Abortion-Keep Legal, Yes or No?
Comments
-
-
-
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?PJ_Soul said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.OnWis97 said:What if the man wants it aborted and the woman wants to have the baby? Should he have a say, then?
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.0 -
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.mace1229 said:
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?PJ_Soul said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.OnWis97 said:What if the man wants it aborted and the woman wants to have the baby? Should he have a say, then?
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.0 -
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.mace1229 said:
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?PJ_Soul said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.OnWis97 said:What if the man wants it aborted and the woman wants to have the baby? Should he have a say, then?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
Post edited by Cropduster-80 on0 -
That's a funny analogy.Cropduster-80 said:
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.mace1229 said:
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?PJ_Soul said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.OnWis97 said:What if the man wants it aborted and the woman wants to have the baby? Should he have a say, then?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
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.0 -
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.mrussel1 said:
That's a funny analogy.Cropduster-80 said:
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.mace1229 said:
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?PJ_Soul said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.OnWis97 said:What if the man wants it aborted and the woman wants to have the baby? Should he have a say, then?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
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.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.0 -
The terms of having sex are those termsmace1229 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
That's a funny analogy.Cropduster-80 said:
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.mace1229 said:
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?PJ_Soul said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.OnWis97 said:What if the man wants it aborted and the woman wants to have the baby? Should he have a say, then?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
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.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.
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 incorrectPost edited by Cropduster-80 on0 -
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.mace1229 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
That's a funny analogy.Cropduster-80 said:
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.mace1229 said:
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?PJ_Soul said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.OnWis97 said:What if the man wants it aborted and the woman wants to have the baby? Should he have a say, then?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
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.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.
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.0 -
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.Cropduster-80 said:
The terms of having sex are those termsmace1229 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
That's a funny analogy.Cropduster-80 said:
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.mace1229 said:
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?PJ_Soul said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.OnWis97 said:What if the man wants it aborted and the woman wants to have the baby? Should he have a say, then?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
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.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.
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
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.0 -
100 percent thismrussel1 said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
That's a funny analogy.Cropduster-80 said:
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.mace1229 said:
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?PJ_Soul said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.OnWis97 said:What if the man wants it aborted and the woman wants to have the baby? Should he have a say, then?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
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.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.
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.
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 againBarriers 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 populationPost edited by Cropduster-80 on0 -
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 thingsmace1229 said:
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.Cropduster-80 said:
The terms of having sex are those termsmace1229 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
That's a funny analogy.Cropduster-80 said:
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.mace1229 said:
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?PJ_Soul said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.OnWis97 said:What if the man wants it aborted and the woman wants to have the baby? Should he have a say, then?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
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.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.
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
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.
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 itPost edited by Cropduster-80 on0 -
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..0 -
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 ormace1229 said: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..
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.
0 -
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 moot0 -
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.Cropduster-80 said: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
Mace - your arguments have all centered around the father and not the child.0 -
It all gotten very convoluted but yeah.mrussel1 said:
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.Cropduster-80 said: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
Mace - your arguments have all centered around the father and not the child.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 20 -
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?Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
static111 said: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’tPost edited by Cropduster-80 on0 -
A must watch and share...
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help