Pro-choice?

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: nan0bug
I'm not saying its right that the guy should get extorted for money -- I agree with you to a point that the courts are far too tilted in the womans favor as far as child support goes, and far too many women abuse the system. However, complaining about it doesn't change the fact that you and everyone else knows beforehand how it goes. The car analogy is flawed because the man in the wreck knew he would get screwed in that situation and chose to talk on the cell phone anyway, when he could have invested in one of those hands-free phones and avoided the situation altogether.

It's not flawed, you just didn't continue on with the analogy. The man could/should have been driving carefully and using a hands free cellphone. The woman could/should have as well. She knew the consequences as well as he did. Neither of them took the precautions to prevent the accident, but only the man is liable.

 

[BoberFett]

shimsham gets it.

Whether or not you agree with me, I'm just glad that I'm making sense to somebody. I'm really not a raving lunatic. I can be a prick at times, but I do have my good moments.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Saying that the government can compel a woman to let the fetus live inside her is essentially the same thing as saying that the government can compel a person to donate their kidney to someone who needs it to live. Do you really want the government to have that power ?

I guess so since too many people don't want to deal with the consequences of their own actions. I simply don't think it's right to kill an unborn human just because you didn't really want to have a child. Your kidney example has nothing to do with taking responsibilty for one's own actions.

What if the kidney is for your child. Do you think the government should be allowed to take it from you against your will ?

 

[Walleye]

Keep this one on topic as well as at a fairly reasonable level of debate, and it will stay open. Otherwise I bring out my trucks and hoses again, put out the flames, and then put on my travel agent suit and begin handing out free vacations.

Fire Fighter/Travel Agent Mod

Is Cancun available?

 

[shimsham]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Saying that the government can compel a woman to let the fetus live inside her is essentially the same thing as saying that the government can compel a person to donate their kidney to someone who needs it to live. Do you really want the government to have that power ?

I guess so since too many people don't want to deal with the consequences of their own actions. I simply don't think it's right to kill an unborn human just because you didn't really want to have a child. Your kidney example has nothing to do with taking responsibilty for one's own actions.

What if the kidney is for your child. Do you think the government should be allowed to take it from you against your will ?

which is what happens when a woman makes the decision to abort without considering the rights of the father.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Well, the mods felt the need to lock the other thread, so I'll just start a new one.

I'm not sure why some people find it so difficult to understand. Pro-choice in this society means pro-womans-choice and not pro-mans-choice.

When unprotected sex occurs, both people make a choice. The man and woman both go into it know the possbility for pregnancy exists. In the instance where pregnancy does occur and is unwanted, this society has chosen to give women a choice. They can go see a doctor and remove the unwanted fetus. The man does not have this choice. His future is shaped by the choice the woman has been given, and he has no say in the matter.

The problem goes both ways. If the woman wants the child and the man doesn't, she can have the baby and extort money out of the man for the next 18 years. If the man wants the child and the woman doesn't, she can abort it without his consent. Why shouldn't the man be able to legally force the woman to carry and bear that child (remember, she consented to unprotected sex, she made her choice) and then the man take custody and force child support out of her for 18 years?

This seems like a gross injustice to me, the legal system is NOT equal in this case. At the moment of conception, we've given all the power to the women, and the men have none.

I don't see what's so hard to understand.

Keep this one on topic as well as at a fairly reasonable level of debate, and it will stay open. Otherwise I bring out my trucks and hoses again, put out the flames, and then put on my travel agent suit and begin handing out free vacations.

Fire Fighter/Travel Agent Mod

Well, you don't NEED to have unprotected sex with her either. I guess the legal system is not equal because the burden of carrying and delivering a baby is not equal. It falls squarely on the woman. I would think that she should have more say than the sorry bastard that was so carefree with his DNA to begin with.

 

[shimsham]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Well, the mods felt the need to lock the other thread, so I'll just start a new one.

I'm not sure why some people find it so difficult to understand. Pro-choice in this society means pro-womans-choice and not pro-mans-choice.

When unprotected sex occurs, both people make a choice. The man and woman both go into it know the possbility for pregnancy exists. In the instance where pregnancy does occur and is unwanted, this society has chosen to give women a choice. They can go see a doctor and remove the unwanted fetus. The man does not have this choice. His future is shaped by the choice the woman has been given, and he has no say in the matter.

The problem goes both ways. If the woman wants the child and the man doesn't, she can have the baby and extort money out of the man for the next 18 years. If the man wants the child and the woman doesn't, she can abort it without his consent. Why shouldn't the man be able to legally force the woman to carry and bear that child (remember, she consented to unprotected sex, she made her choice) and then the man take custody and force child support out of her for 18 years?

