What if the man wants it aborted and the woman wants to have the baby? Should he have a say, then?
I don’t think the man should have a say in the abortion. I do think he should be given the option to give up parental rights before the birth. I don’t think it’s fair to not give him a say but keep him financially responsible and be named the father. I dont think it’s morally right for him to do that, but what is moral and legal are often not the same.
I'm a bit shocked to see someone say men should be able to give up parental rights... like, I assume you mean against the mother's will?? Saying that means you basically think that men have no responsibility in a woman getting pregnant. A baby being born to him is the risk he assumes when he sticks it in her. If a man doesn't want to be responsible for a baby then he should get a vasectomy or not have sex. Of course a man has to be held legally responsible for his own baby.
I said I think it’s morally wrong. But from a legal standpoint, if the decision is up to the woman (and it should be) why shouldn’t the man have an opportunity to give up parental rights? 2 married people have an affair. The woman gets pregnant. The man wants nothing to do with it but the woman doesn’t want an abortion and chooses to keep the child. It’s her choice, why is he legally responsible?
I think it’s morally wrong for him not to support her, and I wouldn’t respect the man who makes that decision. But I just don’t understand from a legal standpoint if it’s 100% her decision.
Honestly, your argument sounds just like the majority of the pro-life argument. Just change “him” to “her.” If she doesn’t want the responsibility of a baby, then don’t have sex.
What if the man wants it aborted and the woman wants to have the baby? Should he have a say, then?
I don’t think the man should have a say in the abortion. I do think he should be given the option to give up parental rights before the birth. I don’t think it’s fair to not give him a say but keep him financially responsible and be named the father. I dont think it’s morally right for him to do that, but what is moral and legal are often not the same.
I'm a bit shocked to see someone say men should be able to give up parental rights... like, I assume you mean against the mother's will?? Saying that means you basically think that men have no responsibility in a woman getting pregnant. A baby being born to him is the risk he assumes when he sticks it in her. If a man doesn't want to be responsible for a baby then he should get a vasectomy or not have sex. Of course a man has to be held legally responsible for his own baby.
I said I think it’s morally wrong. But from a legal standpoint, if the decision is up to the woman (and it should be) why shouldn’t the man have an opportunity to give up parental rights? 2 married people have an affair. The woman gets pregnant. The man wants nothing to do with it but the woman doesn’t want an abortion and chooses to keep the child. It’s her choice, why is he legally responsible?
I think it’s morally wrong for him not to support her, and I wouldn’t respect the man who makes that decision. But I just don’t understand from a legal standpoint if it’s 100% her decision.
Honestly, your argument sounds just like the majority of the pro-life argument. Just change “him” to “her.” If she doesn’t want the responsibility of a baby, then don’t have sex.
What do you mean by giving up parental rights? Are you saying signing away your right for visitation or custody? You can do that. But that doesn't obviate you from your financial obligation. You can't shed that unless the mother agrees to an order that doesn't call for child support.
What if the man wants it aborted and the woman wants to have the baby? Should he have a say, then?
I don’t think the man should have a say in the abortion. I do think he should be given the option to give up parental rights before the birth. I don’t think it’s fair to not give him a say but keep him financially responsible and be named the father. I dont think it’s morally right for him to do that, but what is moral and legal are often not the same.
I'm a bit shocked to see someone say men should be able to give up parental rights... like, I assume you mean against the mother's will?? Saying that means you basically think that men have no responsibility in a woman getting pregnant. A baby being born to him is the risk he assumes when he sticks it in her. If a man doesn't want to be responsible for a baby then he should get a vasectomy or not have sex. Of course a man has to be held legally responsible for his own baby.
The man wants nothing to do with it but the woman doesn’t want an abortion and chooses to keep the child. It’s her choice, why is he legally responsible?
It’s like if you decide to build a house on land you lease or otherwise don’t own. You own the house but not the land it sits on.
The owner of the land can decline to renew your lease and you lose the house and you probably have to pay to dismantle the house. You also have zero say in what the landowner wants to do as it’s not your choice, not even a little bit.
Your sperm may be yours but it’s going into property you don’t own. The property owner calls the shots and that doesn’t mean you aren’t financially responsible if they choose an outcome you don’t like.
It’s easiest to think of it in terms of ownership. She owns her body, not you. What she decides to do with something that you put in her property isn’t your call and as long as it’s in there, she owns it. Once it’s out, it’s no longer on her property. Then you have a say and now you are financially responsible because now it’s 1/2 yours.
Thats is the problem dealing with land you don’t own
What if the man wants it aborted and the woman wants to have the baby? Should he have a say, then?
I don’t think the man should have a say in the abortion. I do think he should be given the option to give up parental rights before the birth. I don’t think it’s fair to not give him a say but keep him financially responsible and be named the father. I dont think it’s morally right for him to do that, but what is moral and legal are often not the same.
I'm a bit shocked to see someone say men should be able to give up parental rights... like, I assume you mean against the mother's will?? Saying that means you basically think that men have no responsibility in a woman getting pregnant. A baby being born to him is the risk he assumes when he sticks it in her. If a man doesn't want to be responsible for a baby then he should get a vasectomy or not have sex. Of course a man has to be held legally responsible for his own baby.
The man wants nothing to do with it but the woman doesn’t want an abortion and chooses to keep the child. It’s her choice, why is he legally responsible?
It’s like if you decide to build a house on land you lease or otherwise don’t own. You own the house but not the land it sits on.
The owner of the land can decline to renew your lease and you lose the house and you probably have to pay to dismantle the house. You also have zero say in what the landowner wants to do as it’s not your choice, not even a little bit.
Your sperm may be yours but it’s going into property you don’t own. The property owner calls the shots and that doesn’t mean you aren’t financially responsible if they choose an outcome you don’t like.
It’s easiest to think of it in terms of ownership. She owns her body, not you. What she decides to do with something that you put in her property isn’t your call and as long as it’s in there, she owns it. Once it’s out, it’s no longer on her property. Then you have a say because now it’s 1/2 yours.
