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 she should. Since more women choose to have the baby than they do to let it go for adoption or have an abortion.
Again, please read for comprehension. YOU are failing.
Do you know why I know that a parent can terminate his parental rights? Because this happened to my half-brother. He terminated his rights as a parent and was granted that request.
I never stated a parent cannot give up their rights. However, you cannot just casually give up your rights expecting to get out of child support payments unless there is another person stepping in to be a parent.
The CA court website and the websites you listed spelled that out. CA makes it clear that even if you give up your rights you may still be liable for support.
However, you cannot just casually give up your rights expecting to get out of child support payments unless there is another person stepping in to be a parent.
If the custodial parent doesn't need support from the non-custodial parent, then the non-custodial parent can have his/her parental rights terminated.
The non-custodial parent isn't "seeking to get out of child support payments". The custodial parent may not need or WANT the child support payments.
Quote:
The CA court website and the websites you listed spelled that out. CA makes it clear that even if you give up your rights you may still be liable for support.
Law vary from state to state, but termination for parental rights never guarantees that child support is terminated. IT only means that any legal choices that as parent you are afforded for the child, that can be terminated (example, signing waivers for your child to join Little League)
I do not believe that fathers have enough say in whether or not a woman carrying their fetus should have an abortion.
As it stands, a woman can abort a fetus despite whatever opinion the father may have on the issue. If he wants her to keep the fetus, she can still abort. If he doesn't want her to keep the fetus, she can abort.
What about the scenarios where the man DOESN'T want her to keep the fetus and the woman refuses to abort! This is wrong to me. I think if the father wants the pregnancy terminated the mother should follow through with his wishes and end the pregnacy.
I think in order for a pregnancy to come to term their needs to be MUTUAL consent on whether or not to have a baby. If either parent is in disagreement then the fetus should be aborted promptly.
What do you all think? As a very pro-choice person I think there needs to be consent from both parties before a child is born.
I both agree and disagree with your post.
I agree that there is not enough weight given to the father's choice, and too much given to the woman's choice.
I disagree that the father's choice should determine what the woman ultimately decides. It is her body after all. If the woman decides to have the baby, and the father wanted her to abort the pregnancy then the mother, and not the father, should be financially responsible for the child. If the woman decides to abort the pregnancy, and the father wanted the child, then ending the relationship would seem to be the most prudent course of action.
The father would have the choice of financial responsibility, while the woman would have the choice of whether or not to have the child.
Since men had the original power, it's not all women. Men allowed it to be this way for whatever reason. My question is why?
Throughout all of history it has been a man's role to provide for and protect his family. Men are both predisposed by evolution and conditioned by society to put the needs of others before themselves. I'm sure you've heard of the phrase "women & children first".
They have done psychological tests about in-group preference. This means whether or not you have an instinctual preference to identify with, want to help and associate with, and assume good things about people who are similar to you. They show people pictures and ask various questions "do you think this is someone you could be friends with?", "does this person look like they are nice?", "would you say hello to this person on the street?", or show two pictures and say "these two people are having an argument, which one do you think is probably right?" etc
All races show an in-group preference for the same race
Women show an in-group preference for women
but
Men show an in-group preference for women
Men are predisposed to side with a woman against another man. This is an evolutionary survival trait. Since women gestate, each woman can produce much less offspring than each man. This made the survival of women more important in general than the survival of men. So women evolved to look after themselves, their children, and each other. While men evolved to look after the community, their mates, and their children. Nobody evolved to look after the men as individuals.
So that's how a situation like we have now happens. A black Democrat policeman is likely to support other black men because they are black, likely to support other Democrats, and likely to support other police officers but he is not likely to support other men just because they are men. Which means when it comes to issues that are specific to just men in general they are not likely to band together. Men having higher unempoyment, men being a minority in higher education, men being victims of crime at higher rates, mens' health getting much less funding than women, and - in this discussion - men being treated unfairly by family courts, he is not likely to see as a mens' issue and will not come together with other men to protect his own interests as a gender. Each man is more likely to see himself in the protector role by championing the rights of women.
Now that doesn't mean to claim that women weren't oppressed. In the past in a harder and more dangerous world, providing for and protecting a family meant keeping her safe at home. It meant women didn't vote and didn't control the resources. Men controlled the resources and made the decisions on how to best keep society safe and growing. But what it means is that as women did finally gain liberation and advance their rights and a competition arose between the genders in some areas, nobody advocated for the men in this competition. The social conservatives who opposed feminism were not advocating for men, they were advocating for the return to traditional values. For example, some people said women should be able to stay at home or work as they chose. Others said women women should stay at home. Nobody said men should have the freedom to work or stay home. Both sides only felt men should work. That is changing now, but "now" is 50 years after feminism has already been in full swing. Women have decades of activism for their reproductive rights. Men have only a few years. And you see the results on this forum. A simple and straightforward question like "if women can get out of supporting children they don't want, why can't men?" draws vehement disagreement from people who consider themselves open minded and humanitarian.
Oh, and by the way, this is evolutionary psychology applied to gender relations. Not my ideas. I don't take credit for them (or blame if you hate them).
then what stops that man from having sex with 100 women and then fathering 100 babies (say all the women kept the babies)? How is it fair that he does not support a single one of them?