This seems like a gross injustice to me, the legal system is NOT equal in this case. At the moment of conception, we've given all the power to the women, and the men have none.

I don't see what's so hard to understand.

Keep this one on topic as well as at a fairly reasonable level of debate, and it will stay open. Otherwise I bring out my trucks and hoses again, put out the flames, and then put on my travel agent suit and begin handing out free vacations.

Fire Fighter/Travel Agent Mod

Well, you don't NEED to have unprotected sex with her either. By the same token you are also consenting to have unprotected sex. I guess the legal system is not equal because the burden of carrying and delivering a baby is not equal. It falls squarely on the woman. I would think that she should have more say than the sorry bastard that was so carefree with his DNA to begin with.

and she was responsible with hers?

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: shimsham

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Saying that the government can compel a woman to let the fetus live inside her is essentially the same thing as saying that the government can compel a person to donate their kidney to someone who needs it to live. Do you really want the government to have that power ?

I guess so since too many people don't want to deal with the consequences of their own actions. I simply don't think it's right to kill an unborn human just because you didn't really want to have a child. Your kidney example has nothing to do with taking responsibilty for one's own actions.

What if the kidney is for your child. Do you think the government should be allowed to take it from you against your will ?

which is what happens when a woman makes the decision to abort without considering the rights of the father.

No it doesn't. The government doesn't decide if a woman has an abortion.

 

[0roo0roo]

fact is even the church hasn't been consitent on this issue through the ages.

 

[shimsham]

true. point being a decision made for you without you having a say.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: shimsham

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Well, the mods felt the need to lock the other thread, so I'll just start a new one.

I'm not sure why some people find it so difficult to understand. Pro-choice in this society means pro-womans-choice and not pro-mans-choice.

When unprotected sex occurs, both people make a choice. The man and woman both go into it know the possbility for pregnancy exists. In the instance where pregnancy does occur and is unwanted, this society has chosen to give women a choice. They can go see a doctor and remove the unwanted fetus. The man does not have this choice. His future is shaped by the choice the woman has been given, and he has no say in the matter.

The problem goes both ways. If the woman wants the child and the man doesn't, she can have the baby and extort money out of the man for the next 18 years. If the man wants the child and the woman doesn't, she can abort it without his consent. Why shouldn't the man be able to legally force the woman to carry and bear that child (remember, she consented to unprotected sex, she made her choice) and then the man take custody and force child support out of her for 18 years?

This seems like a gross injustice to me, the legal system is NOT equal in this case. At the moment of conception, we've given all the power to the women, and the men have none.

I don't see what's so hard to understand.

Keep this one on topic as well as at a fairly reasonable level of debate, and it will stay open. Otherwise I bring out my trucks and hoses again, put out the flames, and then put on my travel agent suit and begin handing out free vacations.

Fire Fighter/Travel Agent Mod

Well, you don't NEED to have unprotected sex with her either. By the same token you are also consenting to have unprotected sex. I guess the legal system is not equal because the burden of carrying and delivering a baby is not equal. It falls squarely on the woman. I would think that she should have more say than the sorry bastard that was so carefree with his DNA to begin with.

and she was responsible with hers?

No, but she has to carry and deliver the baby. If you're going to ask the question and demand sympathy for one or the other then I'm going to give it to the one who has to do all the work quite frankly. Basically, you are saying if we both were irresponsible and we both don't agree then we should go with what the man wants? Can you give me one good reason why? Other than the argument that the woman currently has more power?

If you don't like it then don't have unprotected sex. It's called being responsible...

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
No, but she has to carry and deliver the baby. If you're going to ask the question and demand sympathy for one or the other then I'm going to give it to the one who has to do all the work quite frankly. Basically, you are saying if we both were irresponsible and we both don't agree then we should go with what the man wants? Can you give me one good reason why? Other than the argument that the woman currently has more power?

If you don't like it then don't have unprotected sex. It's called being responsible...

The woman does all the work? The man is going to pay well over 25% of his income (in MN, it's 25% for the first child plus child care and medical coverage if the judge orders it) for the next 18 years and you say he does no work?