Thats is the problem dealing with land you don’t own
That's a funny analogy.
Can you imagine a world where if a man waives his parental rights, he no longer has financial responsibility? The number of children with absent fathers would explode. Further, the number of impoverished children would explode as well, which would lead to more crime and a host of other societal problems. I hope that's not what Mace was suggesting. The second and third order effects of such a rule/law would be off the charts.
What if the man wants it aborted and the woman wants to have the baby? Should he have a say, then?
I don’t think the man should have a say in the abortion. I do think he should be given the option to give up parental rights before the birth. I don’t think it’s fair to not give him a say but keep him financially responsible and be named the father. I dont think it’s morally right for him to do that, but what is moral and legal are often not the same.
I'm a bit shocked to see someone say men should be able to give up parental rights... like, I assume you mean against the mother's will?? Saying that means you basically think that men have no responsibility in a woman getting pregnant. A baby being born to him is the risk he assumes when he sticks it in her. If a man doesn't want to be responsible for a baby then he should get a vasectomy or not have sex. Of course a man has to be held legally responsible for his own baby.
The man wants nothing to do with it but the woman doesn’t want an abortion and chooses to keep the child. It’s her choice, why is he legally responsible?
It’s like if you decide to build a house on land you lease or otherwise don’t own. You own the house but not the land it sits on.
The owner of the land can decline to renew your lease and you lose the house and you probably have to pay to dismantle the house. You also have zero say in what the landowner wants to do as it’s not your choice, not even a little bit.
Your sperm may be yours but it’s going into property you don’t own. The property owner calls the shots and that doesn’t mean you aren’t financially responsible if they choose an outcome you don’t like.
It’s easiest to think of it in terms of ownership. She owns her body, not you. What she decides to do with something that you put in her property isn’t your call and as long as it’s in there, she owns it. Once it’s out, it’s no longer on her property. Then you have a say because now it’s 1/2 yours.
Thats is the problem dealing with land you don’t own
That's a funny analogy.
Can you imagine a world where if a man waives his parental rights, he no longer has financial responsibility? The number of children with absent fathers would explode. Further, the number of impoverished children would explode as well, which would lead to more crime and a host of other societal problems. I hope that's not what Mace was suggesting. The second and third order effects of such a rule/law would be off the charts.
It is what I was saying. I said I don’t think it’s the right thing to do. I just don’t understand the legal side of it. I can’t think of another scenario where one person gets full decision power while holding another party financially responsible. That lease analogy doesn’t work, you agree to those conditions when signing a lease, so it isnt just one party making the decision. No different than when a lease ends the landlord asks you to move instead of renewing the lease. Yes you’re stuck with moving expenses, but those are the terms you agreed to on the lease. Its more like a couple breaks up at the end of their lease. One person decides to renew it and makes the other continue to pay half the rent because she wanted to keep the apartment. That would never happen. There would be an increase in absent fathers, but I’m not sure it would explode. This probably wouldn’t effect many in an established relationship.
It’s not the right thing to do. I just don’t get the legal standard behind giving person A sole decision making power while holding person B financially responsible for that decision. I can’t think of any other scenario where that is the case. You agree to the terms on a lease, so it isn’t just up to 1 person.
What if the man wants it aborted and the woman wants to have the baby? Should he have a say, then?
I don’t think the man should have a say in the abortion. I do think he should be given the option to give up parental rights before the birth. I don’t think it’s fair to not give him a say but keep him financially responsible and be named the father. I dont think it’s morally right for him to do that, but what is moral and legal are often not the same.
I'm a bit shocked to see someone say men should be able to give up parental rights... like, I assume you mean against the mother's will?? Saying that means you basically think that men have no responsibility in a woman getting pregnant. A baby being born to him is the risk he assumes when he sticks it in her. If a man doesn't want to be responsible for a baby then he should get a vasectomy or not have sex. Of course a man has to be held legally responsible for his own baby.
The man wants nothing to do with it but the woman doesn’t want an abortion and chooses to keep the child. It’s her choice, why is he legally responsible?
It’s like if you decide to build a house on land you lease or otherwise don’t own. You own the house but not the land it sits on.
The owner of the land can decline to renew your lease and you lose the house and you probably have to pay to dismantle the house. You also have zero say in what the landowner wants to do as it’s not your choice, not even a little bit.
Your sperm may be yours but it’s going into property you don’t own. The property owner calls the shots and that doesn’t mean you aren’t financially responsible if they choose an outcome you don’t like.
It’s easiest to think of it in terms of ownership. She owns her body, not you. What she decides to do with something that you put in her property isn’t your call and as long as it’s in there, she owns it. Once it’s out, it’s no longer on her property. Then you have a say because now it’s 1/2 yours.
Thats is the problem dealing with land you don’t own
That's a funny analogy.
Can you imagine a world where if a man waives his parental rights, he no longer has financial responsibility? The number of children with absent fathers would explode. Further, the number of impoverished children would explode as well, which would lead to more crime and a host of other societal problems. I hope that's not what Mace was suggesting. The second and third order effects of such a rule/law would be off the charts.
It is what I was saying. I said I don’t think it’s the right thing to do. I just don’t understand the legal side of it. I can’t think of another scenario where one person gets full decision power while holding another party financially responsible. That lease analogy doesn’t work, you agree to those conditions when signing a lease, so it isnt just one party making the decision. No different than when a lease ends the landlord asks you to move instead of renewing the lease. Yes you’re stuck with moving expenses, but those are the terms you agreed to on the lease. Its more like a couple breaks up at the end of their lease. One person decides to renew it and makes the other continue to pay half the rent because she wanted to keep the apartment. That would never happen. There would be an increase in absent fathers, but I’m not sure it would explode. This probably wouldn’t effect many in an established relationship.
It’s not the right thing to do. I just don’t get the legal standard behind giving person A sole decision making power while holding person B financially responsible for that decision. I can’t think of any other scenario where that is the case. You agree to the terms on a lease, so it isn’t just up to 1 person.
