Indian High Court rules that the right to abort a pregnancy rests with wife

[WHAMPOM]

I do not understand how yall can say "women deserve special rights",,,, blah, blah, blah.

If men should not have the right to force an unwanted medical procedure on a woman, the woman should not have that right either.

Why is not ok for a man to force a woman, but its ok for a woman to force the fetus.

Soon as you explain how the woman injects the fertilized egg into your carry pouch.

 

[actuarial]

I actually totally agree that there is a disparity in responsibility for a pregnant woman vs the man who got her pregnant. It sucks for the man in many ways, but I can't think of any better solution than what we have now. If you allow the man to effectively ditch their babies at will you will have an epidemic of this in no time. If you allow the man to forcibly abort the fetus, you have a horrifying situation as already described.

There just isn't a good answer for this, but I feel that our system is about as decent as you're going to get.

I don't think, even under the current laws, anyone can claim that the disparity in responsibility for a pregnant woman vs the man who got her pregnant gives the man the raw end of the deal.

In a worst case scenario he has financial responsibilities outside of his control. That doesn't even begin to compare with a woman's responsibilities once she gets pregnant.

With our current laws, I'd still much rather be a man than a woman when it comes to unwanted pregnancies.

 

[Jaskalas]

I don't think, even under the current laws, anyone can claim that the disparity in responsibility for a pregnant woman vs the man who got her pregnant gives the man the raw end of the deal.

In a worst case scenario he has financial responsibilities outside of his control. That doesn't even begin to compare with a woman's responsibilities once she gets pregnant.

With our current laws, I'd still much rather be a man than a woman when it comes to unwanted pregnancies.

Morning after pill, or an abortion, is the raw end of the deal?

Men get the raw end because you say their choice ends at conception.

 

[cybrsage]

I don't think, even under the current laws, anyone can claim that the disparity in responsibility for a pregnant woman vs the man who got her pregnant gives the man the raw end of the deal.

In a worst case scenario he has financial responsibilities outside of his control. That doesn't even begin to compare with a woman's responsibilities once she gets pregnant.

With our current laws, I'd still much rather be a man than a woman when it comes to unwanted pregnancies.

The woman can end her responsibilities at a whim, the man has no power at all. If the woman wants the baby, there is a baby born. If the woman does not want the baby, a baby is not born. If the man wants the baby, who cares, your wants and desires are irrelevant to the life of the baby you helped create. If the man does not want the baby, who cares, your wants and desires are irrelevant to the life of the baby you helped create.

This is called getting the raw end of the deal...responsibility without any authority.

 

[Tom]

The mother has a choice. If she does not want the child she can abort it.

Why aren't those same rights extended to the father?

Regardless if the woman is carrying the child or not, shouldn't both sexes have equal rights? Wasn't equal rights part of the womens liberation movement?

Are you sure you know what you are talking about ?

Without establishing paternity, which is voluntary on the man's part, there isn't an obligation to pay child support.

If that's correct, then the situation you're describing can't happen.

 

[actuarial]

The woman can end her responsibilities at a whim, the man has no power at all. If the woman wants the baby, there is a baby born. If the woman does not want the baby, a baby is not born. If the man wants the baby, who cares, your wants and desires are irrelevant to the life of the baby you helped create. If the man does not want the baby, who cares, your wants and desires are irrelevant to the life of the baby you helped create.

This is called getting the raw end of the deal...responsibility without any authority.

The woman still has to go through an abortion to end her responsibilities. You can't just gloss over that as nothing.

If the woman wants the baby, a baby might be born (there is a pretty reasonable chance the fetus won't survive), and the mother has to actually carry and deliver that baby. Again you just gloss over that as if it's nothing.

The woman also has to live with the social stigma regardless of her decision (society doesn't look too highly on either abortion or single preggos).

It does suck for the man that if he wants to keep the baby the woman still has the right to terminate it, but that's still a better deal than what the woman has to face. And that's really a result of nature and nothing else. The reason he doesn't get that choice is he is not physically capable of going through with it. It's really easy to tell someone else to carry and birth a child. A lot harder to do it yourself.

If the man doesn't want the baby his responsibilities are financial only. He's not legally obligated to even see the child.