 

[abracadabra1]

I think it's a very valid point...and it probably has its roots in the 'roles' of men and women (even today). For some reason, it seems that Americans put little trust/faith in the father. The mother tends to be viewed as the binding force of the family, whereas the father just idles around aimlessly serving little or no distinct purpose. But this really lends itself to the concept of a family (i.e. married man/woman). Your circumstances tend to suggest that the man and woman are not married and share different perspectives on the child-to-be. It seems perfectly logical that a man wishing to keep his child should have the ability to force his wife to bear that child (except for the fact that she'd have to carry the baby for ~9 months).

bleh...i'm tired...g/nite

 

[shimsham]

both parties know the possible consequences, and should be prepared to deal with them. if a man is given rights to the unborn child, wouldnt that make the woman think twice about making an irresponsible decision. just as the man knows if the woman gets pregnant he will be liable to take care of the child if the woman keeps it, whether he wants it or not. the woman should be held liable to carry the baby until delivery to give to the father if he wants it and she doesnt. why should the man be stripped of rights to his child just because he was not born a woman?

i dont demand sympathy for anyone in that situation. everyone knows where babies come from, so why should i? you play, you may have to pay.

 

[shimsham]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: shimsham

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Well, the mods felt the need to lock the other thread, so I'll just start a new one.

I'm not sure why some people find it so difficult to understand. Pro-choice in this society means pro-womans-choice and not pro-mans-choice.

When unprotected sex occurs, both people make a choice. The man and woman both go into it know the possbility for pregnancy exists. In the instance where pregnancy does occur and is unwanted, this society has chosen to give women a choice. They can go see a doctor and remove the unwanted fetus. The man does not have this choice. His future is shaped by the choice the woman has been given, and he has no say in the matter.

The problem goes both ways. If the woman wants the child and the man doesn't, she can have the baby and extort money out of the man for the next 18 years. If the man wants the child and the woman doesn't, she can abort it without his consent. Why shouldn't the man be able to legally force the woman to carry and bear that child (remember, she consented to unprotected sex, she made her choice) and then the man take custody and force child support out of her for 18 years?

This seems like a gross injustice to me, the legal system is NOT equal in this case. At the moment of conception, we've given all the power to the women, and the men have none.

I don't see what's so hard to understand.

Keep this one on topic as well as at a fairly reasonable level of debate, and it will stay open. Otherwise I bring out my trucks and hoses again, put out the flames, and then put on my travel agent suit and begin handing out free vacations.

Fire Fighter/Travel Agent Mod

Well, you don't NEED to have unprotected sex with her either. By the same token you are also consenting to have unprotected sex. I guess the legal system is not equal because the burden of carrying and delivering a baby is not equal. It falls squarely on the woman. I would think that she should have more say than the sorry bastard that was so carefree with his DNA to begin with.

and she was responsible with hers?

No, but she has to carry and deliver the baby. If you're going to ask the question and demand sympathy for one or the other then I'm going to give it to the one who has to do all the work quite frankly. Basically, you are saying if we both were irresponsible and we both don't agree then we should go with what the man wants? Can you give me one good reason why? Other than the argument that the woman currently has more power?

If you don't like it then don't have unprotected sex. It's called being responsible...

EXACTLY! so why should it be any different for the woman?

nice edit. and for the record, im married with 2 children. my wife became pregnant before we got married, but i wouldnt have had sex with if i wasnt prepared to accept the responsibility.

 

[MichaelD]

You quoted me in your sig! How cool! I faintly remember saying that...a long time ago. Sure sounds like something I'd say, that's for sure.

OK, what you said in your original post in this thread is absolutely correct; the woman has the right to hold the man hostage for the next 18 years. I know this situation very well.

FWIW, here's a little info on my situation; or what it was back then.

EX-GF (7 weeks broken up) turns up pregnant; she went off the pill and didn't tell me. Nice eh?

There was some (OK, a whole lot) of doubt during the pregnancy as to the source of the babies' paternity. We'll leave it at that. During that time, we argued constantly (what else is new?) she threatened to have court papers drawn up that agreed that I would give up all visitation rights and have zero contact with the child. In turn, she would give up any right to child support. Permanently. I told her to go for it. Her gold digging friends talked her out of it. :| I was the only guy in that group w/a decent job...go figure.

A few weeks after my son was born, a blood test was performed. I am most definitely the father. Prior to the court date to get child support finalized

I had some decisions to make. The most important one was "just how big a piece of my son's life will I be?" Do I see the kid? Do I do visitation? Or do I just never see him again and just treat the child support like any other bill and just pay the damn thing?

I decided to be a part of his life and see him and help raise him. Parts of it have been very rewarding; teaching him to read and swim and talk...trips to the museums and zoo have given me memories I'll never forget.

But thru it all, his mother has used the fact that I love my son as a weapon against me. To say that she makes it difficult for me and on me to see him is a blazen understatement.

