Is there a legit legal argument here?

[hadit]

I do find it interesting that a man loses his reproductive freedom when he decides to have sex and that is applauded as right and just, yet when that same standard is applied to women in the context of abortion, suddenly it becomes, "you can't interfere with her reproductive freedom", and it's religious nonsense to even suggest that everyone should keep it zipped until they're ready for the potential consequences of sexual activity.

Quite frankly, that's the best way to avoid the whole issue.

Because you’re not arguing “reproductive freedom” for dads. You’re arguing for deadbeat dads.

Nonsense. I have consistently pointed out in this thread that the sexes cannot be equal in this regard. It's not controversial to point out that a man loses his reproductive freedom the moment his sperm impregnates a woman's egg, while a woman's reproductive freedom extends to the moment of birth.

Actually it doesn't given the current legal limitations placed on abortion, which appears to be on average (in the U.S.) about 23 weeks into the pregnancy, which appears to be prior to what doctors consider the point of viability.

So one might say that the Women gets a 6 month extension of her "reproductive freedom", which seems reasonable since she's the one that has to do all the work of lugging the would be rugrat around inside her.

Reasonable or not is a value judgement, and the actual length of time she holds his freedom in her hands varies from State to state. Regardless, it is factual. A man surrenders his reproductive freedom when his sperm fertilizes her egg.

All the more reason to keep it zipped. Course, no one wants to hear that idea any more.

 

[NightFox]

I do find it interesting that a man loses his reproductive freedom when he decides to have sex and that is applauded as right and just, yet when that same standard is applied to women in the context of abortion, suddenly it becomes, "you can't interfere with her reproductive freedom", and it's religious nonsense to even suggest that everyone should keep it zipped until they're ready for the potential consequences of sexual activity.

Quite frankly, that's the best way to avoid the whole issue.

Because you’re not arguing “reproductive freedom” for dads. You’re arguing for deadbeat dads.

Nonsense. I have consistently pointed out in this thread that the sexes cannot be equal in this regard. It's not controversial to point out that a man loses his reproductive freedom the moment his sperm impregnates a woman's egg, while a woman's reproductive freedom extends to the moment of birth.

Actually it doesn't given the current legal limitations placed on abortion, which appears to be on average (in the U.S.) about 23 weeks into the pregnancy, which appears to be prior to what doctors consider the point of viability.

So one might say that the Women gets a 6 month extension of her "reproductive freedom", which seems reasonable since she's the one that has to do all the work of lugging the would be rugrat around inside her.

Reasonable or not is a value judgement, and the actual length of time she holds his freedom in her hands varies from State to state. Regardless, it is factual. A man surrenders his reproductive freedom when his sperm fertilizes her egg.

Of course it's a value judgment, same goes for the position that abstinence is the answer.

All the more reason to keep it zipped. Course, no one wants to hear that idea any more.

Been there, done that, doesn't work, wish it did but it doesn't.

If one is really concerned about reducing the number of abortions it would behoove one to become an advocate for streamlining our domestic adoption process which is so convoluted and bureaucratic that an ever increasing number of Americans are turning to International Adoptions because they don't want to deal with their own governments.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Wrong forum. We're having a discussion of the law. If you want to discuss the biology of abortion, feel free to do so in another thread. That's not what we're discussing here.

The point is; either through abortion, or legally surrender of said kid, there are ways the mother can get out of the responsibility of raising the child. The man doesn't get a choice. If the woman keeps the kid the guy is stuck paying child support. That isn't fair.

And in either instance, neither she nor the father have any financial obligation. Their obligation is always equal. Either they both have financial obligation, or neither does. Which is fair.

Its *perfectly* fair for a father to support his own child.

Not really. In these example only the woman gets to decide for both, if both must bear the responsibility...

Again, you made your choice when you went around spewing sperm like a fire hose.

Both parties made a choice. Do you have a point that bears on the matter of choice after conception?

Yes. You fucked; you made a baby; your convenience is no longer the priority. The law is more interested in the kid than you.

Another point: it is not the job of the law - or even a possibility - to make Nature conform to human concepts of "fair". You don't like the different pros and cons of male and female reproductive systems? Nature don't care.

A third point: stop being such a whining bitch and thinking "life didn't work out for me, ergo I've been robbed!" Sometimes reality sucks, and it's no one's responsibility to make it suck less.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, I use condoms, and I use them in such a way that I am 100% sure they work. And why do you go with the most intrusive form of birth control? Pills do the same thing, as do dams, sponges or other methods.

The biology question becomes moot if abortion is legal, and the man gives a response within the legal time frame.

