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.
Yes, and women get a choice beyond that day of "tango", the man doesn't.
That isn't equal rights.
Women have access to the morning after pill, abortions, and adoption. If the woman decides to keep the child, or if she decides to have an abortion, the man gets 0 say. Now, again, I am not saying a man should have the right to tell a woman she has to have an abortion, or can't get one. But I am saying that a woman shouldn't be able to tell a man he has to work 18 years for a child he doesn't want either.
Oh for ford's sake.
BIOLOGY doesn't care about equal rights.
Women carry the fetii.
They control life. Period.
Don't like it, take it up with biology or DON'T PLAY if you don't like the consequences of your actions.
Doubtful since most often custody is decided before court comes into play,and when it goes to court joint custody is usually ordered, then i would say that's probably the case. Courts in the end want a stable life for the child, and are not apt to take rights away unless there is validity to it. So any parent who loses access to their child has given sufficient cause on why that should be the case. And as for your first point* that is subjective to the person, and not for anyone to really determine for them.
*first point:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
The child is not NECESSARILY going to suffer any adverse consequences just because his/her biological father isn't giving his/her mom money.
Not interested in how likely you think it is that a father could unjustifably lose rights to his child. I'm only suggesting that you not assume the father is a moron because a judge says he shouldn't have primary custody. And what I put in bold is right, which means we can stop talking about how a man not paying child support is unfair to the child. As I said, it doesn't necessarily mean the child will suffer for that at all.
If the mother is wiling to care for a child that had a biological father that decided to "walk away", trust me, there is enough tax payer subsidized stuff to get them from paycheck to paycheck. Thats just the way the country is. If you are willing to work, you won't go hungry, and you won't go without a roof over your head. Now "work" is the verb to pay attention to there, because "work" can be almost anything from fast food, to CEO.
Actually, the single women I know who became pregnant by "accident" and decided to continue the pregnancy and raise their child, want nothing to do with the biological father. Of course, most are professional women who make more than adequate salaries.
I know more than a few women who are in constant child support battles with their ex-husbands....
And 18 years of work isn't taking your health in your hands. Have you ever had a hard, physical job? My grandfather who worked on concrete all his life can barely walk because of knee problems. Not to mention cancer and other health problems from the chemicals he was around most likely.
The man takes his life into his hands to pay for a child also.
If the woman can choose, all I'm saying is that a man should get a choice also.
The law does not agree with you and it never will. Time to get over yourself.
I still agree with this. You absolutely should not give the green light for a woman to opt out of parenthood and not give a man the same choice. Either you apply the "tough cookies" mindset to both parents or neither, meaning either you agree that the man shouldn't be forced to pay child support or you regard abortion in a negative light, not so simply "her body, her choice". More like "An irresponsible decision. She had her choice while not being responsible enough to prevent the pregnancy altogether." Again, if it's so simply "Her body, her choice", it should be "His money, his choice". obviously you think abortion is an irresponsible decision, it is not. abortion is taking responsibility. then you blame her for "not being responsible for not preventing pregnancy". two people are equally to blame. you seem to forget that when it suits you.
So much wrong with this... First, a pregnancy is a result of both the man's AND the woman's actions. now it suits you A woman getting an abortion (outside of rape victims, or if there is some risk of the baby dying anyway or having some form of considerable impairment, etc.) is a woman who doesn't want to be affected by her own actions. So this argument needs to go. "this argument needs to go" just because you disagree that abortion isn't taking responsibility doesn't mean it is not valid and true for others. so it is valid you just don't like it or agree.
Second, I don't believe Memphis said they wanted a woman to turn her baby over to the state. I believe they said they'd rather the woman raise the child. So that argument is unfair, also. anti choice folks toss around statements about women giving up their children for adoption like it was an easy thing. a reminder for you all. women are not breeders who should carry unwanted pregnancy to term so they can them turn them over to a system that most would agree sucks.