The terms of having sex are those terms
Your A and B examples are missing the premise of the implied contract
a. You agree to have sex and accept the consequences of such an act.
In the event of a pregnancy b sole decision power is hers c you are responsible for the outcome of that decision
It’s how it is and those are the terms when you agree to have sex.
You cannot question the outcome when the terms are clear before. Child support isn’t a new concept and it’s never been dependent on a man’s desire to have or not have a child. In the event of a child both parties support the child, it’s not like the man is exclusively paying. It’s already implied the woman is also supporting the child, and the man who doesn’t live in the household is supplementing that support/ paying his “share” as he would if he lived there.
the idea that child support is one sided because the man has a court order to pay is incorrect
What if the man wants it aborted and the woman wants to have the baby? Should he have a say, then?
I don’t think the man should have a say in the abortion. I do think he should be given the option to give up parental rights before the birth. I don’t think it’s fair to not give him a say but keep him financially responsible and be named the father. I dont think it’s morally right for him to do that, but what is moral and legal are often not the same.
I'm a bit shocked to see someone say men should be able to give up parental rights... like, I assume you mean against the mother's will?? Saying that means you basically think that men have no responsibility in a woman getting pregnant. A baby being born to him is the risk he assumes when he sticks it in her. If a man doesn't want to be responsible for a baby then he should get a vasectomy or not have sex. Of course a man has to be held legally responsible for his own baby.
The man wants nothing to do with it but the woman doesn’t want an abortion and chooses to keep the child. It’s her choice, why is he legally responsible?
It’s like if you decide to build a house on land you lease or otherwise don’t own. You own the house but not the land it sits on.
The owner of the land can decline to renew your lease and you lose the house and you probably have to pay to dismantle the house. You also have zero say in what the landowner wants to do as it’s not your choice, not even a little bit.
Your sperm may be yours but it’s going into property you don’t own. The property owner calls the shots and that doesn’t mean you aren’t financially responsible if they choose an outcome you don’t like.
It’s easiest to think of it in terms of ownership. She owns her body, not you. What she decides to do with something that you put in her property isn’t your call and as long as it’s in there, she owns it. Once it’s out, it’s no longer on her property. Then you have a say because now it’s 1/2 yours.
Thats is the problem dealing with land you don’t own
That's a funny analogy.
Can you imagine a world where if a man waives his parental rights, he no longer has financial responsibility? The number of children with absent fathers would explode. Further, the number of impoverished children would explode as well, which would lead to more crime and a host of other societal problems. I hope that's not what Mace was suggesting. The second and third order effects of such a rule/law would be off the charts.
It is what I was saying. I said I don’t think it’s the right thing to do. I just don’t understand the legal side of it. I can’t think of another scenario where one person gets full decision power while holding another party financially responsible. That lease analogy doesn’t work, you agree to those conditions when signing a lease, so it isnt just one party making the decision. No different than when a lease ends the landlord asks you to move instead of renewing the lease. Yes you’re stuck with moving expenses, but those are the terms you agreed to on the lease. Its more like a couple breaks up at the end of their lease. One person decides to renew it and makes the other continue to pay half the rent because she wanted to keep the apartment. That would never happen. There would be an increase in absent fathers, but I’m not sure it would explode. This probably wouldn’t effect many in an established relationship.
It’s not the right thing to do. I just don’t get the legal standard behind giving person A sole decision making power while holding person B financially responsible for that decision. I can’t think of any other scenario where that is the case. You agree to the terms on a lease, so it isn’t just up to 1 person.
It's part of the social contract. We all understand the rules. Cropduster is right. If you're old enough to decide to have sex, you're old enough to deal with the consequences.
I think you are being naive if you don't think a substantial number of men wouldn't be happy to give up every other weekend to save a thousand a month in child support for 18 years. Established relationships and marriages are not where unwanted pregnancies occur. They happen at the lower class of our population where access to contraceptives and education are lacking.
What if the man wants it aborted and the woman wants to have the baby? Should he have a say, then?
I don’t think the man should have a say in the abortion. I do think he should be given the option to give up parental rights before the birth. I don’t think it’s fair to not give him a say but keep him financially responsible and be named the father. I dont think it’s morally right for him to do that, but what is moral and legal are often not the same.
I'm a bit shocked to see someone say men should be able to give up parental rights... like, I assume you mean against the mother's will?? Saying that means you basically think that men have no responsibility in a woman getting pregnant. A baby being born to him is the risk he assumes when he sticks it in her. If a man doesn't want to be responsible for a baby then he should get a vasectomy or not have sex. Of course a man has to be held legally responsible for his own baby.
The man wants nothing to do with it but the woman doesn’t want an abortion and chooses to keep the child. It’s her choice, why is he legally responsible?
It’s like if you decide to build a house on land you lease or otherwise don’t own. You own the house but not the land it sits on.
The owner of the land can decline to renew your lease and you lose the house and you probably have to pay to dismantle the house. You also have zero say in what the landowner wants to do as it’s not your choice, not even a little bit.
Your sperm may be yours but it’s going into property you don’t own. The property owner calls the shots and that doesn’t mean you aren’t financially responsible if they choose an outcome you don’t like.
It’s easiest to think of it in terms of ownership. She owns her body, not you. What she decides to do with something that you put in her property isn’t your call and as long as it’s in there, she owns it. Once it’s out, it’s no longer on her property. Then you have a say because now it’s 1/2 yours.
Thats is the problem dealing with land you don’t own
That's a funny analogy.
Can you imagine a world where if a man waives his parental rights, he no longer has financial responsibility? The number of children with absent fathers would explode. Further, the number of impoverished children would explode as well, which would lead to more crime and a host of other societal problems. I hope that's not what Mace was suggesting. The second and third order effects of such a rule/law would be off the charts.