She files at the courthouse for a child support review every two years (her legal right) all the while she hits me up for money for everything. I stopped giving her extra money this past year. I buy him clothes and other things he needs when I can; but heaven forbid if I'm short one week and can't give her money for yet another afterschool activity she enrolled him in. Then I'm a useless sonofabitch.

She has caused me and my family untold amounts of emotional pain. She has tried to ruin me professionally and financially. She almost succeeded. I worked two jobs for the past seven years to compensate. That's over, thank goodness.

I love my son. But I will never be the same person mentally due to everything that has transpired.

Guys, remember this; your obligation just might take longer than the two minutes it took you to stick it in there.

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
No, but she has to carry and deliver the baby. If you're going to ask the question and demand sympathy for one or the other then I'm going to give it to the one who has to do all the work quite frankly. Basically, you are saying if we both were irresponsible and we both don't agree then we should go with what the man wants? Can you give me one good reason why? Other than the argument that the woman currently has more power?

If you don't like it then don't have unprotected sex. It's called being responsible...

The woman does all the work? The man is going to pay well over 25% of his income (in MN, it's 25% for the first child plus child care and medical coverage if the judge orders it) for the next 18 years and you say he does no work?

that's "if" he obeys the order and I can tell you that's a big "if".I can also tell you that the mother also bears a fiscal cost,$$$ to feed,clothe and house the kids,child care costs (which are HUGE in many areas of the country) and lost opportunity costs,kids can't raise themselves while their primary parent works 2-3 jobs.

I reared 3 kids,all born within a marriage and in the final wash I can tell you without blinking an eye who bore the brunt of the costs of that,physicallly,emotionally,fiscally without blinking an eye...me.Not saying their dad doesn't love them but the one who paid the highest personal price for jointly made reproductive choices was me. I have one child still at home,since Jan 2003 I've received less than $500 in child support and can count on one hand how many times Dad has actually spent time with our child,you do the math.
'

 

[Ornery]

"Saying that the government can compel a woman to let the fetus live inside her is essentially the same thing as saying that the government can compel a person to donate their kidney to someone who needs it to live."

If that baby has the same Constitutional rights as the mom, she sure as hell may not kill it! There are MANY pro choice people who are against late term abortion. In their mind, that 'fetus' aquired the right to some protection at some point. Whether mom or dad want that kid, or are willing to pay for it, becomes a moot issue.



Senate Sends Abortion Procedures Ban to Conference Cmte - September 23, 2003

• A New York Times editorial sharply criticized the bill, writing that "the measure's deceptively sweeping wording, would, in effect, overturn Roe by criminalizing many midterm abortions and by omitting any exception to protect the health of the woman." CRR is preparing an immediate court challenge to the ban if it becomes law.

Confusion remains on unborn babies? constitutional rights

• Scott Peterson is being held on two charges of murder-one for the murder of his son, who way yet unborn at the time of Laci?s disappearance. But, his little body emerged from his mother after her death and now he also is being considered a victim.
  
  But, had Laci wanted to abort this same baby on December 23, she had every legal right to do so. Exactly when did he become a person protected by our Constitution?

Fighting Fetal Rights - Legislative Documents

 

[mcveigh]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
mcveigh

You're pissed at your sister-in-law because she chose to not make you an uncle? Isn't that pretty selfish?

not i'm not mad cause I could have been an uncle, it would have been neat though, i'm pissed b/c she's a selfish b!tch.
her actions affect more than herself.

 

[UnatcoAgent]

Originally posted by: MichaelD
You quoted me in your sig! How cool! I faintly remember saying that...a long time ago. Sure sounds like something I'd say, that's for sure.

OK, what you said in your original post in this thread is absolutely correct; the woman has the right to hold the man hostage for the next 18 years. I know this situation very well.

FWIW, here's a little info on my situation; or what it was back then.

EX-GF (7 weeks broken up) turns up pregnant; she went off the pill and didn't tell me. Nice eh?

There was some (OK, a whole lot) of doubt during the pregnancy as to the source of the babies' paternity. We'll leave it at that. During that time, we argued constantly (what else is new?) she threatened to have court papers drawn up that agreed that I would give up all visitation rights and have zero contact with the child. In turn, she would give up any right to child support. Permanently. I told her to go for it. Her gold digging friends talked her out of it. :| I was the only guy in that group w/a decent job...go figure.

A few weeks after my son was born, a blood test was performed. I am most definitely the father. Prior to the court date to get child support finalized

I had some decisions to make. The most important one was "just how big a piece of my son's life will I be?" Do I see the kid? Do I do visitation? Or do I just never see him again and just treat the child support like any other bill and just pay the damn thing?