Sorry, but if he wants to have sex, as soon as he puts his penis into a woman, he accepts all outcomes of that act. Whether its to help a woman have an abortion, because they both agree, or if she decides to keep the baby, he is OBLIGATED to support the child.
IF he didn't want to have kids, then he should have kept his pants zipped up, know more about the woman before he slept with her, and/or used protection
Nothing stops him from doing that, but nothing forces the women to sleep with him, or keep the babies either.
In your example, each of those 100 women did exactly the same thing as he did. Sex is a two way street. And yet none of them are forced to accept the outcome you are saying he needs to accept.
Nobody is saying to give men more rights than women. Just equal rights to what women already have.
Of course it doesn't make sense to one who thinks illogically.
Men are just as responsible for the outcome of sex as women. He should always be of the belief that pregnancy will happen, and the that she will end up keeping the baby (since that is more likely the outcome).
Pot. Kettle. Black. You've been squirming in this thread since the very first post. You haven't offered a single worthwhile argument on the entire issue, except to show us how misogynistic you are.
If he is just as responsible as she is, then that implies that she is just as responsible as he is.
However, she can choose to give the baby up for adoption or drop it off at a safe haven.
He cannot.
Now in the case of abortion, she can choose to abort and he cannot because she is carrying the child and he is not.
In the case of adoption and safe havens, the child already exists. Therefore, she is not in any different position with regards to the child than he is. She is a parent. He is a parent. It is her child. It is his child.
If they are each as responsible as the other, then it is a double standard that she can choose to give the child up or give it up for adoption and he cannot.
There is no squirming here. She has the adoption option, he does not. Double standard.
i could ask you the same question. And no, it is not a "fact" that he still has to pay, HE DOESNT. She willingly kept the existence of the child from him.
It doesn't matter what she did. It is the child who is entitled to the support, not the mother. The child does not lose its rights because of the mother's action. I've seen cases of this before, where a father tried to get out of back support because of some action of the mother and it does not work. The court generally holds in favor of the child, and even though it is the mother actually getting the money it is irrelevant because the child is entitled to the father's upkeep during that time irrespective of the mother's actions. If her actions which caused him to not know/not see the child were legally improper then she can be held liable for those actions, but that is treated as a separate matter from the father's obligation to support the child.
Yes, but in this case the shoe does not fit. Wanting equal rights to women is not hating women. Therefore, it is not misogynist.
Quote:
Unlike you, repeating every male argument used in courts for the past 50 years, and have lost?
Irrelevant. Winning a legal victory in court does not make you morally right. Especially given that the laws are not the same in every state.
Quote:
So you can't offer any rebuttal in the fact that a man is as responsible for the outcome a sex act as a woman is; and that if it results in a baby, he is obligated to provide support (unless agreed to by both parties that he does not)?
It is a false statement so why should he agree with it?
A man is as responsible for a conception resulting from a sex act as a woman but is not as responsible for the overall outcome of a sex act as a woman is because she can choose an abortion and he cannot; and if that results in a baby, he is obligated to provide support but she is not.
Quote:
And he goes on to father 100 babies because he can use "I didn't plan to be a father" excuse? Sorry, but the courts saw BS in that type of excuse from the get go.
And none of the 100 women who are mothers to those babies had to carry them to term or keep them if they did carry them to term.
This is the first time someone's used it in this thread that I've noticed, but over time I've seen people resort to the "I'm right because the court agrees with me" argument and the problem with that - besides the fact that the court only judges what is legal under the current law, not what is right or what the law should be - is that the state has an interest in holding a man (actual father or not) responsible for the child. The state has a responsibility for the welfare of the child. If nobody else can pay for that child, then the state must pay. Therefore the court has an interest in finding someone responsible for that child so that the state does not have to pay. In the case of family law the court actually has a vested interest in not providing justice. People often don't seem to get that. Somebody is going to have to pay for that child. If the court finds against the man, then he pays for the child and the state which pays the court's salary does not.
It's as much a double standard as the body/wallet comparison. This whole thing is a joke. Men can't control everything, that makes them cranky.
The body/wallet comparison was not what I responded to so that doesn't prove anything about the point I made. If you are going to respond to the post I made, then respond to the point I made in that post. Not with a reference to an entirely different argument in a different post.
The whole thing is a joke to you maybe. And you are fortunate enough to be living in a place and time where society accepts your prejudices. Doesn't change the fact that they are prejudices, though. 50 years ago people could dismiss the idea that blacks deserved equal voting rights to whites as "just a joke" as you dismiss the idea that men deserve equal reproductive rights to women today. Of course, were your desire for legal abortion for women to be called "just a joke" you'd not take kindly to that I'm sure. But as I said, you're sitting on the majority side in society right now so you can afford to be condescending.
"men can't control everything, that makes them cranky" is an example of the shaming tactic that I mentioned in an earlier post. Where a man says speaks up about his opinions or rights and is just dismissed with a "quit your whining" type response. No different than someone disagreeing with tax policy or whatever and being told "you're just a racist who hates Obama"
That's fine then. As long as the "responsibility" clause is equal across the board, it's fair game. IMO there should be two forms of abortion if it remains as a legal procedure--one for men and one for women. Women can opt out, and men should be able to do the same. If it's overturned and unless there are dire circumstances (ie life of the mother, or proven to be financially crippling for the father), then neither should have the right to do so.
Um, no.
You know the risks when you have sex.
You can take action up front.
Birth control is not fail-safe to begin with.
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.