It is what I was saying. I said I don’t think it’s the right thing to do. I just don’t understand the legal side of it. I can’t think of another scenario where one person gets full decision power while holding another party financially responsible. That lease analogy doesn’t work, you agree to those conditions when signing a lease, so it isnt just one party making the decision. No different than when a lease ends the landlord asks you to move instead of renewing the lease. Yes you’re stuck with moving expenses, but those are the terms you agreed to on the lease. Its more like a couple breaks up at the end of their lease. One person decides to renew it and makes the other continue to pay half the rent because she wanted to keep the apartment. That would never happen. There would be an increase in absent fathers, but I’m not sure it would explode. This probably wouldn’t effect many in an established relationship.
It’s not the right thing to do. I just don’t get the legal standard behind giving person A sole decision making power while holding person B financially responsible for that decision. I can’t think of any other scenario where that is the case. You agree to the terms on a lease, so it isn’t just up to 1 person.
The terms of having sex are those terms
Your A and B examples are missing the premise of the implied contract
a. You agree to have sex and accept the consequences of such an act.
In the event of a pregnancy b sole decision power is hers c you are responsible for the outcome of that decision
It’s how it is and those are the terms when you agree to have sex.
You cannot question the outcome when the terms are clear before. Child support isn’t a new concept and it’s never been dependent on a man’s desire to have or not have a child. In the event of a child both parties support the child, it’s not like the man is exclusively paying. It’s already implied the woman is also supporting the child the man who doesn’t live in the household is supplementing that support.
the idea that child support is one sided because the man has a court order to pay is incorrect
An implied contract still requires a mutual understanding. I can’t stop my car off at Jiffy Lube and ask for an oil change, then claim I never agreed to pay for it. Asking for a service implies I’m going to pay for it. I see that differently than 2 adults agreeing to have sex. But if I’m going on that analogy then wouldn't an implied contract of a couple who discusses not wanting wanting kids, but then she changes her mind once pregnant to keep it relieve the man from any obligation? How would that not be the case if you’re using an implied contract as grounds for responsibility? If you don’t agree to that then I don’t see how you can use the implied contract as an argument. I’m not saying he shouldn’t help with support. I just don’t get any legal standard that backs that up. I don’t see a similar analogy that compares. But I’m not a legal expert, I’m just 1 guy on the internet. So take my opinion with a grain of salt.
What if the man wants it aborted and the woman wants to have the baby? Should he have a say, then?
I don’t think the man should have a say in the abortion. I do think he should be given the option to give up parental rights before the birth. I don’t think it’s fair to not give him a say but keep him financially responsible and be named the father. I dont think it’s morally right for him to do that, but what is moral and legal are often not the same.
I'm a bit shocked to see someone say men should be able to give up parental rights... like, I assume you mean against the mother's will?? Saying that means you basically think that men have no responsibility in a woman getting pregnant. A baby being born to him is the risk he assumes when he sticks it in her. If a man doesn't want to be responsible for a baby then he should get a vasectomy or not have sex. Of course a man has to be held legally responsible for his own baby.
The man wants nothing to do with it but the woman doesn’t want an abortion and chooses to keep the child. It’s her choice, why is he legally responsible?
It’s like if you decide to build a house on land you lease or otherwise don’t own. You own the house but not the land it sits on.
The owner of the land can decline to renew your lease and you lose the house and you probably have to pay to dismantle the house. You also have zero say in what the landowner wants to do as it’s not your choice, not even a little bit.
Your sperm may be yours but it’s going into property you don’t own. The property owner calls the shots and that doesn’t mean you aren’t financially responsible if they choose an outcome you don’t like.
It’s easiest to think of it in terms of ownership. She owns her body, not you. What she decides to do with something that you put in her property isn’t your call and as long as it’s in there, she owns it. Once it’s out, it’s no longer on her property. Then you have a say because now it’s 1/2 yours.
Thats is the problem dealing with land you don’t own
That's a funny analogy.
Can you imagine a world where if a man waives his parental rights, he no longer has financial responsibility? The number of children with absent fathers would explode. Further, the number of impoverished children would explode as well, which would lead to more crime and a host of other societal problems. I hope that's not what Mace was suggesting. The second and third order effects of such a rule/law would be off the charts.
It is what I was saying. I said I don’t think it’s the right thing to do. I just don’t understand the legal side of it. I can’t think of another scenario where one person gets full decision power while holding another party financially responsible. That lease analogy doesn’t work, you agree to those conditions when signing a lease, so it isnt just one party making the decision. No different than when a lease ends the landlord asks you to move instead of renewing the lease. Yes you’re stuck with moving expenses, but those are the terms you agreed to on the lease. Its more like a couple breaks up at the end of their lease. One person decides to renew it and makes the other continue to pay half the rent because she wanted to keep the apartment. That would never happen. There would be an increase in absent fathers, but I’m not sure it would explode. This probably wouldn’t effect many in an established relationship.
It’s not the right thing to do. I just don’t get the legal standard behind giving person A sole decision making power while holding person B financially responsible for that decision. I can’t think of any other scenario where that is the case. You agree to the terms on a lease, so it isn’t just up to 1 person.
It's part of the social contract. We all understand the rules. Cropduster is right. If you're old enough to decide to have sex, you're old enough to deal with the consequences.
I think you are being naive if you don't think a substantial number of men wouldn't be happy to give up every other weekend to save a thousand a month in child support for 18 years. Established relationships and marriages are not where unwanted pregnancies occur. They happen at the lower class of our population where access to contraceptives and education are lacking.
100 percent this
absent fathers, poverty, lack of education and access to contraception and health care are one and the same.
it’s no coincidence those least able to support kids have kids at disproportionately high rates. they can’t afford an abortion or get to an abortion clinic because their state has one and it’s 5 hours away. They can’t afford contraception, they were never educated on how to use contraception because their public school no longer teaches it and since they have no health insurance they don’t go to the doctor to ask.
They also can’t get child support because the man just disappeared.
These people aren’t stupid, it’s not like they even wanted a child to begin with in a lot of cases. Once she has it, she’s stuck . Then the cycle continues again and again
Barriers to care barriers to abortion and barriers to contraception and barriers to a stable home life are absolutely real issues for a substantial part of the population
What if the man wants it aborted and the woman wants to have the baby? Should he have a say, then?