I decided to be a part of his life and see him and help raise him. Parts of it have been very rewarding; teaching him to read and swim and talk...trips to the museums and zoo have given me memories I'll never forget.

But thru it all, his mother has used the fact that I love my son as a weapon against me. To say that she makes it difficult for me and on me to see him is a blazen understatement.

She files at the courthouse for a child support review every two years (her legal right) all the while she hits me up for money for everything. I stopped giving her extra money this past year. I buy him clothes and other things he needs when I can; but heaven forbid if I'm short one week and can't give her money for yet another afterschool activity she enrolled him in. Then I'm a useless sonofabitch.

She has caused me and my family untold amounts of emotional pain. She has tried to ruin me professionally and financially. She almost succeeded. I worked two jobs for the past seven years to compensate. That's over, thank goodness.

I love my son. But I will never be the same person mentally due to everything that has transpired.

Guys, remember this; your obligation just might take longer than the two minutes it took you to stick it in there.

Sorry to hear about that situation with the woman, but atleast you have a son that loves you.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
that's "if" he obeys the order and I can tell you that's a big "if".I can also tell you that the mother also bears a fiscal cost,$$$ to feed,clothe and house the kids,child care costs (which are HUGE in many areas of the country) and lost opportunity costs,kids can't raise themselves while their primary parent works 2-3 jobs.

I reared 3 kids,all born within a marriage and in the final wash I can tell you without blinking an eye who bore the brunt of the costs of that,physicallly,emotionally,fiscally without blinking an eye...me.Not saying their dad doesn't love them but the one who paid the highest personal price for jointly made reproductive choices was me. I have one child still at home,since Jan 2003 I've received less than $500 in child support and can count on one hand how many times Dad has actually spent time with our child,you do the math.
'

"If" he pays? You're a different generation, so I'll forgive you your ignorance. Maybe in the past guys could skip out due to the inefficiency of the system. Now it's very difficult for a father to have a job and get away without paying these days. Anybody I know who pays child support has been hounded by a myriad of agencies. Technology and legislation have made cooperation between various agencies far easier than in the past. If a woman wants child support and the guy has a job, she'll get support.

 

[isaacmacdonald]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Your issue isn't with the law, it's with how reproduction works. There is no possible way that it could be "fair" for a man to have any say about what a woman does with her body.

Therein lies the problem. Depending on how it suits somebody's purposes, a fetus can either be just a part of the woman's body, or it can be separate entity.

If a woman wants to have an abortion, all she's doing is getting rid of a part of her body. It's hers and she can do with it what she wants.

If a woman wants to extort money from a man, it's not just a part of her body, it's something that the man helped put there.

So which is it? Does it belong to the man or doesn't it? If it does belong to the man, then he should have the right to say what happens to it. If it doesn't belong to the man then he shouldn't have to pay for it.

Thank you Parrot Sketch, for helping me make my point perfectly.

that is a fascinating observation.

 

[TravisT]

On one had I feel that if you have had a child, regardless of if you want it, you should feel more than obligated to face up to the actions you chose. On the other hand, I do not feel you should be able to tell a woman to have an abortion, but I do feel if a man wants the child, then he should be able to force the woman to have it, then he should raise it and the woman pay child support.

I do not think its right for a woman to have the option to kill a man's own child. Not sure how that can be justified correctly regardless of if she's the one carrying it for 9 months or not.

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
that's "if" he obeys the order and I can tell you that's a big "if".I can also tell you that the mother also bears a fiscal cost,$$$ to feed,clothe and house the kids,child care costs (which are HUGE in many areas of the country) and lost opportunity costs,kids can't raise themselves while their primary parent works 2-3 jobs.

I reared 3 kids,all born within a marriage and in the final wash I can tell you without blinking an eye who bore the brunt of the costs of that,physicallly,emotionally,fiscally without blinking an eye...me.Not saying their dad doesn't love them but the one who paid the highest personal price for jointly made reproductive choices was me. I have one child still at home,since Jan 2003 I've received less than $500 in child support and can count on one hand how many times Dad has actually spent time with our child,you do the math.
'

"If" he pays? You're a different generation, so I'll forgive you your ignorance. Maybe in the past guys could skip out due to the inefficiency of the system. Now it's very difficult for a father to have a job and get away without paying these days. Anybody I know who pays child support has been hounded by a myriad of agencies. Technology and legislation have made cooperation between various agencies far easier than in the past. If a woman wants child support and the guy has a job, she'll get support.

If a man is in a trade with a lot of under the table work then that man can very easily avoid paying child support.

 

[PunDogg]

Pro-Choice for sure

Dogg