|
Post by rambler on May 12, 2006 0:27:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tommygun on May 12, 2006 0:29:51 GMT -5
The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit -- nicknamed Roe v. Wade for Men -- to be filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter. The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause. 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. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose. dear tiegar - any inconsistency Interesting idea. Of course this argument lies on the premise that the choice of abortion, adoption or raising a child is a simple flippant choice in which a woman puts little or no thought into. Finance and giving birth to a child are two seperate cases. A woman doesn't have an abortion simply because she doesn't want to have a baby. There are many factors into deciding to have an abortion or have a child. For example, having the child may cause harm to mother and child, where as abortion can save at least one life. Or the mother may be mentally unable (maybe has a mental illness) to have a child, which could also bring harm to the child. These are heavy decisions. Deciding that you don't want to give money just coz a woman has a right to abortion is just wrong. On the other hand I can see the counter-argument. The man did not ask for the child, or for the woman to have the child, so why should he have to pay child support? Well the woman did not ask to get pregnant either (did she climb on top of herself and make herself pregnant?) so its not fair that the man should be able to skip along with his life unchanged for a mistake they both made. Of course, there is the chance that the female is in Soap Opera Land and tricked the man into getting her pregnant...
|
|
|
Post by littledick on May 12, 2006 0:33:26 GMT -5
I don't know if that is entirely true, it came across to me more as a lack of interest or care about the decision - aka - it's the woman's decision, how difficult it is for her to make or how much thought she puts into it is irrelevant to the decision of who pays support.
The proposed "mechanism" in the article was as follows - a man should have a window to legally withdraw from having to provide ANY financial support for a baby following a sexual encounter where both parties did not intend to make a baby. Once the window closes without a man making a choice to opt out he has to pay support - but if he opts out in time he pays nothing.
They do acknowledge they will almost certainly lose the court case ... - any inconsistency between this post and previous posts is to be resolved in favour of this post
|
|
|
Post by radio97 on May 12, 2006 0:50:57 GMT -5
But if she opts out in time then the woman is pretty much forced to have an abortion - and that decision could destroy her. As said, it's not a decision women take lightly. It's much easier for a man to tell someone else to have an abortion than for a woman to terminate her own pregnancy. Yes, some women may not care and are totally fine with having abortions. But that's not all women. We're baby-making, nurturing things - it's not natural for us to just terminate pregnancies like that.
Then again, if a woman doesn't agree with abortions, she should really be a bit more careful with sleeping with men in the first place. But hey, it happens, and women are the carriers of this burden, not men, and we can't deny that.
|
|
|
Post by fusil on May 12, 2006 17:25:01 GMT -5
Hey there folks,
Do these guys think that a condom is some sort of an appartment?
It's the male that starts the chain reaction, he's the one in charge of the fuel rod.
The reactor don't work without the fuel. Qperator's responsibility.
Fusil.
|
|
|
Post by lennie on May 12, 2006 22:13:08 GMT -5
What a load of cowpoo. Both parties are responsible. There are numerous methods of contraception available for starters and it is each partners responsibility to use them.
|
|
|
Post by angryjoe on May 16, 2006 20:09:48 GMT -5
Absobloodylutely.... if you don't want kids go and (deleted) a (deleted) with your (deleted)(deleted)(deleted).
If (deleted)ing is something you can't do without, be prepared for the 18 year stretch and a whole lotta child support.
I have two great teenage stepsons who are a constant source of pride to me, unfortunately their rat-mongrel father has spent the last 15 years dodging his responsibilities by submitting dodgy income returns simply to avoid paying a reasonable amount of child support. All this does is make him look like a gymp to his kids, as your average teenager is quite perceptive.
Unfortunately there ain't much to be done apart from a shaking of the head and carrying on hoping that the examples we set for our kids will ensure they don't repeat the mistakes of thier father.
|
|