Is there a legit legal argument here?

[Skylar]

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?

Still not flawed, you want it to be flawed...but it’s not. If it is a reproductive right of women (which is the case today) to choose while pregnant to have offspring or not...that is a right of crazy significant consequences that women have and men don’t.

A woman has the right to control the use of her own body. If a man wants to carry a child, he's welcome to do so. He doesn't have a right to control a woman's body though.

That's what equal rights look like. A man having control over his body, a woman having control of hers.

Where I believe rights come from doesn’t matter in this conversation. I’m using what basically a priori for anyone whose pro-choice.

That's not deductive reasoning at all. What you're doing is lamenting that man can't control a woman's body.....and insisting that 'equal rights' is a man controlling his own body and a woman's body, while she gets to control neither her own nor his.

I don't think 'equal' means what you think it means. And 'a priori' certainly has no use in that context.

There's a reason why your confused 'logic' has been rejected in every court in every state.

 

[Skylar]

Is there an argument to be made for a man to not have to pay child support, if he can prove he encouraged the mother to get an abortion, and she went against his wishes?

Well with the way that Liberals seem to be changing the births of Children to be a minor incident in the lives of the Nation, I for one suggest that if the Mother does not want the Child and the father does, then the Father needs to take and raise the Kid. If it is the other way around then the Mother should. Now if they both want the child, then the options are to get married or both get a job and pay half of whatever it take to raise it. I seem fair for both person involved.

Alas, the obligation to support a child is based on the child's existence. Not on the parents wants.

If the child exists, the obligation exists for both parents. If the child doesn't exist, neither parent is obligated. That's what equality looks like.

 

[whitehall]

Maybe the mother has a case to prosecute the father if his "encouragement" for abortion went beyond reasonable limits.

 

[Skylar]

You did the deed, now pay for your fun. Be a man, live up to your responsibility.

Love how people actually think that I knocked someone up and am coming to USMB to try to get out of it.

If the sexes are truly equal, and there is no ethical issues in getting an abortion...then a man should have the same opportunity to opt out of responsibility for the very same reasons a women would choose to get a perfectly ethical abortion. It’s the same decision being made, but just because one has a dong, he all of a sudden turns into a monster...even though he could easily cite the exact same reasons to not take responsibility as a women wanting to get an abortion. So either abortion is unethical, the sexes are not equal legally or ethically speaking...or a man shouldn’t have to be forced to pay child support unless he didn’t want the woman to abort.

Sorry kid, in this one case the woman has the upper hand. If you can't make child support payments keep it in your pants.

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

Wrong.

The right to privacy prohibits the state from interfering with a woman’s choice as to whether to have a child or not, including the state compelling a woman to have the consent of the father as a prerequisite to terminating her pregnancy.

Whether the father encouraged the woman to get an abortion or not is legally irrelevant and not a mitigating circumstance with regard to paying child support.

If it’s a decision that massively effects someone else, say having to pay child support for 18 years...then the “right of privacy” (an amendment no one seems to understand, and one that was used as USSR style PE steroids for the most amazing mental gymnastics ever) is moot.

Nope, its not moot at all. As the right to privacy establishes the right to control the use of one's own body. Those are the rights that are equal.

A man gets to control the use of his body. A woman gets to control the use of hers. That's equal rights.

That’s no where near a “private” decision. You would have an argument if perhaps the father was not by law obligated to be responsible for something they have no say in, then it would be a private decision.

Nope, you're wrong again. As what you're demanding is either unequal control....with a man controlling BOTH his own body and a woman's, while a woman controls NEITHER her own body, nor his.

And that's not equal.

Or you're demanding unequal obligation. Where a woman is responsible for every child she bears. While a man is never responsible for any child he sires.

That's not equal either.

Equality has nothing to do with your argument. Your entire argument is hopelessly based on inequality. Which is why its rightfully rejected by literally every court in every state. Its pseudo-legal gibberish.

 

[Skylar]

Maybe the mother has a case to prosecute the father if his "encouragement" for abortion went beyond reasonable limits.

