Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-09-2011, 10:35 AM
 
6,041 posts, read 11,532,319 times
Reputation: 2387

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by kshe95girl View Post
Sooooooo, if the parents are off the hook because they didnt want the kid, who pays then?
If neither parent wanted the baby, the female would get an abortion
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-09-2011, 10:36 AM
 
1,027 posts, read 831,480 times
Reputation: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rita Mordio View Post
The difference, as of right now, is that the child resides within the female's body. When formed fetuses can be removed from the mother's body and into a surrogate or test-tube with little to no discomfort to the woman (major surgery is not an option), then the guy will be able to raise a child without the mother having a say in it. She should also be given the ability to sign away all rights just as a guy should have the ability (I specified my idea later on in this post)



Except forcing her to go through pregnancy (which wreaks havoc on a woman's body) against her will is just... wow.



I think a father should be able to sign away his rights up until the "point of no return" (around 26 weeks or so) in a pregnancy. If he finds out after the child is already born or that "point of no return", he should be given a specified time period (3 weeks?) to decide whether or not he wants.


That should be changed.



Nope.



I'm pro-choice and think either parent should be able to say "Yes I want the kid" regardless of what the other wants. However, this can only be achieved when a formed fetus can be successfully removed from a woman's body and implanted somewhere else.

I don't agree with forcing a woman through an unwanted pregnancy just because a non-participant wants her to. By "Non-Participant", I mean the Co-Creator of the child who doesn't have to deal with swollen feet, swollen hands, swollen body in general, going from crying to hyper to savage-angry in the matter of two minutes, the need for all new clothes, peeing every 30 seconds, inability to deal with heat, as well as the possible complications (up to and including death) that come with pregnancy.

This isnt a Nuclear sub. Both parents dont need to "turn the keys" to have the baby.

You have yet to provide a way youd like to fix this law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2011, 10:37 AM
 
1,027 posts, read 831,480 times
Reputation: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by city_data91 View Post
A law where child support is voluntary

And if they can force us to pay child support, we should be able to force them to get an abortion

If a law was passed where child support is voluntary, that would make it fair for both genders. We wouldn't force them to get an abortion, but they wouldn't force us to pay child support.

After all, if she really wants the baby so badly, she should pay. Because if she doesn't want a baby, she can get out of paying.

There would be no need for these laws if "Voluntary child support" worked.


What protection does the woman have from men who promise to take care of the baby then decide they don't want one?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2011, 10:38 AM
 
Location: Silver Springs, FL
23,405 posts, read 37,266,630 times
Reputation: 15560
Quote:
Originally Posted by city_data91 View Post
A law where child support is voluntary

And if they can force us to pay child support, we should be able to force them to get an abortion

If a law was passed where child support is voluntary, that would make it fair for both genders. We wouldn't force them to get an abortion, but they wouldn't force us to pay child support.

After all, if she really wants the baby so badly, she should pay. Because if she doesn't want a baby, she can get out of paying.
Kid, you really need to get out and experience life, your world view is much too narrow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2011, 10:38 AM
 
17,842 posts, read 14,513,674 times
Reputation: 4115
Everyone who votes for a vasectomy for the OP say: AYE!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2011, 10:39 AM
 
1,027 posts, read 831,480 times
Reputation: 218
You either keep the law the way it is....BOTH people responsible.

or

Make one party totally responsible for something that took TWO people to do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2011, 10:44 AM
 
20,510 posts, read 12,533,507 times
Reputation: 10349
Quote:
Originally Posted by purehuman View Post
What an odd statement to make....you think having a baby, and possibly having to raise it on your own ...is an easy decision?? with nothing to worry about???....If you are so worried about creating a child, then get a vasectomy....

I believe the point is, the woman is free to have an abortion without any say from the father.

in Texas, a woman is legally free to abandon her child with no questions asked, if she drops it off at a hospital or fire station. Other states have similar laws.

Men don’t enjoy any such rights.

they certainly are equal to women in the choice to have sex. However, from that point if conception occurs, a man has zero rights and many responsibilities.

ALL power/rights after conception are the purview of the woman.

It isn’t on point with this thread, but even with a divorcing couple, men are not treated equally with women. A woman nearly always gets primary custody of the children even if she is far less financially able to care for the kids. Unless a woman is found to be utterly incompetent, courts give the kids to the woman and give the man a bill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2011, 10:45 AM
 
20,510 posts, read 12,533,507 times
Reputation: 10349
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDirector View Post
You either keep the law the way it is....BOTH people responsible.

or

Make one party totally responsible for something that took TWO people to do.
how many times and in how many ways must it be said that the law currently ISNT that BOTH people are responsible?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2011, 10:48 AM
 
Location: San Jose
1,862 posts, read 2,402,417 times
Reputation: 542
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDirector View Post
Not

your

body
I totally agree....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2011, 10:49 AM
 
Location: Land of Thought and Flow
8,323 posts, read 15,247,102 times
Reputation: 4958
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDirector View Post
This isnt a Nuclear sub. Both parents dont need to "turn the keys" to have the baby.

You have yet to provide a way youd like to fix this law.
Huh. And here I thought I had written in plain English.

Once a baby has already been formed:
1) The woman doesn't need the guy at all if she wants to have the child.
2) The man does need the girl if he wants to have the child.

Ergo, if she wants the child, she just keeps the pregnancy. If he wants the child and she doesn't - there's no way to "transplant" the baby.

My idea ("law") would require the ability to easily and quickly remove the fetus into a surrogate. That way, either parent can walk away without forcing the other into caring for a child he/she doesn't want. As of right now, we don't have that capability.

As long as males are 100% dependent upon the female to deliver said child, they can't have a child she doesn't want to deliver. However, they should, however, be able to sign away all legal and financial rights and responsibilities anytime within the first 26 weeks of pregnancy or within 3 (?) weeks of finding out if after said point.

Once we have transplant capabilities, either parent can terminate legal and financial rights and responsibilities and the other can still have the child.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd View Post
It isn’t on point with this thread, but even with a divorcing couple, men are not treated equally with women. A woman nearly always gets primary custody of the children even if she is far less financially able to care for the kids. Unless a woman is found to be utterly incompetent, courts give the kids to the woman and give the man a bill.
I was raised solely by my father and had the stereotypical deadbeat non-custodial parent who barely paid child support, complained that the amount was too high, and only visited once in a blue moon.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:21 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top