is the problem for the child's mother so let her figure this out. Fair is fair.
Yes, it’s so common for a woman to dump her baby at a police station. Actually I heard women care about their own children, and don’t want to get rid of them. It may be a burden but it’s their flesh and blood We aren’t talking about trickery...men could do the same thing
Now you are just being obtuse because you have no valid argument. You are not for equality, not for rights and freedoms, not for liberty, and certainly not for the rule of law (except of course for things you agree with). Since you have no ability to address the point made you talk over them and then accuse the messenger of things not claimed (Strawman). Did I miss anything ?
Yup ... and as sits the woman has the right to force a man to be responsible for the consequences of her unilateral decision to carry an unintended pregnancy to term. This violates the Rule of Law six ways to sunday. 1) One person is not to be punished for the actions of another 2) Equal justice/equality/equal rights under the law (covered above - she has the right to avoid the financial consequences of her decision, the man does not)
Sorry if you don’t like my argument....you aren’t about equal rights because you think it is ok for a man to abandon his child when it is born, does that born child have rights? You’re the one who has problems with the law. The nerve of the law making men and women support heir children . Yes, she has the final say....who do you think should? It’s not fifty fifty. She has a lot more work, he has none
What argument ? You do not make arguments, all you do is keep repeating the same silly claims over and over despite the fact that these have been refuted. This last comment is the most nonsensical yet. You completely ignore ground that we have already covered - That the woman has the right under law to abandon her financial obligation to her child.
I didn’t realize that I could abandon the financial obligation to my child. My husband and I could’ve just left her and hoped somebody would feed her. I I guess first I would have to go through all the work of adoption so I could dump her for a good time. It’s obvious you don’t like what I say and accuse me of repeating the same thing over and over. Are you aware that you repeat the same thing over and over so quit Cloaking yourself in self-righteous Indignation