I don’t think the man should have a say in the abortion. I do think he should be given the option to give up parental rights before the birth. I don’t think it’s fair to not give him a say but keep him financially responsible and be named the father. I dont think it’s morally right for him to do that, but what is moral and legal are often not the same.
I'm a bit shocked to see someone say men should be able to give up parental rights... like, I assume you mean against the mother's will?? Saying that means you basically think that men have no responsibility in a woman getting pregnant. A baby being born to him is the risk he assumes when he sticks it in her. If a man doesn't want to be responsible for a baby then he should get a vasectomy or not have sex. Of course a man has to be held legally responsible for his own baby.
The man wants nothing to do with it but the woman doesn’t want an abortion and chooses to keep the child. It’s her choice, why is he legally responsible?
It’s like if you decide to build a house on land you lease or otherwise don’t own. You own the house but not the land it sits on.
The owner of the land can decline to renew your lease and you lose the house and you probably have to pay to dismantle the house. You also have zero say in what the landowner wants to do as it’s not your choice, not even a little bit.
Your sperm may be yours but it’s going into property you don’t own. The property owner calls the shots and that doesn’t mean you aren’t financially responsible if they choose an outcome you don’t like.
It’s easiest to think of it in terms of ownership. She owns her body, not you. What she decides to do with something that you put in her property isn’t your call and as long as it’s in there, she owns it. Once it’s out, it’s no longer on her property. Then you have a say because now it’s 1/2 yours.
Thats is the problem dealing with land you don’t own
That's a funny analogy.
Can you imagine a world where if a man waives his parental rights, he no longer has financial responsibility? The number of children with absent fathers would explode. Further, the number of impoverished children would explode as well, which would lead to more crime and a host of other societal problems. I hope that's not what Mace was suggesting. The second and third order effects of such a rule/law would be off the charts.
It is what I was saying. I said I don’t think it’s the right thing to do. I just don’t understand the legal side of it. I can’t think of another scenario where one person gets full decision power while holding another party financially responsible. That lease analogy doesn’t work, you agree to those conditions when signing a lease, so it isnt just one party making the decision. No different than when a lease ends the landlord asks you to move instead of renewing the lease. Yes you’re stuck with moving expenses, but those are the terms you agreed to on the lease. Its more like a couple breaks up at the end of their lease. One person decides to renew it and makes the other continue to pay half the rent because she wanted to keep the apartment. That would never happen. There would be an increase in absent fathers, but I’m not sure it would explode. This probably wouldn’t effect many in an established relationship.
It’s not the right thing to do. I just don’t get the legal standard behind giving person A sole decision making power while holding person B financially responsible for that decision. I can’t think of any other scenario where that is the case. You agree to the terms on a lease, so it isn’t just up to 1 person.
The terms of having sex are those terms
Your A and B examples are missing the premise of the implied contract
a. You agree to have sex and accept the consequences of such an act.
In the event of a pregnancy b sole decision power is hers c you are responsible for the outcome of that decision
It’s how it is and those are the terms when you agree to have sex.
You cannot question the outcome when the terms are clear before. Child support isn’t a new concept and it’s never been dependent on a man’s desire to have or not have a child. In the event of a child both parties support the child, it’s not like the man is exclusively paying. It’s already implied the woman is also supporting the child the man who doesn’t live in the household is supplementing that support.
the idea that child support is one sided because the man has a court order to pay is incorrect
An implied contract still requires a mutual understanding. I can’t stop my car off at Jiffy Lube and ask for an oil change, then claim I never agreed to pay for it. Asking for a service implies I’m going to pay for it. I see that differently than 2 adults agreeing to have sex. But if I’m going on that analogy then wouldn't an implied contract of a couple who discusses not wanting wanting kids, but then she changes her mind once pregnant to keep it relieve the man from any obligation? How would that not be the case if you’re using an implied contract as grounds for responsibility? If you don’t agree to that then I don’t see how you can use the implied contract as an argument. I’m not saying he shouldn’t help with support. I just don’t get any legal standard that backs that up. I don’t see a similar analogy that compares. But I’m not a legal expert, I’m just 1 guy on the internet. So take my opinion with a grain of salt.
First of all there are child support laws that are accessible to the public. In every case I have ever seen it says biological parents both are on the hook. Wanting the kid or not is irrelevant . You are mixing two separate concepts. A woman’s right to choose and the consequences of having a child. Two entirely different things
if it wasn’t an implied contract you agree to before hand then how do you explain sperm donation? Sperm donation requires forms and wavers prior to receiving that sperm undoing the implied parental rights and financial responsibility. There is no question that man doesn’t want to pay for the kid and no question the woman even wants him to. If that implied obligation wasn’t there there is no need to undo it
having sex implies both parties are responsible. Sperm donation undoes that contract with wavers.
Picking up a girl at a club for a one night stand isn’t a sperm donation. A pregnancy may or may not happen, if it happens it’s her choice how to proceed but that choice in no way impacts the implied contract for responsibility as that implied contract is related to a child that results not her choice on having it or not
at the end of the day, the man isn’t in control. If you really think about it that’s the issue men have. Fairness or whatever is really just underlying frustration that they can’t control the situation and get what they want. Men historically are use to having all the control and it drives them crazy not to have it
I actually agree with all that. I’m just saying I don’t get the legal justification for it. And none of the arguments I’ve seen make sense from a legal standpoint. There are probably plenty of implied contracts that would suggest an abortion, but those wouldn’t hold up. Contracts can’t just work one way. But I agree he should be responsible. I’m just surprised from a legal standpoint there hasn’t been a successful lawsuit against it yet. You’re telling me when no one talks about it, the implied contract is binding that he will support the child. But when a couple discusses it, agrees they can’t have kids, the woman says if she ever gets pregnant before marriage she’ll get an abortion, that isn’t binding if she changes her mind without discussing it first? If the unspoken contract is binding, how is not the verbal one? I don’t agree with not supporting a child, but legally doesn’t make sense to me in every case. That doesn’t mean I hope these guys get off without supporting the family. I just dont get the legal side of it and am surprised there hasn’t been a successful lawsuit. I’m sure it’s happened many many times, they agree to not have kids. She changes her mind and he pays for it. Do I think it’s right he lays? Yes. Do I feel bad for him? No. Just don’t see how it is legally justified either though, and wouldn’t be surprised if at some point that practice changes as a result..
