posted on October 5, 2004 10:18:48 AM new
fiset - Basically yes, you're correct in what I've said.
First I think we need to get in touch with the reality of this issue and that is, I would project, that most men - especially young men - would not object to his female friend having an abortion. But the few that do...imo, should have equal right to that child. The actions of both produced that child and yes, again I believe both have equal rights to it.
We also can took to past laws where if a woman wanted to put her child up for adoption, she could...without the father's consent. Now they must have the father's signature to do so. In the cases where they haven't and the child is adopted...we've seen the father come back and claim his legal parental rights.
So, the way I see it is the same would/could apply in this situation. Woman wants to abort...have father sign an agreement slip, like they have to do now when the child's being placed up for adoption. IF there was ever leglislation giving the father's legal rights to the child pre-birth [which by-the-way I really don't see occuring] then it would be the same. The only time legal decisions would have to be made would also be the same way they're made now.
And no, I don't agree that our law makers would ever vote in a law that forces a woman to abort a child she doesn't want. That's really stretching beyond both parents having legal rights to all of a sudden we're a communist country...or we're being run by the Taliban/AQ.
posted on October 5, 2004 11:29:33 AM newThe actions of both produced that child and yes, again I believe both have equal rights to it.
Ok, so I had the gist. We disagree on this point however. In large part because I don't really know how to quantify "equal rights" in this situation. I'll tell you why I have trouble with it:
Woman wants to abort...have father sign an agreement slip, like they have to do now when the child's being placed up for adoption.
Assuming even that this would allow for exceptions (pregnancy is a risk to mothers health, etc.), it still has the potential to force pregnancy on a woman who, for reasons that are none of my business, may not want the pregnancy. But even if I concede this point and agree that it could (or should) be law, it only goes part of the way towards giving "equal rights" to both men and women. I say that because in order to be truly equal, men would have to be able to:
force[s] a woman to abort a child she doesn't want
And therein lies the my problem with the whole "equal rights" arguement. If each parent (if you will) has equal rights, then why would it be unreasonable for a man to demand his partner have an abortion? He doesn't want the baby, she does, he has "equal rights" to call the shots so he demands an abortion, she refuses. His equal rights demand that he have an equal say in what happens. Or do his equal rights only apply if he wants the baby?
In the end though, I don't see how to get around the fact that we're talking about legislating what a person can and can't do with their body as well as giving another person the "right" to make that decision and I just can't get behind that idea.
posted on October 5, 2004 11:55:54 AM new
I've seen a few problem pregnancies over the years. Some of the kids were put up for adoption, some were raised by the mother, and a few were terminated. In virtually every case I've seen, the "fathers" (really just sperm donors in the end) were out of the picture, often because they couldn't face the responsibility. I don't see where some lowlife who can't face being a supporting father should be given any say.
Married couples is a different matter. I'd say a father has a right to object to his wife's termination of a pregnancy, if there is no overriding medical reason to do so.
[ edited by profe51 on Oct 5, 2004 11:56 AM ]
posted on October 5, 2004 12:02:03 PM new
LMHO at Yeager again!!
Fiset, you're exactly right. Unless science comes up with a way for a man to carry a child, this stuff just isn't going to happen.
Twelve, it looks like you've been totally emasculated by women and are grasping at straws. Men aren't interested in being tied down. Divorces usually happen after kids are born and unless there's a court order to pay child support, it's usually not voluntary.
Linda, you are supporting a primative and barbaric idea to consider forcing a woman to give birth. As I said before, your thinking would lead to court ordered decisions to force women to either abort or give birth.
posted on October 5, 2004 12:34:41 PM new
fiset - [/i]Assuming even that this would allow for exceptions (pregnancy is a risk to mothers health, etc.[/i]),
I could see it allowing for that.
it still has the potential to force pregnancy on a woman who, for reasons that are none of my business, may not want the pregnancy.
Yes, in a very tiny group of men that this is important to....their child. All kinds of different senarios could come into play...an accident/illness where this could be the only child he'd be able to have.
[i]I say that because in order to be truly equal, men would have to be able to: force[s] a woman to abort a child she doesn't want
And therein lies the my problem with the whole "equal rights" arguement[/i].
Not necessarily. There would be different choices to set into play in that area. This is really only applying to a mother who doesn't want to have the child, when a father does.
Under MY senario , he couldn't force an abortion....but maybe, one choice that could be worked out might be that if she wishes to continue the pregnancy, and he doesn't, then he doesn't have to pay child support. She accepts the full financial responsibility and he signs away his legal rights to the child. Then the father who didn't want the child would not have to pay child support. Just as in the reverse a mother wouldn't have to pay child support to the father when she didn't want the child.
clear? Who ever WANTS the child takes full responsibility immediately following it's discharge from the hospital after birth. No one forces the woman to have an abortion....nor forces her to take on any responsibility of any kind.
If each parent (if you will) has equal rights, (1) then why would it be unreasonable for a man to demand his partner have an abortion? He doesn't want the baby, she does, he has "equal rights" to call the shots so he demands an abortion, she refuses. (2)His equal rights demand that he have an equal say in what happens. Or do his equal rights only apply if he wants the baby[/i]?
(1) Because one of them want to have their child.
(2) Personally I'd say only if he or she wanted their child themselves. If both want an abortion this doesn't become a problem to begin with.
(3)In the end though, I don't see how to get around the fact that we're talking about legislating what a person can and can't do with their body as well as giving another person the "right" to make that decision and I just can't get behind that idea. That's why we all have our own opinions.
I believe men don't have the same equal rights concerning their own children from conception, through divorce, custody battles, etc. And while I agree way too many men run from their responsibilities...at any given time...those men who value life...or value a life they participated in conceiving should have their voices heard. They really lose out...and most of the times the mother's in complete control of everything..when a mutual agreement can't be negotiated.
------------------
And it's not just an abortion issue, dave, it's a man's rights issues. No reason they should enjoy less rights than women should. The left fight for gay rights....and that affects such a small percentage of our population...and yet father's rights are totally let to the 'whim' of a woman.
It's their legal right I was addressing....not the abortion issue.
posted on October 5, 2004 12:42:47 PM new
Twelvepole
posted on October 4, 2004 06:27:56 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what you are saying fenix is that women are natural born liars and their word can't be trusted... I see
posted on October 5, 2004 04:59:47 PM new
What I am seeing her from the the more coherent... is that there can be no "equal rights" as it would pertain for this situation, so does that mean that equal rights are situational and cannot apply in all cases?
, he couldn't force an abortion....but maybe, one choice that could be worked out might be that if she wishes to continue the pregnancy, and he doesn't, then he doesn't have to pay child support. She accepts the full financial responsibility and he signs away his legal rights to the child. Then the father who didn't want the child would not have to pay child support. Just as in the reverse a mother wouldn't have to pay child support to the father when she didn't want the child.
Who ever WANTS the child takes full responsibility immediately following it's discharge from the hospital after birth. No one forces the woman to have an abortion....nor forces her to take on any responsibility of any kind.