So look at that, you admit you do have choices. And yet you keep arguing past the close.

Again, I am not arguing for me but for the concept.

If women have a right men don't have, my sense of balance (fuck you OCD) demands men have a right women don't have.

It's only fair.

^^^ still running from the inequality that only woman get pregnant.

That isn't inequality, unless of course you are one of those people that sees pregnancy as only a burden.

It is reality, however legal abortion and the ability to detect pregnancy during said period negates the impact if both parties are given a choice in the matter.

LOLOL

It has nothing to do with burdens and everything to do with biological inequalities.

And here’s yet another failure in your bizarre deadbeat position... the choice women have doesn’t result in a child being raised without a mother. What you’re suggesting is men be given a legal option for the child to be raised without a father.

Yet again, conservatism rears its ugly head and produces deadbeat dads who seek to shirk personal responsibility.

Yeah, no. Conservatism doesn't encourage anyone to be a deadbeat parent or to shirk responsibility in any form. And "Just kill the baby!" is never going to be successfully presented as moral, responsible, compassionate, or any of the other vile, twisted shit you leftists want to tell yourselves.

 

[Dana7360]

So only men are required to have said responsibility?

how do you figure? Who do you think is raising the child while the man just sends cash?

If a woman doesn't want the kid, she has an "out". Men don't have that "out"

We are talking legally here, not biologically.

Please note that this is a theoretical discussion.

Yes it theoretical, I thought that was obvious. Though it’s more ethical than legal, although if someone chose to pursue this legally and somehow won...that would have some pretty big consequences.

Ethically, the man should help pay to raise their child. I cannot think of many things lower than a man that lacks that basic morals to do that.

Nope, if there’s no ethical issue in a women getting an abortion, then there’s no ethical argument with a man not wanting to be responsible for a kid for the exact same reasons a women would want to get an abortion.

The fact that men refuse to support their own flesh and blood is one of the main reasons why women have abortions.

They can't take care of the child themselves and they know the man isn't going to help so the woman has an abortion.

If more men actually took responsibility for the lives they create then there wouldn't be as many abortions.

 

[Cecilie1200]

how do you figure? Who do you think is raising the child while the man just sends cash?

If a woman doesn't want the kid, she has an "out". Men don't have that "out"

We are talking legally here, not biologically.

Please note that this is a theoretical discussion.

The law isn't actually required to give anyone an "out" for the consequences of their behavior. It may, or it may not, but it's not REQUIRED to.

But if we had true equality under the law, both sides should have the "out", or neither side should have the "out"

Okay, let me repeat, since you don't seem to have gotten it the first time.

The purpose of the law is not to "make things equal" - particularly when "equal" is defined strictly as "How marty thinks the universe should work" - or to give anyone "outs".

But the reality is that abortion is overwhelmingly used exactly for that reason. As such abortion laws need to be revisited, and examined for how they are actually being used. Not just repeating the intial argument used to sell the notion in the first place.

Sorry, but unless you've decided to join the self-absorbed childish leftist herd, this isn't about "Well, she can do something monstrous, and it's not fair that I can't do something monstrous too!" I can't do anything for you on the fact that women can kill their unborn children and men can't, and neither can the law. Sorry. Abortion laws do need to be revisited, but NOT because it's unfair to men that they don't get to kill babies too.

The reality is going to remain that once you bring a child into the world, whether you intended to or not, your wishes, comfort, and convenience are no longer the primary driving forces in your life. So instead of trying to twist and squirm and look for a way to make shit choices in life without the consequences, you're just going to have to accept the fact that the harsh realities of life require you to be responsible, either in the beginning or in the end. No amount of legislation has the power to change the way the universe works.

Grow up and learn it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And in either instance, neither she nor the father have any financial obligation. Their obligation is always equal. Either they both have financial obligation, or neither does. Which is fair.

Its *perfectly* fair for a father to support his own child.

Not really. In these example only the woman gets to decide for both, if both must bear the responsibility...

Again, you made your choice when you went around spewing sperm like a fire hose.

Both parties made a choice. Do you have a point that bears on the matter of choice after conception?

There’s only one choice post conception. And that choice is terminating the pregnancy. And that choice is available to the person who’s pregnant.

Actually there are others such as adoption. But regardless that is the point I think that the OP raises. That currently only women have an effective means of absorbing themselves of the responsibilities of an un wanted pregnancy. In a nation that prides itself on equal opportunity it only stands to reason that both parties are given that choice.

"Effective means of absorbing [sic] themselves"? (I assume you meant "absolving".) Did you just describe killing a baby as an "effective means"?

