The law makes a man responsible for a child that results from the decision of a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. If a man is going to be made responsible for the consequences of this decision then should he not have a say in this decision ? or .. Should the law be changed such that the woman is responsible for the consequences of her decision.
You believe that if a man has sex with a woman he can force her to have an abortion or force her to give birth? He OWNS her because he claimed her with sex?? How positively Roaring Caveman....
This is about the 10th time you have missed the point. Logic is not your strong suit. The "if" is not about sex. The "if" you are ignoring is "If the Law states that the man is responsible" It is a conditional statement. It has already been shown that your beliefs in relation to this issue are hypocritical... Perhaps let someone else try. - - - Updated - - - the other thread is closed
No, another poster started a thread, it is right below this one. And YOU and others , have all missed the point...it will NEVER be fairsy wairsy until men can get pregnant ...they can wail and whine all they want but I don't really see that changing although, trust me, I would LOVE to see that happen
Ya know, I'm almost starting to agree with those who don't think men should be responsible for their own children. If a law was passed giving men the long sought after freedom from child care responsibilities (which they never accepted fully anyway) there might be some benefits. First I 'd like to add that any man who wants to get married must sign a legal statement as to whether he wants children or not BEFORE he can get married. If he agrees to have children he also must sign a legal document stating that he will assume 50% of parenting responsibilities including taking time off work to take his kids to the doctor, go to PTA meetings, soccer games, etc. Also bake cookies for treats for school, organize birthday parties on his own, and clean the toilets. This will help show women just what kind of "man" they'll be marrying, no surprises down the line, might cut down on divorces.... It will strengthen women's right to have an abortion....if men can opt out there is NOTHING to stop women from doing the same , not even sicko, misogynistic control freaks. And the FUN part is it will raise taxes to support all these actual living CHILDREN that can't be supported on one income.....something the Repub/Conservatives hate , the same Repub/Conservatives who are against abortion !
I understand that you feel you got the short end of the stick (and maybe you did) and that you feel that all men everywhere should be punished on this basis. Forgive me however, for not wanting to be punished for something that was not my fault.
I totally support 100% what you have said here. I think prior to folks having sex they should sign something as well for the same reasons. To add to your comments this would also cut down on the number of children being born into poverty.
That might take account of those who are married or wishing to get married .. how do you go about resolving the one night stands due to numerous things such as alcohol? I saw an interesting response to this very question elsewhere, it would be interesting to see what the poster here think of it; Men are perfectly capable of withholding their own genetic material if they don't wish to produce offspring. When you forfeit over your sperm, you also forfeit the right to decide what happens to it. Whether the woman's body successfully utilizes it, is up to her.
The principles are simple; A man and woman are equally responsible for their genetic progeny and a pregnant person is responsible for their own pregnancy. There are practical issues since these two separate concepts overlap. There is no easy "right" answer to that conflict, only least worst compromises based on the specific circumstances in any given situation. For all the high-minded moaning about the principles, I've yet to see any realistic practical solutions that are any better than those already in place.
In cases where nothing is signed it should be assumed that this is the same as both parties expressing the intent not to create a child together. If a woman expects the man to pay for the kid then he should know about this expectation prior to the act. Of course a woman can do what they want with the sperm given to her. She is also responsible for the consequences of that decision unless there was acknowledgement of responsibility prior to giving her that sperm. If I give someone a baseball bat, and that person uses that bat to kill someone, should I now be responsible for murder ? Under law if I know that person was going to use that bat to kill someone I am partially responsible (mens rea - Intent) because I knew what that person was going to do with the bat. If there is no communication about the use of the sperm prior to sex one can not show that the man knew that the woman intended to create a child with his sperm. He is therefor nor responsible for the consequences of her actions (her using the sperm to create a baby)
There are plenty of good solutions. Not allowing a woman to force a man to pay for the consequences of her action would decrease the number of single women having children they have little ability to support would drop immediately. Not treating one group of people like victims would change that group's perceptions of themselves but societies perception as well. Not setting bad president in law is a step towards improving our legal system.