I actually agree with all that. I’m just saying I don’t get the legal justification for it. And none of the arguments I’ve seen make sense from a legal standpoint. There are probably plenty of implied contracts that would suggest an abortion, but those wouldn’t hold up. Contracts can’t just work one way. But I agree he should be responsible. I’m just surprised from a legal standpoint there hasn’t been a successful lawsuit against it yet. You’re telling me when no one talks about it, the implied contract is binding that he will support the child. But when a couple discusses it, agrees they can’t have kids, the woman says if she ever gets pregnant before marriage she’ll get an abortion, that isn’t binding if she changes her mind without discussing it first? If the unspoken contract is binding, how is not the verbal one? I don’t agree with not supporting a child, but legally doesn’t make sense to me in every case. That doesn’t mean I hope these guys get off without supporting the family. I just dont get the legal side of it and am surprised there hasn’t been a successful lawsuit. I’m sure it’s happened many many times, they agree to not have kids. She changes her mind and he pays for it. Do I think it’s right he lays? Yes. Do I feel bad for him? No. Just don’t see how it is legally justified either though, and wouldn’t be surprised if at some point that practice changes as a result..
What makes you think this has never been litigated before? And if it was successful at a high enough court where a man could just A) walk away from his financial responsibilities or Force a woman to either bear or abort a child, it would unleash family chaos in this country.
Edit - who knew that a B with a parenthetical makes that stupid emoji.
If I was guessing the legal justification has to do with the kid, not the father.
if you only look at it from the perspective of the man who doesn’t want the kid and why he has to pay for it, you are forgetting about the kid and the kid’s right to be supported financially by its parents as once the child is born they have legal rights
in the event of an abortion the kid isn’t born thus the legality of child support is moot
If I was guessing the legal justification has to do with the kid, not the father.
if you only look at it from the perspective of the man who doesn’t want the kid and why he has to pay for it, you are forgetting about the kid and the kid’s right to be supported financially by its parents as once the child is born they have legal rights
in the event of an abortion the kid isn’t born thus the legality of child support is moot
This is absolutely correct. Who loses if the father doesn't pay? The child. Why should a father be able to walk away from his responsibility financially because he doesn't want visitation.
Mace - your arguments have all centered around the father and not the child.
If I was guessing the legal justification has to do with the kid, not the father.
if you only look at it from the perspective of the man who doesn’t want the kid and why he has to pay for it, you are forgetting about the kid and the kid’s right to be supported financially by its parents as once the child is born they have legal rights
in the event of an abortion the kid isn’t born thus the legality of child support is moot
This is absolutely correct. Who loses if the father doesn't pay? The child. Why should a father be able to walk away from his responsibility financially because he doesn't want visitation.
Mace - your arguments have all centered around the father and not the child.
It all gotten very convoluted but yeah.
Pregnancy is a dispute between two parties and one person in the dispute has veto power
after birth it becomes a dispute that includes 3 parties and a court is there to oversee that the 3rd party’s interests are protected
dispute 1 has nothing to do with dispute 2 and thus dispute 1 has no bearing on the outcome of dispute 2
Could someone theoretically take a vaccine mandate case to the court that would obviously be found in favor of bodily autonomy and then use that decision to justify bodily autonomy for choice related matters?
Could someone theoretically take a vaccine mandate case to the court that would obviously be found in favor of bodily autonomy and then use that decision to justify bodily autonomy for choice related matters?
this court would probably say vaccine mandates are unconstitutional as it’s your body your choice even though your decision could kill a stadium full of people, but a woman doesn’t have that same right to make a choice to have an abortion. This court is way too political as they would grasp at straws to make those opposite positions fit.
logically it makes sense to be pro choice and pro vaccine mandates because the vaccine mandate is for public health so the being both for and against bodily autonomy can be reconciled with another reason (public health). It makes no sense to be pro life and anti vaccine mandate because those positions contradict on bodily autonomy and the contradiction can’t be justified by a public health benefit. If you can’t reconcile opposing positions, that makes you a hypocrite
pretty sure the smallpox case the Supreme Court decided on said public health trumps bodily autonomy this court wouldn’t
Right on. We men need to stand up for women and say, "Enough of this bullshit. We're not in favor of taking away a woman's right to choose. Were not going to let this happen."
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,938
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Right on. We men need to stand up for women and say, "Enough of this bullshit. We're not in favor of taking away a woman's right to choose. Were not going to let this happen."
I don’t see why I keep seeing this as men taking away womens rights. On most polls I’ve seen, the split between men and women being against abortion is around 5%. Pretty close to half and half.
Right on. We men need to stand up for women and say, "Enough of this bullshit. We're not in favor of taking away a woman's right to choose. Were not going to let this happen."
I don’t see why I keep seeing this as men taking away womens rights. On most polls I’ve seen, the split between men and women being against abortion is around 5%. Pretty close to half and half.
A lot of that polling you have to look into the data a bit. If 54% of women are pro choice for example it looks pretty even. However when asked should Roe be overturned it’s 2/3 say or 66% say no.
There are pro life people and pro choice people… there are also a lot of people who are against abortion morally but who also don’t want the government deciding that question so capturing the pro choice light crowd is harder to capture
My wife is one. She would never ever have an abortion under any circumstance and is morally opposed to it. She also doesn’t want her views forced on others. I consider her pro choice, she considers herself pro life. When your personal views are separate from the legal argument a lot of people self identify with their personal view
If you look at the makeup of a lot of these statehouses it’s still overwhelmingly men. That’s where these laws are passed. Same can be said for all the anti gay laws. It’s not like there is a lot of gay lawmakers voting for this stuff
Right on. We men need to stand up for women and say, "Enough of this bullshit. We're not in favor of taking away a woman's right to choose. Were not going to let this happen."