 

[Dana7360]

So the sexes are not equal and men can and should be considered victims for not having the same reproductive rights as women.

Of course they're not equal, Men don't have ovaries and a womb and thus aren't obliged to carry a fetus to term.

Once the child is born then the father is ethically and legally obligated to provide for the child because the child exists and either the parents of said child are on the hook to care for it, they get someone else to voluntarily take the responsibility (e.g. adoption) or the rest of society is and the rest of society had no say whatsoever in the conception and birth of the child.

Your premise is flawed unless of course you want to advocate for the rights of the male in determining whether or not an abortion or adoption takes place, i.e. using the judiciary to obtain a forced abortion or adoption decree...

It’s not flawed unless the women was forced to carry to term, which she isn’t...because abortion so... Women have reproductive rights, but men don’t.

Men do have reproductive rights, they can choose whether or not to reproduce (either through abstinence or by using birth control), in other words they have all the rights necessary to control the use of their biological reproductive plumbing as they see fit, just like women do.

Your premise is flawed because as I said, lacking ovaries and womb Men aren't obliged to carry a fetus to term and thus aren't biologically affected by the choice of whether or not to do so.

Since when was it ok to distribute things like rights selectively? I thought that was a bad thing.

Where in your estimation do rights originate?

I do agree with you about birth control. If a man doesn't want to be a father he can use a condom or have a vasectomy.

However. Nothing is perfect. Yes something is better than nothing but accidents do happen.

For example:

My sister who is a doctor had a patient who had her tubes tied, her husband had a vasectomy. She ended up pregnant.

The wife of the brother of a friend of mine had her tubes tied. She ended up pregnant.

One of my former assistants had her tubes tied. She ended up pregnant.

A good friend of mine wasn't told by her doctor that the antibiotic he was prescribing her made the pill ineffective. She ended up pregnant.

Yes birth control is sometime like 99% effective. It's that 1% that ends up happening even though precautions were taken.

 

[Vastator]

Not really. In these example only the woman gets to decide for both, if both must bear the responsibility...

Again, you made your choice when you went around spewing sperm like a fire hose.

Both parties made a choice. Do you have a point that bears on the matter of choice after conception?

There’s only one choice post conception. And that choice is terminating the pregnancy. And that choice is available to the person who’s pregnant.

Actually there are others such as adoption. But regardless that is the point I think that the OP raises. That currently only women have an effective means of absorbing themselves of the responsibilities of an un wanted pregnancy. In a nation that prides itself on equal opportunity it only stands to reason that both parties are given that choice.

"Effective means of absorbing [sic] themselves"? (I assume you meant "absolving".) Did you just describe killing a baby as an "effective means"?

Auto correct... Isn't...

 

[Vastator]

The point is; either through abortion, or legally surrender of said kid, there are ways the mother can get out of the responsibility of raising the child. The man doesn't get a choice. If the woman keeps the kid the guy is stuck paying child support. That isn't fair.

And in either instance, neither she nor the father have any financial obligation. Their obligation is always equal. Either they both have financial obligation, or neither does. Which is fair.

Its *perfectly* fair for a father to support his own child.

Not really. In these example only the woman gets to decide for both, if both must bear the responsibility...

Again, you made your choice when you went around spewing sperm like a fire hose.

Both parties made a choice. Do you have a point that bears on the matter of choice after conception?

Yes. You fucked; you made a baby; your convenience is no longer the priority. The law is more interested in the kid...

Not true. Of it were abortion would be illegal...

 

[Cecilie1200]

how do you figure? Who do you think is raising the child while the man just sends cash?

If a woman doesn't want the kid, she has an "out". Men don't have that "out"

We are talking legally here, not biologically.

Please note that this is a theoretical discussion.

The law isn't actually required to give anyone an "out" for the consequences of their behavior. It may, or it may not, but it's not REQUIRED to.

But if we had true equality under the law, both sides should have the "out", or neither side should have the "out"

Okay, let me repeat, since you don't seem to have gotten it the first time.

The purpose of the law is not to "make things equal" - particularly when "equal" is defined strictly as "How marty thinks the universe should work" - or to give anyone "outs".

Um, the purpose of the 14th amendment is indeed equality under the law.

Um, look at that phrase "under the law". It is not the purpose of the 14th Amendment or any other law to make things equal in the universe. However much you want to pretend this is about the law treating men and women unequally, it's actually about Nature making men and women different, and the law recognizing that there's not a damned thing it can do about that.