I understand that you think men got the short end of the stick (and maybe you did) and that you feel that all children everywhere should be punished on that basis. I do not want THEM punished for something that wasn't their fault.
hmm, I see this type of thing ending in a "he said, she said" scenario. again another "he said, she said" scenario without a written and signed contractual agreement all that is available is his word that he didn't agree to support any resulting child against her word that he did. The only way I could see for a man to get out of that type of situation would be to ensure they used contraception (condom) regardless of if the woman were using it or not, at least that would show an intent not to create a child .. but then it would still be a case of his word against hers as to whether contraception was in fact used.
That's still just rhetoric. You've not given any specific, detailed legal or policy changes you'd like to see made. How can the potential outcomes be judges without those details?
I have no comment on who go the short end of the stick. To me it is irrelevant. I don't believe in blaming one person for the actions of another. I don't feel that any child should be punished or necessarily that you can claim "lack of something" is punishment. At the end of the day the blame goes to the person responsible = the person who made the decision to bring the child into the world.
Without anything signed "innocent until proven guilty". If the woman could show that there was intent to have a child and get a judge to agree then fine.
OK, blame women for all your problems but it's the STATE and LAWS that keep people like you from punishing children for what their mother did or didn't do. Now, would you like to get back to your thread TITLE ???? or just whine about how unfair it is that men have to support actual living breathing air children??? The title indicates YOUR thread is about ABORTION.....
I gave details. That you don't understand them is not my fault. If a woman has no signed document, or some other proof showing the man was involved in the decision to carry a pregnancy to term then he is not responsible. That is a detailed legal policy change.
You throwing out accusations "blame all women for your problems" is kind of silly given that it is you that wants to blame men for your problems. Me thinking women should take responsibility for the consequences of their actions is not "Blaming women for my problems". You thinking that men should take responsibility for the consequences of your actions is "Blaming men for your problems" Do not transfer your perspective on to me thx.
Wouldn't that work both ways. Is the woman not innocent until proven guilty as well, and would it not also fall to the man to show there was no intent to have a child and with the absence of any real evidence to support either side would it come down to a judge making a decision on what is in the best interests of the child or would the services of a Forensic Evaluator be called upon? I can see lawyers making a mint if it ever went this way.
Bolded above is a blatant lie and poster can NOT show proof I ever posted that.....losing an argument is no reason to lie IF you have a good argument.
No. If the woman claims "it was not my intent to have a child" then the onus is on her to go have an abortion. The woman may be not guilty of "intending" a child. She is however responsible for the decision to continue a pregnancy. Regardless. The woman even if she carries the pregnancy to term still has the option of adoption. She, at the end of the day, never can be forced to be responsible for the child. The man however, can be forced to be responsible for the child. - - - Updated - - - You said that against me and it was a blatant lie. On the contrary you have stated numerous times that you wish to blame men for issues/problems related to being a woman.
Involved in what way though? If he demands she gets an abortion but she refuses, does that count as "involved"? What if the man is fully involved in the decision but subsequently denies it? Can he avoid any financial responsibility for his child (even if married to the mother) by simply refusing to sign a document? What if the man refuses to make any kind of contact at all, goes in to hiding for six months to avoid his responsibilities? Also, what "responsibilities" is the man excluded from here? What about his parental rights? You're clearly only thinking of child support payments but there is a much wider social and legal contract between father and child (and mother for that matter). Does the father lose their rights to future decisions regarding the child, to visitation rights or custody in the event of the mother dying? Could a woman (ab)use this policy as a way to exclude the father from the child's life against his will, by claiming he had no input in the pregnancy decision? Could a couple play the system, excluding themselves from formal child support payments and thus improving their financial record in relation to welfare payments? As I said, all of the principles overlap and there is no easy right answer. Any change or new idea is going to have all sorts of unexpected knock-on effects in such a complicated and varied situation which is why details are so important.
Responsibility for what ? I agree that the man bears some of the responsibility for helping to pay for an abortion. If he avoids this responsibility then he should be deemed partially responsible for the consequences of his actions. If the man is fully involved in the decision then he should sign a piece of paper. Having a child is a big decision. If the man denies responsibility then he has no rights to parentage of the child. If a couple is living together (gaming the system) they are guilty of welfare fraud. I have outlined some of the knock on effects. The first big one is a reduction in the number of children born into poverty. Another is the ability of one person to (game the system) by allowing them to force another person to be responsible for the consequences of their actions. Another effect would be an improvement in law by eliminating bad president which contravenes both the constitution and the rule of law.