I don’t see why I keep seeing this as men taking away womens rights. On most polls I’ve seen, the split between men and women being against abortion is around 5%. Pretty close to half and half.
A lot of that polling you have to look into the data a bit. If 54% of women are pro choice for example it looks pretty even. However when asked should Roe be overturned it’s 2/3 say or 66% say no.
There are pro life people and pro choice people… there are also a lot of pro life people who are against abortion morally but who also don’t want the government deciding that question so capturing the pro choice light crowd is harder to capture
My wife is one. She would never ever have an abortion under any circumstance and is morally opposed to it. She also doesn’t want her views forced on others. I consider her pro choice, she considers herself pro life
Stats on abortions can be tricky because of the qualifiers. The ones that I’ve seen that say abortions should be banned no matter what do have a higher percentage of men, but even then it’s still like a 60/40 split. But qualifiers that allow for certain exceptions are pretty close to 50/50 . I still don’t see it as a big enough difference to claim the motive is men wanting to control women when 45% of the group are women.
What if the man wants it aborted and the woman wants to have the baby? Should he have a say, then?
I don’t think the man should have a say in the abortion. I do think he should be given the option to give up parental rights before the birth. I don’t think it’s fair to not give him a say but keep him financially responsible and be named the father. I dont think it’s morally right for him to do that, but what is moral and legal are often not the same.
I'm a bit shocked to see someone say men should be able to give up parental rights... like, I assume you mean against the mother's will?? Saying that means you basically think that men have no responsibility in a woman getting pregnant. A baby being born to him is the risk he assumes when he sticks it in her. If a man doesn't want to be responsible for a baby then he should get a vasectomy or not have sex. Of course a man has to be held legally responsible for his own baby.
The man wants nothing to do with it but the woman doesn’t want an abortion and chooses to keep the child. It’s her choice, why is he legally responsible?
It’s like if you decide to build a house on land you lease or otherwise don’t own. You own the house but not the land it sits on.
The owner of the land can decline to renew your lease and you lose the house and you probably have to pay to dismantle the house. You also have zero say in what the landowner wants to do as it’s not your choice, not even a little bit.
Your sperm may be yours but it’s going into property you don’t own. The property owner calls the shots and that doesn’t mean you aren’t financially responsible if they choose an outcome you don’t like.
It’s easiest to think of it in terms of ownership. She owns her body, not you. What she decides to do with something that you put in her property isn’t your call and as long as it’s in there, she owns it. Once it’s out, it’s no longer on her property. Then you have a say because now it’s 1/2 yours.
Thats is the problem dealing with land you don’t own
That's a funny analogy.
Can you imagine a world where if a man waives his parental rights, he no longer has financial responsibility? The number of children with absent fathers would explode. Further, the number of impoverished children would explode as well, which would lead to more crime and a host of other societal problems. I hope that's not what Mace was suggesting. The second and third order effects of such a rule/law would be off the charts.
It is what I was saying. I said I don’t think it’s the right thing to do. I just don’t understand the legal side of it. I can’t think of another scenario where one person gets full decision power while holding another party financially responsible. That lease analogy doesn’t work, you agree to those conditions when signing a lease, so it isnt just one party making the decision. No different than when a lease ends the landlord asks you to move instead of renewing the lease. Yes you’re stuck with moving expenses, but those are the terms you agreed to on the lease. Its more like a couple breaks up at the end of their lease. One person decides to renew it and makes the other continue to pay half the rent because she wanted to keep the apartment. That would never happen. There would be an increase in absent fathers, but I’m not sure it would explode. This probably wouldn’t effect many in an established relationship.
It’s not the right thing to do. I just don’t get the legal standard behind giving person A sole decision making power while holding person B financially responsible for that decision. I can’t think of any other scenario where that is the case. You agree to the terms on a lease, so it isn’t just up to 1 person.
The terms of having sex are those terms
Your A and B examples are missing the premise of the implied contract
a. You agree to have sex and accept the consequences of such an act.
In the event of a pregnancy b sole decision power is hers c you are responsible for the outcome of that decision
It’s how it is and those are the terms when you agree to have sex.
You cannot question the outcome when the terms are clear before. Child support isn’t a new concept and it’s never been dependent on a man’s desire to have or not have a child. In the event of a child both parties support the child, it’s not like the man is exclusively paying. It’s already implied the woman is also supporting the child, and the man who doesn’t live in the household is supplementing that support/ paying his “share” as he would if he lived there.
the idea that child support is one sided because the man has a court order to pay is incorrect
Your implied contract above appears to be a one sided contract. Both man and woman know pregnancy could happen, but in this implied contract the woman can do whatever she wants and the man has no recourse. Not saying that a woman shouldn't be entitled to decide, but just find this "both partners know the potential ramifications" argument to fall flat when the woman can disregard the ramifications by her choice.
It is interesting that the woman can choose to abort it purely because she doesn't believe she is in the financial or maturity state to have a child (and the left said this good for society), but the father who is immature and has no money has no similar say when both were equally part of the act that created the baby. If it is terminated for the safety of the mother I totally understand the father having zero say.
I'm not for overturning Roe, just saying some of the arguments that the father has no say don't make total sense to me. End of the day the mother is the one having to carry the child so I would say she should have the say on having the baby or not (just don't make an argument that all parties know the ramifications going into it if one party has choices on those ramifications).
Louisiana says we can out do y'all. Legislation will make abortion a homicide beginning at conception. They want rights and laws protecting humans to be extended to the time of fertilization. Oh, and they want to also criminalize IVF and certain contraception. Didn't someone state those things were not being considered?
Comments
Hell yes!
2 married people have an affair. The woman gets pregnant. The man wants nothing to do with it but the woman doesn’t want an abortion and chooses to keep the child. It’s her choice, why is he legally responsible?