Are you seriously trying to tell me you'd rather your daughter get pregnant than your son get his girlfriend pregnant (in the case that it was unwanted)?

 

[cybrsage]

The woman still has to go through an abortion to end her responsibilities. You can't just gloss over that as nothing.

It can be as simple as taking a pill. While it is not nothing, it is certainly much more of an option than the man has.

If the woman wants the baby, a baby might be born (there is a pretty reasonable chance the fetus won't survive), and the mother has to actually carry and deliver that baby. Again you just gloss over that as if it's nothing.

Why yes, of course the baby might not survive. That is understood to affect both the man and the woman, though. Still does not explain why the man has no rights but still has responsiblity.

The woman also has to live with the social stigma regardless of her decision (society doesn't look too highly on either abortion or single preggos).

The single mom stigma died quite a bit ago. No one really cares about that anymore.

It does suck for the man that if he wants to keep the baby the woman still has the right to terminate it, but that's still a better deal than what the woman has to face. And that's really a result of nature and nothing else. The reason he doesn't get that choice is he is not physically capable of going through with it. It's really easy to tell someone else to carry and birth a child. A lot harder to do it yourself.

No, it is not a better deal. It is a worse deal. If the man wants the baby, he has no say at all in whether or not it is born. If he does not want the baby, he still has no say at all in whether or not it is born.

If the man doesn't want the baby his responsibilities are financial only. He's not legally obligated to even see the child.

Why should be be forced to pay when it is HER CHOICE ALONE to have it?

Are you seriously trying to tell me you'd rather your daughter get pregnant than your son get his girlfriend pregnant (in the case that it was unwanted)?

I would not want either to happen. This does not negate the easily seen fact that men have no authority but still retain responsibility.

 

[cybrsage]

Are you sure you know what you are talking about ?

Without establishing paternity, which is voluntary on the man's part, there isn't an obligation to pay child support.

If that's correct, then the situation you're describing can't happen.

In California, all the woman needs to do is name you as the father and you start losing money.

What if the father leaves the state before it’s proven that he is the father?

• The local court may use information they have to decide paternity without him. If paternity is established without the alleged father’s cooperation, the court may order him to pay child support no matter where he lives, even if he is out of California.

http://www.childsup.ca.gov/Resources/EstablishPaternity/EstablishingPaternityFAQs.aspx

No proof is needed, a women simply has to name a man who is not in the state. Once the money is taken from you, and therefor you find out about it, you can fight to make them stop. You cannot get back the money they already took, nor can you get the money you spent fighting them.

They are supposed to wait until after paternity is proven via genetic tests, but they do not actually wait.

 

[radhak]

With our current laws, I'd still much rather be a man than a woman when it comes to unwanted pregnancies.

This. I never, ever, would want to be in a position to choose between ripping out a part growing inside of me (be it with a pill or whatever), or be burdened with a child to care for with a missing 'dad'. And have to do it without the guy responsible for at least the financial part of it would be so one-sided that it's ridiculous.

It can be as simple as taking a pill. While it is not nothing, it is certainly much more of an option than the man has.

So you are saying the equivalent of a medical procedure is the less of a burden than paying a fine? Just because medical advance has made it easier to administer does not make it easier on the body and mind of the female.

The single mom stigma died quite a bit ago. No one really cares about that anymore.

Why should be be forced to pay when it is HER CHOICE ALONE to have it?

No, it's not just her choice. It's her burden. She has to bear it harder, and longer. He can just pay money and get away.

Actually, there still is an imbalance in this equation, and the guy gets the benefit of it.

 

[radhak]

In California, all the woman needs to do is name you as the father and you start losing money.


http://www.childsup.ca.gov/Resources/EstablishPaternity/EstablishingPaternityFAQs.aspx

That's not how that page describes it - seems like the testing and proof are mandatory.

No proof is needed, a women simply has to name a man who is not in the state. Once the money is taken from you, and therefor you find out about it, you can fight to make them stop. You cannot get back the money they already took, nor can you get the money you spent fighting them.

They are supposed to wait until after paternity is proven via genetic tests, but they do not actually wait.

Again, the brochure says the law gives 30 days for the guy to respond.

If authorities over-step the law (as you have described), they need to be reined in, the law is not at fault.