Or maybe a mother has a case if the child is the father's.

Actually, that's not a maybe. That's the law.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Bottom line, if you helped make the baby, you help pay for the baby. Any man that cannot do that much is not much of a man, they are just the scum found on the bottom of an old pond.

This is ridiculously sexist. What do you have to say about a woman who makes a baby but cannot manage to pay for that baby? Is she the scum found on the bottom of an old pond? Or is she a reason why we have to expand welfare programs?

Personally, I believe that any real woman should be able to handle things by herself. It's the 21st century. Women aren't victim's of male sex drives. And we aren't victims of our own family planning decisions. If there's no reason to stop a single woman from adopting a child, then there is no reason to demand that a man become responsible for a child he doesn't want. Let him sign away his rights and raise your child on your own. If you don't want to settle for that, you have choices you can make.

 

[Skylar]

Bottom line, if you helped make the baby, you help pay for the baby. Any man that cannot do that much is not much of a man, they are just the scum found on the bottom of an old pond.

If there's no reason to stop a single woman from adopting a child, then there is no reason to demand that a man become responsible for a child he doesn't want. Let him sign away his rights and raise your child on your own. If you don't want to settle for that, you have choices you can make.

A single person can adopt a child only if they can establish that they can support the child. There's no such requirement for having a child on your own.

And your legal reasoning is flawed in terms of the child's obligation to support the child. The obligation a father has to support a child isn't isn't to the mother. The obligation to support the child is to the child. If the child exists, his obligation exists. Same with the mother.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

The obligation a father has to support a child isn't isn't to the mother. The obligation to support the child is to the child. If the child exists, his obligation exists. Same with the mother.

Then abortion is no longer acceptable. The propriety of abortion is based on the mother's obligation's extending to only herself.

 

[Skylar]

The obligation a father has to support a child isn't isn't to the mother. The obligation to support the child is to the child. If the child exists, his obligation exists. Same with the mother.

Then abortion is no longer acceptable. The propriety of abortion is based on the mother's obligation's extending to only herself.

False premise. As the propriety of abortion is based on her right to control the use of her own body.

Once the child is born she and the father are equally obligated. As the obligation is the child. Not to each other.

If you guys are going to try to make valid legal arguments, you can't ignore ignore law and case law surrounding abortion, child support and equal rights.

Otherwise, you're just another variant of those Sovereign Citizen idiots.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

False premise. As the propriety of abortion is based on her right to control the use of her own body.

Which is exactly what I said. You're just too stubborn to acknowledge that you're drooling partisan bullshit, and too stupid to understand it.

 

[Skylar]

False premise. As the propriety of abortion is based on her right to control the use of her own body.

Which is exactly what I said. You're just too stubborn to acknowledge that you're drooling partisan bullshit, and too stupid to understand it.

Nope. You said a mothers obligation extending only to herself. Obligation is not the legal basis of the right to have an abortion. You offered us a false premise, ignoring the actual legal basis. And in the process, stripped your argument of any legal value.

A mother's obligation is to any child she bears. And this has nothing to do with abortion rights. Child support laws and abortion laws have completely different legal bases, even different jurisdictions. One is based in federally protected constitutional rights that states cannot abrogate. The other, overwhelmingly in state laws.

You conflated the two different legal bases, the different jurisdiction. You were in error. Try again.....remembering that your personal opinions have no relevance here. A legit legal discussion is about the law and caselaw.

 

[Slyhunter]

If a woman has a baby then dumps it at a Fire Station or hospital it becomes a ward of the state. They do not make her pay the state child support as they would a man. In fact if the track down the father they make him pay the state child support but they don't make the woman.

 

[Freiheit]

The bottom line is this:. Biology wins. We can complain and strain all day long that men and women are completely equal in every way, but biology wins. We can say that a woman who says she's a man can compete in male sports, but biology wins. We can say that a man who says he's a woman can use a bathroom with little girls, by biology wins.

No, it's not equal.

But in this case there is a biological out for the woman, and thus a legal out for her, but no legal out for the man.