Can you imagine a world where if a man waives his parental rights, he no longer has financial responsibility? The number of children with absent fathers would explode. Further, the number of impoverished children would explode as well, which would lead to more crime and a host of other societal problems. I hope that's not what Mace was suggesting. The second and third order effects of such a rule/law would be off the charts.
That lease analogy doesn’t work, you agree to those conditions when signing a lease, so it isnt just one party making the decision. No different than when a lease ends the landlord asks you to move instead of renewing the lease. Yes you’re stuck with moving expenses, but those are the terms you agreed to on the lease.
Its more like a couple breaks up at the end of their lease. One person decides to renew it and makes the other continue to pay half the rent because she wanted to keep the apartment. That would never happen.
There would be an increase in absent fathers, but I’m not sure it would explode. This probably wouldn’t effect many in an established relationship.
Your A and B examples are missing the premise of the implied contract
a. You agree to have sex and accept the consequences of such an act.
b sole decision power is hers
c you are responsible for the outcome of that decision
It’s how it is and those are the terms when you agree to have sex.
the idea that child support is one sided because the man has a court order to pay is incorrect
I think you are being naive if you don't think a substantial number of men wouldn't be happy to give up every other weekend to save a thousand a month in child support for 18 years. Established relationships and marriages are not where unwanted pregnancies occur. They happen at the lower class of our population where access to contraceptives and education are lacking.
But if I’m going on that analogy then wouldn't an implied contract of a couple who discusses not wanting wanting kids, but then she changes her mind once pregnant to keep it relieve the man from any obligation? How would that not be the case if you’re using an implied contract as grounds for responsibility? If you don’t agree to that then I don’t see how you can use the implied contract as an argument.
I’m not saying he shouldn’t help with support. I just don’t get any legal standard that backs that up. I don’t see a similar analogy that compares. But I’m not a legal expert, I’m just 1 guy on the internet. So take my opinion with a grain of salt.
absent fathers, poverty, lack of education and access to contraception and health care are one and the same.
it’s no coincidence those least able to support kids have kids at disproportionately high rates. they can’t afford an abortion or get to an abortion clinic because their state has one and it’s 5 hours away. They can’t afford contraception, they were never educated on how to use contraception because their public school no longer teaches it and since they have no health insurance they don’t go to the doctor to ask.
if it wasn’t an implied contract you agree to before hand then how do you explain sperm donation?
Sperm donation requires forms and wavers prior to receiving that sperm undoing the implied parental rights and financial responsibility. There is no question that man doesn’t want to pay for the kid and no question the woman even wants him to.
If that implied obligation wasn’t there there is no need to undo it
having sex implies both parties are responsible. Sperm donation undoes that contract with wavers.
at the end of the day, the man isn’t in control. If you really think about it that’s the issue men have. Fairness or whatever is really just underlying frustration that they can’t control the situation and get what they want. Men historically are use to having all the control and it drives them crazy not to have it
But I agree he should be responsible. I’m just surprised from a legal standpoint there hasn’t been a successful lawsuit against it yet. You’re telling me when no one talks about it, the implied contract is binding that he will support the child. But when a couple discusses it, agrees they can’t have kids, the woman says if she ever gets pregnant before marriage she’ll get an abortion, that isn’t binding if she changes her mind without discussing it first? If the unspoken contract is binding, how is not the verbal one? I don’t agree with not supporting a child, but legally doesn’t make sense to me in every case. That doesn’t mean I hope these guys get off without supporting the family. I just dont get the legal side of it and am surprised there hasn’t been a successful lawsuit. I’m sure it’s happened many many times, they agree to not have kids. She changes her mind and he pays for it. Do I think it’s right he lays? Yes. Do I feel bad for him? No. Just don’t see how it is legally justified either though, and wouldn’t be surprised if at some point that practice changes as a result..
Edit - who knew that a B with a parenthetical makes that stupid emoji.
if you only look at it from the perspective of the man who doesn’t want the kid and why he has to pay for it, you are forgetting about the kid and the kid’s right to be supported financially by its parents as once the child is born they have legal rights
in the event of an abortion the kid isn’t born thus the legality of child support is moot
Mace - your arguments have all centered around the father and not the child.
after birth it becomes a dispute that includes 3 parties and a court is there to oversee that the 3rd party’s interests are protected
dispute 1 has nothing to do with dispute 2 and thus dispute 1 has no bearing on the outcome of dispute 2
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
this court would probably say vaccine mandates are unconstitutional as it’s your body your choice even though your decision could kill a stadium full of people, but a woman doesn’t have that same right to make a choice to have an abortion. This court is way too political as they would grasp at straws to make those opposite positions fit.
logically it makes sense to be pro choice and pro vaccine mandates because the vaccine mandate is for public health so the being both for and against bodily autonomy can be reconciled with another reason (public health). It makes no sense to be pro life and anti vaccine mandate because those positions contradict on bodily autonomy and the contradiction can’t be justified by a public health benefit. If you can’t reconcile opposing positions, that makes you a hypocrite
pretty sure the smallpox case the Supreme Court decided on said public health trumps bodily autonomy this court wouldn’t
Right on.
We men need to stand up for women and say, "Enough of this bullshit. We're not in favor of taking away a woman's right to choose. Were not going to let this happen."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
If you look at the makeup of a lot of these statehouses it’s still overwhelmingly men. That’s where these laws are passed. Same can be said for all the anti gay laws. It’s not like there is a lot of gay lawmakers voting for this stuff
I still don’t see it as a big enough difference to claim the motive is men wanting to control women when 45% of the group are women.
It is interesting that the woman can choose to abort it purely because she doesn't believe she is in the financial or maturity state to have a child (and the left said this good for society), but the father who is immature and has no money has no similar say when both were equally part of the act that created the baby. If it is terminated for the safety of the mother I totally understand the father having zero say.
I'm not for overturning Roe, just saying some of the arguments that the father has no say don't make total sense to me. End of the day the mother is the one having to carry the child so I would say she should have the say on having the baby or not (just don't make an argument that all parties know the ramifications going into it if one party has choices on those ramifications).
Louisiana legislators advance bill classifying abortion as homicide (msn.com)