|
Grex > Agora56 > #158: South Dakota challenges Roe v Wade | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 254 responses total. |
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.
|
richard
|
|
response 128 of 254:
|
Mar 9 18:13 UTC 2006 |
should a woman who is pregnant due to being raped be able to opt out of her
maternal parental rights after birth, even if it means the state has to care
for the kid?
|
richard
|
|
response 129 of 254:
|
Mar 9 18:14 UTC 2006 |
better example, if a woman is "date raped" and made pregnant by someone she
knows, should she be able to opt out of parenthood and force the guy to be
the parent?
|
edina
|
|
response 130 of 254:
|
Mar 9 18:16 UTC 2006 |
Don't they call that "adoption"?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 131 of 254:
|
Mar 9 18:30 UTC 2006 |
Clearly, men and women should sign a new contract before each coitus, just
to avoid any possible future misunderstandings.
|
richard
|
|
response 132 of 254:
|
Mar 9 18:41 UTC 2006 |
re #130 adoption is an option, but that usually ends up with the child being
kept at taxpayer expense until an adoption actually occurs. The question is,
if a mother can opt out of parenthood, why can't a man?
|
edina
|
|
response 133 of 254:
|
Mar 9 18:43 UTC 2006 |
"Until an adoption occurs"....the way things are in this day and age, many
babies go directly home with their adopting parents.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 134 of 254:
|
Mar 9 19:01 UTC 2006 |
Babies are wanted by a great number of couples who are unable to have
children. So if there is a delay between birth and adoption I can't
think it's very long at all.
|
richard
|
|
response 135 of 254:
|
Mar 9 19:13 UTC 2006 |
but many couples only want a baby of their own race, or only want a healthy
baby. my cousin runs an adoption agency and she'll tell you that it is VERY
hard to get handicapped children adopted, or minority children. in fact she
has adopted three handicapped, I should say physically challenged, daughters
herself, so she leads by example. Her agency has no rules against white
couples adopting black children, though some agencies do, but the vast
majority of white couples who come into her office won't even consider a black
child. Sad but true. So some delays are inevitable.
|
jep
|
|
response 136 of 254:
|
Mar 9 19:25 UTC 2006 |
Well, if you're *asking* me what I think, that's different than making
up a position for me. I'll answer questions if *asked*.
I would not and will not participate in a sperm bank. I would not
participate in impregnating a woman in any way if I don't plan to be
there to be my child's father.
If my zipper goes down, my responsibility goes up. It's an 18 year
commitment, every time. Not everyone feels that way, but I do. No
child of mine will ever primarily be an accident. I don't know how to
state it any more strongly than that. I hope I won't be misinterpreted.
I wouldn't ban sperm banks or sperm donations. I think they're a
terrible idea myself but it's ridiculous to state, in today's society,
that single parents and gay parents cannot be good parents. Many of
them are. I wouldn't ban surrogate parents or planned adoptions,
either.
|
richard
|
|
response 137 of 254:
|
Mar 9 19:31 UTC 2006 |
I didnt make up any position for you. You SAID you were against that guy's
case, and you SAID you think a father should not be able to opt out of his
parental responsibilities. I quoted you word for word. There was no mistake,
no misinterpretation, and no position stated that you hadn't already stated
yourself.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 138 of 254:
|
Mar 9 19:33 UTC 2006 |
resp:137 JEP's position doesn't necessarily mean he wants the law you
mentioned put in place.
|
richard
|
|
response 139 of 254:
|
Mar 9 19:34 UTC 2006 |
you don't think that if he's against this guy's lawsuit that he wouldn't be
against any law that would come out of his winning that lawsuit? You are
splitting hairs here anne.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 140 of 254:
|
Mar 9 19:37 UTC 2006 |
To me it's almost this simple- if abortion is illegal then no man should
be able to walk away from the responsibilities of impregnating a woman.
He should be responsible for 1/2 the costs associated with the pregnancy
and rearing the child.
If abortion is legal, then I think there should be ways for a man to
sign off on responsibility for a pregnancy. If the woman has an out the
guy should too- neither one being able to force her to continue the
pregnancy, and neither being able to force her into ending it.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 141 of 254:
|
Mar 9 19:38 UTC 2006 |
resp:139 being against a law does not imply wanting to create a
different law.
|