Also, please note that in my post, I specified that the law is not about making things equal defined as how YOU think the universe should work. So maybe in the future you should read and understand the whole post instead of jumping straight to "Aha! I have a chance to spew my slogan!"

Also, Talking Points Lad, I object strenuously to this descent into left-think where we just assume that the 14th Amendment is some universal cure-all conveying upon everyone the right to re-order the world to suit them, under the rubric of "equality". If you want to shut your brain off and think like a leftist, that's your lookout. But do not expect me to treat it as any more valid or intelligent than I do when the professional leftist boobs do it.

You are no more or less protected by the law than a woman is. What you are is not subject to the same realities of nature and biology as she is. You can legislate until you're blue in the face, and that's still going to be true.

 

[Vastator]

The point is; either through abortion, or legally surrender of said kid, there are ways the mother can get out of the responsibility of raising the child. The man doesn't get a choice. If the woman keeps the kid the guy is stuck paying child support. That isn't fair.

And in either instance, neither she nor the father have any financial obligation. Their obligation is always equal. Either they both have financial obligation, or neither does. Which is fair.

Its *perfectly* fair for a father to support his own child.

Not really. In these example only the woman gets to decide for both, if both must bear the responsibility...

Again, you made your choice when you went around spewing sperm like a fire hose.

Both parties made a choice. Do you have a point that bears on the matter of choice after conception?

Another point: it is not the job of the law - or even a possibility - to make Nature conform to human concepts of "fair". You don't like the different pros and cons of male and female reproductive systems? Nature don't care.

Actually current law meddles in just that. That's why abortion is legal, and the state gets involved in child support.

 

[martybegan]

If a woman doesn't want the kid, she has an "out". Men don't have that "out"

We are talking legally here, not biologically.

Please note that this is a theoretical discussion.

The law isn't actually required to give anyone an "out" for the consequences of their behavior. It may, or it may not, but it's not REQUIRED to.

But if we had true equality under the law, both sides should have the "out", or neither side should have the "out"

Okay, let me repeat, since you don't seem to have gotten it the first time.

The purpose of the law is not to "make things equal" - particularly when "equal" is defined strictly as "How marty thinks the universe should work" - or to give anyone "outs".

Um, the purpose of the 14th amendment is indeed equality under the law.

Um, look at that phrase "under the law". It is not the purpose of the 14th Amendment or any other law to make things equal in the universe. However much you want to pretend this is about the law treating men and women unequally, it's actually about Nature making men and women different, and the law recognizing that there's not a damned thing it can do about that.

Also, please note that in my post, I specified that the law is not about making things equal defined as how YOU think the universe should work. So maybe in the future you should read and understand the whole post instead of jumping straight to "Aha! I have a chance to spew my slogan!"

Also, Talking Points Lad, I object strenuously to this descent into left-think where we just assume that the 14th Amendment is some universal cure-all conveying upon everyone the right to re-order the world to suit them, under the rubric of "equality". If you want to shut your brain off and think like a leftist, that's your lookout. But do not expect me to treat it as any more valid or intelligent than I do when the professional leftist boobs do it.

You are no more or less protected by the law than a woman is. What you are is not subject to the same realities of nature and biology as she is. You can legislate until you're blue in the face, and that's still going to be true.

A woman can end her responsibility for parenthood. A man cannot.

That is the reality of the current situation. And the only reason for it being so is the sex of the person in question.

 

[Vastator]

The point is; either through abortion, or legally surrender of said kid, there are ways the mother can get out of the responsibility of raising the child. The man doesn't get a choice. If the woman keeps the kid the guy is stuck paying child support. That isn't fair.

And in either instance, neither she nor the father have any financial obligation. Their obligation is always equal. Either they both have financial obligation, or neither does. Which is fair.

Its *perfectly* fair for a father to support his own child.

Not really. In these example only the woman gets to decide for both, if both must bear the responsibility...

Again, you made your choice when you went around spewing sperm like a fire hose.

Both parties made a choice. Do you have a point that bears on the matter of choice after conception?

A third point: stop being such a whining bitch and thinking "life didn't work out for me, ergo I've been robbed!" Sometimes reality sucks, and it's no one's responsibility to make it suck less.

Actually the only one whining are the women who lose their shit at the prospect of men being able to absolve themselves from unwanted pregnancy, in a legal manner; just like women can. See... For me... Its not a personal problem. So I have the benefit of examining the issue from a principled perspective. Unlike you who seems to be arguing from an emotional perspective. And a principled argument is always better when it concerns law, than an emotional one...

 

[Cecilie1200]

Again, you made your choice when you went around spewing sperm like a fire hose.

