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.
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.
What kind of Sci-fi fantasy "transplant" baby world are you living in man?
And if a mom is dumb enough to sign away her right to child support....shes dumb enough to not ask for child support in the first place so problem solved.
Now what if the man promised to take care of the baby then backs out? Just leave the woman on the hook?
What kind of Sci-fi fantasy "transplant" baby world are you living in man?
I don't see why it couldn't eventually be science non-fiction. We already have the ability to remove eggs from a fertile woman, fertilize it in a dish, and implant the results into a less-than-fertile female. At one point, the thought of invitro was some "crazy sci-fi fantasy" that infertile couples dreamed of.
Quote:
And if a mom is dumb enough to sign away her right to child support....shes dumb enough to not ask for child support in the first place so problem solved.
When did I mention the mom signing away rights to receiving child support?
Once we have transplant capabilities, either parent can terminate legal and financial rights and responsibilities and the other can still have the child.
Meaning: If one of the potential parents doesn't want anything to do with a child, he or she can just walk away. If one of the potential parents does want the child, he or she can do so without forcing the other to be involved.
Quote:
Now what if the man promised to take care of the baby then backs out? Just leave the woman on the hook?
Like for instance, if he says "yes" during his allowed time, then says "ahahahaha, j/k lolololNo." outside of that time frame? If so, then he'd still be legally and financially responsible for the child. He'd just most likely end up as a deadbeat parent.
During the allotted time frame, both parents should have the ability to say "yay" or "nay" to having a child. Once that time has expired, they are legally bound to their decision.
I don't see why it couldn't eventually be science non-fiction. We already have the ability to remove eggs from a fertile woman, fertilize it in a dish, and implant the results into a less-than-fertile female. At one point, the thought of invitro was some "crazy sci-fi fantasy" that infertile couples dreamed of.
When did I mention the mom signing away rights to receiving child support?
Once we have transplant capabilities, either parent can terminate legal and financial rights and responsibilities and the other can still have the child.
Meaning: If one of the potential parents doesn't want anything to do with a child, he or she can just walk away. If one of the potential parents does want the child, he or she can do so without forcing the other to be involved.
Like for instance, if he says "yes" during his allowed time, then says "ahahahaha, j/k lolololNo." outside of that time frame? If so, then he'd still be legally and financially responsible for the child. He'd just most likely end up as a deadbeat parent.
During the allotted time frame, both parents should have the ability to say "yay" or "nay" to having a child. Once that time has expired, they are legally bound to their decision.
I dont know WHY im continuing but this is gonna be it for me.
So the guy can say he wants a baby...get a girl pregnant...then 25 1/2 weeks after say "I change my mind your on your own"...got it
Now write that all down and send a letter off to your congressman about it.
Be sure to include the part about women having embryos ripped out and placed in someone else...or robots.
If a female doesn't want the responsibility/financial stress that goes along with parenthood, she can get an abortion and never look back. Even if the male wants to keep the baby, the female has the power to get an abortion.
So why do the males get no say? If a female can just walk away from the responsibility if she doesn't want a baby, a male should be able to do the same thing.
If the female wants to keep the baby but the male doesn't, the male gets stuck paying child support.
In both examples, one parent wants to keep the baby. So why does the male get stuck paying for a baby he doesn't want?
Of course the male can't get an abortion. But I don't think the male should need to pay child support for a baby he doesn't want.
Sure, you might be thinking "The male helped create the baby. If the female wants to keep it, the male should pay"
But it takes two to tango. Both parents played an equal role in creating the baby. So if the male can't force the female to pay, why should the female be able to force the male to pay?
By the way, I am pro-choice. I support abortion and I don't see anything wrong with a female getting an abortion if she doesn't want to pay for a baby. But if a male doesn't want to pay for a baby, he shouldn't need to either.
He should get a say if he is willing to pay for the birth, raise the child, and no child support.
Casper
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?
No their not! One, the male, has to pay out of his pocket or go to jail. The other, the woman, can get federal assistance and federally funded abortions. So who is the responsible one again?
Why? Isn't that discrimination? I thought you guys were for fairness? Am I wrong?
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.