Practicality would demand the man make his intentions known, say be week 10 or so, so the woman can decide to abort if the man wants nothing to do with the kid.

The law certainly does give the woman control over the man's reproductive freedom because she can legally prevent him from becoming a father or force him to become a father, that much is true.

It is not equal, and can't be.

Why not? What is sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose.

 

[Skylar]

If a woman has a baby then dumps it at a Fire Station or hospital it becomes a ward of the state. They do not make her pay the state child support as they would a man. In fact if the track down the father they make him pay the state child support but they don't make the woman.

Says who? And which state? There are 50 of them....and their laws vary broadly.

 

[Slyhunter]

If a woman has a baby then dumps it at a Fire Station or hospital it becomes a ward of the state. They do not make her pay the state child support as they would a man. In fact if the track down the father they make him pay the state child support but they don't make the woman.

Says who? And which state? There are 50 of them....and their laws vary broadly.

They do it all the time, got a name and a web site too.
Safe Surrender Archives - Supervisor Don Knabe

 

[Skylar]

If a woman has a baby then dumps it at a Fire Station or hospital it becomes a ward of the state. They do not make her pay the state child support as they would a man. In fact if the track down the father they make him pay the state child support but they don't make the woman.

Says who? And which state? There are 50 of them....and their laws vary broadly.

They do it all the time, got a name and a web site too.
Safe Surrender Archives - Supervisor Don Knabe

Safe Surrender, yeah. But there's nothing about 'going after the father for child support'.

 

[Slyhunter]

If a woman has a baby then dumps it at a Fire Station or hospital it becomes a ward of the state. They do not make her pay the state child support as they would a man. In fact if the track down the father they make him pay the state child support but they don't make the woman.

Says who? And which state? There are 50 of them....and their laws vary broadly.

They do it all the time, got a name and a web site too.
Safe Surrender Archives - Supervisor Don Knabe

Safe Surrender, yeah. But there's nothing about 'going after the father for child support'.

Why can mother safe surrender and get out of supporting the kid but still able to force the man to support the kid if he wants to safe surrender it?

 

[Skylar]

If a woman has a baby then dumps it at a Fire Station or hospital it becomes a ward of the state. They do not make her pay the state child support as they would a man. In fact if the track down the father they make him pay the state child support but they don't make the woman.

Says who? And which state? There are 50 of them....and their laws vary broadly.

They do it all the time, got a name and a web site too.
Safe Surrender Archives - Supervisor Don Knabe

Safe Surrender, yeah. But there's nothing about 'going after the father for child support'.

Why can mother safe surrender and get out of supporting the kid but still able to force the man to support the kid if he wants to safe surrender it?

You described unequal obligation....where the mother surrenders the child, but the state goes after only the father for child support.

When I pressed you to show me that in State law.....you had nothing. You've now abandoned the claim. So the unequal obligation you described is now tossed on the midden heap.

Now to your NEW claim. Where a mother can safe surrender the child. Why can't a father then not have to support any child he fathers. Here's where your argument fails:

Equality of obligation. In the actual safe surrender scenario, a mother surrenders the child. NEITHER the mother or the father are responsible for the child.

In the scenario described in this thread, the father surrenders obligation for the child but the mother still has her obligation. That's unequal obligation.

That's why your argument fails.

 

[Chuz Life]

Is there an argument to be made for a man to not have to pay child support, if he can prove he encouraged the mother to get an abortion, and she went against his wishes?

No.

Because "Biology."

Ask any pro-abort leftard. . . It's a well known biological fact that if you are a male, children's lives begin at and by conception and "children" are entitled to child support, medical care etc.

And! If you are a woman, a child's life (and rights) do not begin until you decide that it does OR roughly sometime in the third trimester, if you just can't decide.

Didn't you have biology in school?

 

[Skylar]

And here's the Safe Surrender Statute in California. There's zero mention of going after the father for child support. You imagined that.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1001-1050/ab_1048_bill_20100930_chaptered.pdf