Both parties made a choice. Do you have a point that bears on the matter of choice after conception?

There’s only one choice post conception. And that choice is terminating the pregnancy. And that choice is available to the person who’s pregnant.

Actually there are others such as adoption. But regardless that is the point I think that the OP raises. That currently only women have an effective means of absorbing themselves of the responsibilities of an un wanted pregnancy. In a nation that prides itself on equal opportunity it only stands to reason that both parties are given that choice.

"Effective means of absorbing [sic] themselves"? (I assume you meant "absolving".) Did you just describe killing a baby as an "effective means"?

Auto correct... Isn't...

That's why I don't use it, and am simply brilliant at English instead. *buffs nails on shirt*

 

[Cecilie1200]

And in either instance, neither she nor the father have any financial obligation. Their obligation is always equal. Either they both have financial obligation, or neither does. Which is fair.

Its *perfectly* fair for a father to support his own child.

Not really. In these example only the woman gets to decide for both, if both must bear the responsibility...

Again, you made your choice when you went around spewing sperm like a fire hose.

Both parties made a choice. Do you have a point that bears on the matter of choice after conception?

Yes. You fucked; you made a baby; your convenience is no longer the priority. The law is more interested in the kid...

Not true. Of it were abortion would be illegal...

Yeah, we're actually talking about after the kid is born, since the financial responsibility of a man which you are wailing about doesn't begin until then. I'm not aware, as yet, of any man being forced to pay child support for an unborn child.

 

[Vastator]

Not really. In these example only the woman gets to decide for both, if both must bear the responsibility...

Again, you made your choice when you went around spewing sperm like a fire hose.

Both parties made a choice. Do you have a point that bears on the matter of choice after conception?

Yes. You fucked; you made a baby; your convenience is no longer the priority. The law is more interested in the kid...

Not true. Of it were abortion would be illegal...

Yeah, we're actually talking about after the kid is born, since the financial responsibility of a man which you are wailing about doesn't begin until then. I'm not aware, as yet, of any man being forced to pay child support for an unborn child.

Again... No one is wailing... Except maybe you with your injection of hyperbole...

 

[Vastator]

Not really. In these example only the woman gets to decide for both, if both must bear the responsibility...

Again, you made your choice when you went around spewing sperm like a fire hose.

Both parties made a choice. Do you have a point that bears on the matter of choice after conception?

Yes. You fucked; you made a baby; your convenience is no longer the priority. The law is more interested in the kid...

Not true. Of it were abortion would be illegal...

Yeah, we're actually talking about after the kid is born, since the financial responsibility of a man which you are wailing about doesn't begin until then. I'm not aware, as yet, of any man being forced to pay child support for an unborn child.

You don't seem to be successfully following the topic...

 

[Cecilie1200]

And in either instance, neither she nor the father have any financial obligation. Their obligation is always equal. Either they both have financial obligation, or neither does. Which is fair.

Its *perfectly* fair for a father to support his own child.

Not really. In these example only the woman gets to decide for both, if both must bear the responsibility...

Again, you made your choice when you went around spewing sperm like a fire hose.

Both parties made a choice. Do you have a point that bears on the matter of choice after conception?

Another point: it is not the job of the law - or even a possibility - to make Nature conform to human concepts of "fair". You don't like the different pros and cons of male and female reproductive systems? Nature don't care.

Actually current law meddles in just that. That's why abortion is legal, and the state gets involved in child support.

No, the state gets involved in child support because of THE CHILD.

And again, please do not cite me "Well, abortion is legal" as some sort of justification for "therefore, I should be able to abandon my biological offspring". Abortion is a separate issue entirely from the question of "The baby's born, and the people who created him are legally responsible".

At this point, any mention of abortion in this debate is going to be viewed by me as "I'm just pissed that I can't kill babies too", and become an auto-fail.

 

[playtime]

It is called "personal responsibility"

How can one responsibility for a decision that they had zero say in the matter?

Did the woman rape them? Did the woman make them have sex? I do not think so.

That doesn’t change that fact that men are still held responsible without any say in the matter.

What if the women requested to go raw dog, or lied about being on BC? This hypos can go on all day, the issue at hand is still one party holds the sole decision making ability, and the other is held responsible for it.

then say no maam- no rubber, no sex. & if it's THAT important, don't trust her saying she is on BC.

If you're dumb enough to trust a woman you're not married to with your entire financial and legal future, you deserve whatever happens to you.

well, gotta say though, it depends on who that woman is. trust builds with time - & love is definitely a factor....