|
Grex > Agora56 > #158: South Dakota challenges Roe v Wade | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 254 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 103 of 254:
| 
Mar 9 16:27 UTC 2006 |
And since a man can donate his sperm to a sperm bank and end up being a father
without even knowing it, let alone having to support the child, why shouldn't
he be able to opt out in this other circumstance?
|
edina
|
|
response 104 of 254:
|
Mar 9 16:36 UTC 2006 |
So let me get this straight. Couple has one night stand. They are both
willing participants. She gets pregnant. She doesn't believe in abortion.
He doesn't want to be a father. He should get to opt out?
|
johnnie
|
|
response 105 of 254:
|
Mar 9 16:41 UTC 2006 |
>starting a legal campaign to allow men who don't want to be a father to
>opt out of the financial responsibility for supporting their child.
"The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among
abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended
pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial
responsibilities of fatherhood."
Yeah, great. Guys get to have fun, gals get to "choose" from three
extremely difficult options.
Jerk. Wear a condom next time, or get yourself snipped. $500/month is
cheap compared to the responsibility and difficulty of raising a child.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 106 of 254:
|
Mar 9 16:43 UTC 2006 |
resp:102 Richard, read the whole response- note the part where JEP says
he's AGAINST the guy's position.
It's again, grey. What if a man and a woman enter a relationship wherein
he flat out says he does NOT want kids, and she agrees... only to turn
around and stop taking the pill, put pin holes in the condoms, whatever?
He didn't want the child- but now she's pregnant. Should he be held
responsible?
Turn it around- she says she doesn't want kids- and he agrees, and then
sabotages the birth control. Should she be held responsible, ie carry
the child to term?
And how can we tell the difference between an 'act of God' (i.e. they
did everything necessary to avoid pregnancy and still ended up with it)
and sabotage?
That said, I do think that pro-life people should be chanting for all
men to be held responsible for the children they create. What the angry
side of me thinks is that the men in the above suit are likely to be
pro-life, but they don't want to be responsible- placing the entire
burden on the woman.
|
richard
|
|
response 107 of 254:
|
Mar 9 17:03 UTC 2006 |
re #104 edina, I said only IF he had the mother's written permission.
Michael Jackson is being sued now by the mother of his two kids. He paid her
off and got her to sign an agreement opting out of her parental rights. Now
because she thinks he's become emotionally unstable, she wants to opt BACK
IN and get custody of the kids. The question is can you back out of a written
agreement where you willingly gave up your parental rights?
|
jep
|
|
response 108 of 254:
|
Mar 9 17:12 UTC 2006 |
Richard, I missed the part where I said I didn't think the guy should
be able to get out of his financial responsibilities if the mother
agreed. Can you refer to my statement on that subject? Or more fully
explain my position? I'd really like to know what I think. Thanks!
|
jep
|
|
response 109 of 254:
|
Mar 9 17:13 UTC 2006 |
I am pretty sure Richard didn't read what I said...
|
jadecat
|
|
response 110 of 254:
|
Mar 9 17:13 UTC 2006 |
resp:107 I would imagine so if you can prove some sort of undue coercion
took place (how is that word spelled?).
|
jadecat
|
|
response 111 of 254:
|
Mar 9 17:14 UTC 2006 |
resp:109 well no... but you posted the information - so obviously you
agree with it- right? ;)
|
richard
|
|
response 112 of 254:
|
Mar 9 17:14 UTC 2006 |
jep you said you were AGAINST the guy's position, and I took that to mean the
guy who was filing that lawsuit to allow men to opt out of their parental
responsibilities. If you are against that guy's position, does that not mean
that you are against him or any guy being able to opt out of parental
responsibilities?
|
richard
|
|
response 113 of 254:
|
Mar 9 17:15 UTC 2006 |
|
richard
|
|
response 114 of 254:
|
Mar 9 17:17 UTC 2006 |
jep said:
"The lawsuit was filed in district court in Michigan.
I'm against
the guy's position. Both parents should be responsible for .."
sounds clear to me...
|
jep
|
|
response 115 of 254:
|
Mar 9 17:17 UTC 2006 |
Richard, please go back and read what I said, and the article to which
I referred, then let me know what you saw. Take your time. *Please*.
I didn't say anything like what you think I did. I didn't say anything
on any related subject.
|
richard
|
|
response 116 of 254:
|
Mar 9 17:19 UTC 2006 |
I just quoted what you said, you said you were against the guy's position,
that you think as a moral position both parents should be responsible. I said
that was akin to your wanting the law, or any outside institution, to impose
moral viewpoints on people who should make their own decisions.
|
klg
|
|
response 117 of 254:
|
Mar 9 17:24 UTC 2006 |
That article doesn't seem to include information in other articles on
this subject that the woman told the father she was either taking
contraceptives or otherwise unable to have children.
From the Detroit News:
"It's just not fair. She has options in this. As a man, I have no
options and am forced to live with her choices," Dubay said Wednesday
night. "I was up front. I was clear that I didn't want to be a father
and she reassured me that she was incapable of getting pregnant."
|
richard
|
|
response 118 of 254:
|
Mar 9 17:25 UTC 2006 |
jep are you against the concept of sperm banks, which allow women to have
babies without a father being part of the relationship?
|
richard
|
|
response 119 of 254:
|
Mar 9 17:28 UTC 2006 |
What if the pregnancy occuring was a deception on the part of the mother.
The mother stopped taking the pill and didn't tell the guy or ripped off the
condom in midact. Thereby she is forcing some man to be a father who doesn't
want to be. Does the father have any rights in this case?
|
klg
|
|
response 120 of 254:
|
Mar 9 17:29 UTC 2006 |
Are you asking that question only with the comma after "sperm banks" or
are you asking about sperm banks, in general?
|
richard
|
|
response 121 of 254:
|
Mar 9 17:35 UTC 2006 |
a mother can opt out of a pregnancy by having an abortion, this lawsuit seems
to point that a man CAN'T opt out. A man can't force a mother to have his
child against her will. But a woman can under certain circumstances cause
a man to become a father against his will. So I think this guy has a case.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 122 of 254:
|
Mar 9 17:37 UTC 2006 |
I believe that the purpose of financial support is to prevent an
innocent child from being condemned to poverty for the poor choices
made by his biological parent(s), not a punishment for having sex.
If a woman behaves in a deceptive or fraudulent fashion then the man
may have the right to pursue some sort of legal action against her,
but it hardly seems reasonable to punish the child.
|
richard
|
|
response 123 of 254:
|
Mar 9 17:40 UTC 2006 |
I think that if a woman gets pregnant in a manner where the guy was deceived,
then he should not necessarily be required to take responsibility for the i
financial consequences of her deception.
|
edina
|
|
response 124 of 254:
|
Mar 9 17:45 UTC 2006 |
And who does this penalize most?
|
richard
|
|
response 125 of 254:
|
Mar 9 17:51 UTC 2006 |
If a woman had unprotected sex with a man because the man told her he had a
vasectomy, and the man was lying and she became pregnant, should the mother
be able to legally opt out of motherhood and force the man to be the sole
parent?
|
edina
|
|
response 126 of 254:
|
Mar 9 17:53 UTC 2006 |
My question comes back (and always will come back) to who this penalizes most.
|
tod
|
|
response 127 of 254:
|
Mar 9 18:06 UTC 2006 |
Unless taxpayers are willing to support disadvantaged kids then they shouldn't
be mandating their birth.
|