In the event that the biological mother wants the child and the biological father doesn't, he forfeits both his rights and responsibilities as a parent (just a woman would do in getting an abortion). a father that doesn't want a baby forfeits his rights and responsibility...hello...that's what they do now, walking away from a kid for their entire childhood is WAY different then a woman getting an abortion HUGE difference
Now, it would only be in extreme circumstances that the woman would HAVE to put the baby up for adoption. From government assistance (see below) to familial support and everything in between, the biological father's income is simply not needed. I'm living proof of this. My mother never got a penny from my biological father, and yet here I am. Less than ideal? Sure. But so is being forced to give a considerable portion of your paycheck to a family you're not a part of for 18 years or so. I guess it's kinda hard to sympathize unless you've been there; but I haven't, and I can still imagine it. this story is one almost everyone knows or has experienced for themselves. sure people struggle all the time, that does not mean women and children in this situation would not benefited from continued child support.
A child is happy if a child's taken care of and loved. Only in the mind of an adult (or in some mistreatment inherent in the choice) is a situation less than ideal.
*government assistance, an argument and counterargument:
"The government paying for the child to be raised = the taxpayers paying for it, meaning we are all paying to take care of someone else's child"
This is true. But the government managing its own money is a far more efficient idea. They'll calculate conservatively how much money to give, whereas when it comes to determining how much a biological father should pay, they've no incentive to be fair and reasonable. There's probably a lot of that warped this is just not true in the slightest. family court has guidelines to set the amount a father or mother has to pay the custodial parent. the one who pays support usually thinks the amount is unfair, but in reality it is not. "He shoulda thought about child support before creating a baby" mentality there.
the choice to abort is aborting potential life, it needs no support beyond it's mother's womb. this is not the case once the child is born.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
Yes, and women get a choice beyond that day of "tango", the man doesn't.
That isn't equal rights.
Women have access to the morning after pill, abortions, and adoption. If the woman decides to keep the child, or if she decides to have an abortion, the man gets 0 say. Now, again, I am not saying a man should have the right to tell a woman she has to have an abortion, or can't get one. But I am saying that a woman shouldn't be able to tell a man he has to work 18 years for a child he doesn't want either.
you both seem to forget the abortion aborts a fetus that does not require anything other then a womb. which is unlike when a baby is born. to compare the two is a disservice to the real issues
The law does not agree with you and it never will. Time to get over yourself.
Pretty much. LOL
We get what you guys are trying to say about equal rights. But it ain't gonna happen, because no one cares about your rights in this situation. People keep stating the reasons why buy y'all keep thinking its because no one is listening to you or understanding your point. Your rights don't trump the baby's is the bottom line.
Women get to "opt out" because women assume the bigger physical risk, and besides it is completely impractial to force women to 1. have babes they don't want 2. abort babies they don't want to abort or 3. give up babies they want to keep. None of that will ever happen so they get to lead the way.
Given that reality, the only way for a man to "opt out" is to choose to have nothing to do with the baby when it arrives. And guess what? Many men do just that but legally they still have to pay money, because as we keep telling you over and over, the court is not going to put your rights over the child's. Period. And society is not going to want to pay for the child if it doesn't have to.
Does it mean men can be caught between a rock and a hard place? Yes. It sucks, especially for men who didn't want kids and were tricked into believing the girl was using protection. But that is the way it is, that is the way it is always going to be, and there is no point in whining its not fair. There is no way to resolve these situations that will make everyone happy, and this is the only practical way to handle things. The end.
So your point is that you can't refute my argument, and that's the way it is, and that's the way it will always be.
I'm glad women didn't think that way before they could vote, and had a choice of what to do with their body.
I realize my position isn't popular, I don't care, its what's right and makes sense. Equal protection under the law.
You just don't get the biology has nothing to do with equality.
Are you going to demand that all biological/scientific findings be equal under the law?
That makes no sense.
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.
HUGE difference 
