Is there a legit legal argument here?

[Skylar]

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

Indeed it does since it appears to be the principle cause of you not being able to recognize the flaw in your argument.

Men have all the reproductive rights that nature has granted them within the constraints set forth by biology up to the moment of conception, after conception generally accepted morality dictates the decision rests with the woman since she's the one carrying the potential child and if she decides to carry it to term then the father has the responsibility to bear his share of the burden for it's care.

Arguing that Men should be able to nullify the consequences of their actions simply by declaring he doesn't want the child he conceived is akin to arguing that people should have the right to nullify their financial obligations by declaring they never really wanted the money in the first place and if the bank has a right to call in a loan they should have the right to opt out of it.

Yet women can do it by having an abortion.

And a man can have an abortion when he's carrying the child.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Legal argument? God knows, since the law so often tends to be whatever overpaid shysters can twist it to be.

There's no legitimate MORAL argument, though.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

There is an argument, but it is a tough one to make.

The basis is one of equal rights. If a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy, and thus avoid parental responsibility, an absolutist viewpoint on equal rights requires men to have the same ability.

That may be an argument, but it's not a legal one.

Legally, you aren't responsible for your children because you wanted them. You're responsible for them because you created them, wanted or not. If the kid exists, he has a legal claim on you. Period.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why not?

It is called "personal responsibility"

So only men are required to have said responsibility?

No, once the kid is born, both progenitors have a legal responsibility to him.

Before the kid is born, as the law currently stands, the woman has a right to kill him and flush him, and the man has the right to control where he sticks his dick. Maybe try having a conversation with a woman before you get nekkid with her. Just a suggestion.

 

[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?

Legal argument? God knows, since the law so often tends to be whatever overpaid shysters can twist it to be.

There's no legitimate MORAL argument, though.

There's no court in any state that has ever accepted the argument as legally valid.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why not?

It is called "personal responsibility"

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.

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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why not?

It is called "personal responsibility"

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

Zero say in the matter? So you're saying these men were raped?

 

[Cecilie1200]

It is called "personal responsibility"

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.

They don't have that "out" because they went ahead and shoved "it" in.

And the woman let it get shoved "in"

Isn't it the current thinking that legally men and women are supposed to be equal in every way?

Are you sticking to Victorian concepts of women? I.e. that they don't want or enjoy sex, and that men always have to be the "aggressor"?

Well, we all knew this whole time that we can blather about "legally men and women are equal" until our faces turn blue, and it won't change the fact that biologically, we're not even remotely the same.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why not?

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.

What if the man requested to do with a condom, or deliberately used a faulty one? The issue at hand is that both parties have decision-making ability, and the other could potentially suffer consequences for those decisions. The difference is what decisions each one has to make, and when.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I agree 100%, however the fact is that makes us hold men to a higher standard than women, and if one wants true equality then that is an issue.

The fact ACTUALLY is that even having this discussion is a continuation of utterly wrongheaded priorities. We're talking about a child here, a living helpless human child. If anyone's looking at the legal situation surrounding that child and focusing on "Oh, it's so unfair to the man" or "Oh, the poor woman" instead of the child who didn't ask to be born and isn't capable of doing anything for himself, then that person is an amoral, borderline-ancephalic cretin.

For either the man OR the woman: You fucked. You made a baby. There is now a baby in existence. You are no longer even remotely the most important person in the story. Period. Adult up and stop looking for excuses why you shouldn't deal with what you have wrought.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

I agree 100%, however the fact is that makes us hold men to a higher standard than women, and if one wants true equality then that is an issue.

The fact ACTUALLY is that even having this discussion is a continuation of utterly wrongheaded priorities. We're talking about a child here, a living helpless human child. If anyone's looking at the legal situation surrounding that child and focusing on "Oh, it's so unfair to the man" or "Oh, the poor woman" instead of the child who didn't ask to be born and isn't capable of doing anything for himself, then that person is an amoral, borderline-ancephalic cretin.

For either the man OR the woman: You fucked. You made a baby. There is now a baby in existence. You are no longer even remotely the most important person in the story. Period. Adult up and stop looking for excuses why you shouldn't deal with what you have wrought.

Yet you see nothing wrong with allowing some doctor murder the unborn child.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why not?

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

Why can't we say to a woman "be a woman and live up to your responsibility"?

We actually do . . . once the kid is born. You're actually trying to compare a relatively small, fixed period of time - pregnancy - to a completely different and much longer period of time - the rest of the child's life.

