Why do the males get no say? (generation, ethical, Jesus)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you think child support covers the full cost of the child?
Do you think women get off scott-free once they get child support?
.....Maybe if they get knocked up by P.Diddy
BOTH ARE RESPONSIBLE UNDER CURRENT LAW.
Not exactly Mr. TheDirector. Certainly no in Texas and I believe that many states have similar laws.
A MOTHER can walk into a police/fire station or emergency room at a hospital and say "here take my baby". By law, she is not required to give them any personal information about who she is or who the father is.
Fathers do not have that legal ability. There is no equal application of law even after the child is born.
Further, look at the statistics of WHO regardless of financial means, gets children in custody cases that come from divorce. women almost always get the children. it is rare that a father will short of the mother being proven to be utterly useless.
But even still we aren’t talking about that. Women and men have the same "rights" up to the point of conception. However once a baby is conceived, the man has no right to have input on if an abortion should or should not take place AND if the baby is carried to term, there is zero input into how that child will be cared for if he is not the father. The only thing he has is the right to appear before a judge and get told how much he will pay every month.
Oh, and before anyone thinks I am advocating for men to be released from responsibility, that could not be further from the truth.
Any man who fathers a child, and who doesn’t take full responsibility both financially and emotionally for the care and raising of that child needs a severe beating.
It is the one area of law, where public caining should be instituted.
I am talking about the fact that in this area of law, there is no equity. It isn’t about fairness. It is about all being treated equally before the law. Equality before the law is supposed to be one of those supreme American virtues…
Ah, he's "whining". The assumption being that the present set-up of no choice for men in the matter of pregnancy is fair.
At this point someone will cry, "but the man does have a choice! He can choose to keep his pants zipped!" But that is just the kind of thing someone opposed to abortion could say to a woman; that is, she had a choice to keep her pants zipped.
As it is now, the woman has ALL the choice; she can keep or terminate the pregnancy. If she keeps the child, she can ask the state to take the man's income to support her and the child.
Not fair. Not at all.
Who ever said life was fair? Do you think it's fair that a woman can't walk down an alley wearing a miniskirt and heels or throw back a few drinks at a bar without expecting to get raped? Do you think it's fair that women get paid less to do more? Do you think it's fair that women can't write their names in the snow with ****?
The courts look at it this way - the woman is the ultimate decider if she wants to go through with a pregnancy or not. The man does have a voice - he can say what he thinks and feels, and the woman can listen and make her choice base on everything. If she chooses to go through with the pregnancy, then the courts looks out for the best interest of the child. Should the child suffer hunger and lack of shelter because the y-chromosome giver wants to be an ass?
Who ever said life was fair? Do you think it's fair that a woman can't walk down an alley wearing a miniskirt and heels or throw back a few drinks at a bar without expecting to get raped? Do you think it's fair that women get paid less to do more? Do you think it's fair that women can't write their names in the snow with ****?
The courts look at it this way - the woman is the ultimate decider if she wants to go through with a pregnancy or not. The man does have a voice - he can say what he thinks and feels, and the woman can listen and make her choice base on everything. If she chooses to go through with the pregnancy, then the courts looks out for the best interest of the child. Should the child suffer hunger and lack of shelter because the y-chromosome giver wants to be an ass?
It's completely lopsided and biased and you know it. So what if the mother decides she doesn't want to be with her man anymore and just leaves? Why should the man still be responsible? She chose to leave, it was HER choice. Is it right to put the father in jail for child support because he can't pay? Why does the mother get federal assistance for the care, but the father doesn't when he can't pay the support?
Funny, in this thread the mantra seems to be, if you don't want to have a baby don't have sex or get a vasectomy. But when that same argument is applied to the woman and using using tax payer money for their abortions, those options are not good enough for the pro-choicers. Why is this? Can you guys atleast admit your biased double standard?
It is far worse than that SourD.
Those in this thread who are arguing that if a man doesn’t want to have a kid, he should not have sex are also arguing that if a woman doesn’t want to have a kid, she can do anything she wants.
Who ever said life was fair? Do you think it's fair that a woman can't walk down an alley wearing a miniskirt and heels or throw back a few drinks at a bar without expecting to get raped? Do you think it's fair that women get paid less to do more? Do you think it's fair that women can't write their names in the snow with ****?
My god, that was a mess.
Quote:
The courts look at it this way - the woman is the ultimate decider if she wants to go through with a pregnancy or not. The man does have a voice - he can say what he thinks and feels, and the woman can listen and make her choice base on everything. If she chooses to go through with the pregnancy, then the courts looks out for the best interest of the child. Should the child suffer hunger and lack of shelter because the y-chromosome giver wants to be an ass?
Yes, we are all aware of how the court looks at it. Hence our present discussion. See, the thing being debated is how a woman has the choice to either kill or keep the child; a man has no say, PLUS.......said man can be forced by the state to give a large portion of his income for 18 years, depending entirely on the woman's "choice". This is unfair. A compromise would be ideal, where the man, assuming the woman chooses not to kill the child, can choose whether or not he wants to support said child.
Please give me an overview of a law that would correct the situation?
And good luck FORCING a woman to have an abortion.
This i just off the top of my head but this is what Ive been thinking...
if the father wants an abortion and the woman does not papers are signed stating that the woman acknowledges that she is going into this alone and is aware that the father will not help. This should cost the same as if the woman is getting the abortion.
I know it has flaws but just an idea
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