You would draw a much more realistic and meaningful comparison if you talked about the woman's rights and responsibilities toward the child during gestation versus the man's duing that same time.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why not?

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.

It balances out when you consider that they don't have to have the same reproductive responsibilities as women, either.

Nature doesn't give a rat's ass about human concepts of "fair".

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why can't we say to a woman "be a woman and live up to your responsibility"?

That's what she did when she refused the abortion.

and that is her choice. why can't men have a choice as well?

If both are truly equal, why does one have an "out", and the other does not?

And here I thought you were anti-choice.

I'm anti-Roe. To me abortion for medical reasons is a no brainer. In cases of rape its also a no brainer.

However birth control abortions suck, considering the availability of actual birth control.

My issue is Roe is terrible case law, based on nothing but the hopes and dreams of a progressive court. As I live in NY abortions will be protected, and I have no issue with it.

I also have no issue with Alabama banning it.

To me this thread's argument is about the inherent inequality of women having a legal out from parenthood that men do not have.

true equality would require either both having it, or neither having it.

My problem with Roe v Wade is it doesn't go far enough. You know how most if you cons are afraid where the bump-stock ban is gonna go? That's what the rest of us worry about with the nibbling away at abortion rights.

No don't get me wrong, I do not approve of abortion as a birth control any more than you do, but I also don't approve of bringing unwanted, uncared-for, abused and neglected children into the world. If you conservative kids would stop freaking out over birth control, welfare, and other things for taking care of needy children I might go along with stricter controls on it.

I always love these attempts at "abortion because death is compassionate!" arguments. It's like looking at an Escher painting.

I'm also fond of "We have to kill babies, because you refuse to give us all the money we want!" Like a ransom note, but hyper-politicized.

 

[Cecilie1200]

and that is her choice. why can't men have a choice as well?

If both are truly equal, why does one have an "out", and the other does not?

And here I thought you were anti-choice.

I'm anti-Roe. To me abortion for medical reasons is a no brainer. In cases of rape its also a no brainer.

However birth control abortions suck, considering the availability of actual birth control.

My issue is Roe is terrible case law, based on nothing but the hopes and dreams of a progressive court. As I live in NY abortions will be protected, and I have no issue with it.

I also have no issue with Alabama banning it.

To me this thread's argument is about the inherent inequality of women having a legal out from parenthood that men do not have.

true equality would require either both having it, or neither having it.

My problem with Roe v Wade is it doesn't go far enough. You know how most if you cons are afraid where the bump-stock ban is gonna go? That's what the rest of us worry about with the nibbling away at abortion rights.

No don't get me wrong, I do not approve of abortion as a birth control any more than you do, but I also don't approve of bringing unwanted, uncared-for, abused and neglected children into the world. If you conservative kids would stop freaking out over birth control, welfare, and other things for taking care of needy children I might go along with stricter controls on it.

Who are the people freaking out against birth control? It’s maybe a fractal of 1% who think that extremely cheap and extremely effective BC should be banned. I don’t think there’s a bigger strawman argument made than the one suggesting that the right wants to ban birth control. Sure there are Catholics who make a personal choice not to use, and parents who don’t want their 14 year old kids to be given condoms at school...but again those are personal decisions made since maybe it isn’t the best idea to encourage or condone, irresponsible kids to be participating in the act of reproduction. Religion is often mocked as being anti-sex and encouraging abstinence when there is a very clear biological logic to waiting until marriage to have sex. I didn’t wait, and I was lucky because I was pretty damn irresponsible when it came to wrapping before tapping. Why? Because I was a shithead, like most other shitheads at that age. I had raging hormones and society told me that it was ok to not try to control those urges.

Republicans in general tend to have problems with it, particularly with providing it in employer or government insurance policies.

Republicans in general have no problems whatsoever with birth control. We have a problem with virtually any type of "Give us your tax money to pay for other people's personal lives", which is not the same thing.

Really, you left-twits need to learn the difference between objecting to something and objecting to paying for it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Both women and men have reproductive rights. They just have DIFFERENT reproductive rights, the same way they have different reproductive systems.

Or looked at another way, men have the same right as women do to abort any baby they get pregnant with.

 

[Skylar]

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.

I agree 100%, however the fact is that makes us hold men to a higher standard than women, and if one wants true equality then that is an issue.

The fact ACTUALLY is that even having this discussion is a continuation of utterly wrongheaded priorities. We're talking about a child here, a living helpless human child. If anyone's looking at the legal situation surrounding that child and focusing on "Oh, it's so unfair to the man" or "Oh, the poor woman" instead of the child who didn't ask to be born and isn't capable of doing anything for himself, then that person is an amoral, borderline-ancephalic cretin.

For either the man OR the woman: You fucked. You made a baby. There is now a baby in existence. You are no longer even remotely the most important person in the story. Period. Adult up and stop looking for excuses why you shouldn't deal with what you have wrought.

Yet you see nothing wrong with allowing some doctor murder the unborn child.

We're having a legal discussion. And abortion isn't any kind of murder in under the law.

You just stripped your argument of any legal value.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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 is accurate to say that current law gives a pregnant woman control over the reproductive freedom of the man who impregnated her. Whether that is as it should be is a separate topic, but it isn't even controversial to say that a man's reproductive freedom is not absolute, and he loses it the moment he gets a woman pregnant. She can prevent him from becoming a father or force him to become one, and there is nothing legal he can do about it.

It is accurate to say that Nature already gave her that right, in the sense that she's the one who has physical ownership of the baby until he is born. Whether that is as it should be is a moot topic, since Nature don't care about human "should be".

 

[Cecilie1200]

My problem with Roe v Wade is it doesn't go far enough. You know how most if you cons are afraid where the bump-stock ban is gonna go? That's what the rest of us worry about with the nibbling away at abortion rights.

No don't get me wrong, I do not approve of abortion as a birth control any more than you do, but I also don't approve of bringing unwanted, uncared-for, abused and neglected children into the world. If you conservative kids would stop freaking out over birth control, welfare, and other things for taking care of needy children I might go along with stricter controls on it.

Who are the people freaking out against birth control? It’s maybe a fractal of 1% who think that extremely cheap and extremely effective BC should be banned. I don’t think there’s a bigger strawman argument made than the one suggesting that the right wants to ban birth control. Sure there are Catholics who make a personal choice not to use, and parents who don’t want their 14 year old kids to be given condoms at school...but again those are personal decisions made since maybe it isn’t the best idea to encourage or condone, irresponsible kids to be participating in the act of reproduction. Religion is often mocked as being anti-sex and encouraging abstinence when there is a very clear biological logic to waiting until marriage to have sex. I didn’t wait, and I was lucky because I was pretty damn irresponsible when it came to wrapping before tapping. Why? Because I was a shithead, like most other shitheads at that age. I had raging hormones and society told me that it was ok to not try to control those urges.

Republicans in general tend to have problems with it, particularly with providing it in employer or government insurance policies.

No it’s religious institutions like Catholics who have religious objections to being forced to pay for something they are opposed too. You know that whole first amendment thing. If you want your employer to pay for birth control, don’t work for an institution that is opposed to such things. You are not forced to work there, yet they are forced to pay for something they are opposed too. Even though it’s cheap AF, and would bring down their insurance rates if included. Because prenatal care+childbirth+baby+new human to cover > the pill. So it’s not like they don’t want to include it because they’re cheapskates.

Haven't you ever heard the term "religious right"?

Bogus. Catholics (the only large group that opposes all birth control) are found in both parties. You're really arguing from ignorance here.

And Catholics are far from being all religious people, or even all Christians.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Who are the people freaking out against birth control? It’s maybe a fractal of 1% who think that extremely cheap and extremely effective BC should be banned. I don’t think there’s a bigger strawman argument made than the one suggesting that the right wants to ban birth control. Sure there are Catholics who make a personal choice not to use, and parents who don’t want their 14 year old kids to be given condoms at school...but again those are personal decisions made since maybe it isn’t the best idea to encourage or condone, irresponsible kids to be participating in the act of reproduction. Religion is often mocked as being anti-sex and encouraging abstinence when there is a very clear biological logic to waiting until marriage to have sex. I didn’t wait, and I was lucky because I was pretty damn irresponsible when it came to wrapping before tapping. Why? Because I was a shithead, like most other shitheads at that age. I had raging hormones and society told me that it was ok to not try to control those urges.

Republicans in general tend to have problems with it, particularly with providing it in employer or government insurance policies.

If I have to pay for my condoms, why shouldn't women have to pay for their pills?

And there we go. I appreciate the help proving my point.

What does party have to do with it? I'm against "free stuff" in general because someone has to pay for it.

Sorry, but if you can't spend $20 a month to not get pregnant, and it is that important to you, then methinks you have to re-shuffle your life priorities,

Cheaper for all of us in the long run if we just covered it.

Who is "we", and why do you assume someone else's child costs ME anything, or SHOULD cost me anything?