Roe v. Wade - For Men

National Treasure Movie quote: "Someone has to go to prison, Ben"

I feel the same way about child support. Someone has to pay up.
 
deafgal001 said:
National Treasure Movie quote: "Someone has to go to prison, Ben"

I feel the same way about child support. Someone has to pay up.
Click to expand...

these were all arguments during the abortion debate ..... :roll:

its "ok" for women to abort, but not "ok" when men opt out?
 
during abortion, the woman is free from responsibilities. The man is free along with her. if she doesn't have abortion and gave birth, she is not free to opt out from responsibility (she would be accused of child neglect if she did), and neither is the man.
 
Steinhauer said:
these were all arguments during the abortion debate ..... :roll:

its "ok" for women to abort, but not "ok" when men opt out?
Click to expand...

you'd have a valid argument there if a man can carry fetus inside him but as usual - another fallacious post....
 
deafgal001 said:
during abortion, the woman is free from responsibilities. The man is free along with her. if she doesn't have abortion and gave birth, she is not free to opt out from responsibility (she would be accused of child neglect if she did), and neither is the man.
Click to expand...

That is the issue being addressed in the OP - the man did NOT want children ... period. He was told that he could not impregnate his gf. She deceived him and chose to get pregnant. She did not "opt-out" but instead "forced" a responsibilty on her bf.

A responsibilty he never wanted. A responsibility he made clear he never wanted from the beginning. I am sure he would have made different choices if he was actually told the truth (that she could conceive and was deceiving him to conceive).

In a situation like THAT one, I would wholeheartedly support his decision to "opt out". I would wholeheartedly support any lawsuit that would be set up to protect men from situations like that one.

He was intentionally mislead. Sperm banks do not make child support payments. She left him the moment she realized she had conceived. It was all about getting pregnant and having a baby. She did not care about his goals, she only cared about hers and she deceived him intentionally.

However, in a situation where a man was deceiving his gf, telling her he could not get her pregnant, that he was wearing an invisible condom - or all she had to do was jump up and down (and yes, I know, it sounds stupid, but lots of women have fallen for much less BS) and then she gets pregnant - I do not believe the guy has the right to opt out in a situation like that. I believe he should be nailed to the wall with child support payments.


Anyways ... I am sure someone will tell me why they disagree :roll:

9 months does not = 18 years
 
Steinhauer said:
That is the issue being addressed in the OP - the man did NOT want children ... period. He was told that he could not impregnate his gf. She deceived him and chose to get pregnant. She did not "opt-out" but instead "forced" a responsibilty on her bf.

A responsibilty he never wanted. A responsibility he made clear he never wanted from the beginning. I am sure he would have made different choices if he was actually told the truth (that she could conceive and was deceiving him to conceive).

In a situation like THAT one, I would wholeheartedly support his decision to "opt out". I would wholeheartedly support any lawsuit that would be set up to protect men from situations like that one.

He was intentionally mislead. Sperm banks do not make child support payments. She left him the moment she realized she had conceived. It was all about getting pregnant and having a baby. She did not care about his goals, she only cared about hers and she deceived him intentionally.

However, in a situation where a man was deceiving his gf, telling her he could not get her pregnant, that he was wearing an invisible condom - or all she had to do was jump up and down (and yes, I know, it sounds stupid, but lots of women have fallen for much less BS) and then she gets pregnant - I do not believe the guy has the right to opt out in a situation like that. I believe he should be nailed to the wall with child support payments.


Anyways ... I am sure someone will tell me why they disagree :roll:

9 months does not = 18 years
Click to expand...

great. what's next? giving all people an "opt-out" option from any contracts they signed because they were deceived by advertisements even though there is detailed information on back aka fine print?
 
Jiro said:
great. what's next? giving all people an "opt-out" option from any contracts they signed because they were deceived by advertisements even though there is detailed information on back aka fine print?
Click to expand...

well, its not like killing a baby or anything ..... :roll:


in the OP's situation, there was no fine print, it was underscored and in bold "I do not want to be a father"


I guess what he wanted meant nothing. No rights, no recourse .... yada yada.
 
I have been comparing the Roe v. Wade case with the case the OP is bringing up:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade


In September 1969, Norma L. McCorvey discovered she was pregnant. She returned to Dallas, where friends advised her to assert falsely that she had been raped, because then she could obtain a legal abortion (with the understanding that Texas' anti-abortion laws allowed abortion in the cases of rape and incest). However, this scheme failed, as there was no police report documenting the alleged rape. She attempted to obtain an illegal abortion, but found the unauthorized site shuttered, closed down by the police. Eventually, she was referred to attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington.[3]

In 1970, attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington filed suit in a U.S. District Court in Texas on behalf of Norma L. McCorvey (under the alias Jane Roe). At the time, McCorvey was no longer claiming her pregnancy was the result of rape, and she later acknowledged she had lied earlier about having been raped.[4][5] The defendant in the case was Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade, representing the State of Texas. "Rape" is not mentioned anywhere in the court documents and was never a consideration in Roe v. Wade.[6] Norma McCorvey's affidavit does not include the word "rape".[7]
Click to expand...


So, where was the dad? Nothing I can find ever mentions him. Did he want his child? Was he ever given the option to take care of his child?

Why can't I find any information on that? I think it would be interesting to know.


edit to add:


hmmm ... interesting, the right for a mother to have an abortion was based on this statement from Roe v. Wade:

The Court said that a woman may not be mentally ready to handle a child at this stage in her life, or the child might interfere with her career path, and that is so important to her that the State has no right to make a law against it.
Click to expand...


and here is an attorney who will take a "father's right to choose" case for free:

http://justifiedright.typepad.com/j.../roe-v-wade-and-the-rights-of-the-father.html
 
Steinhauer said:
well, its not like killing a baby or anything ..... :roll:
Click to expand...
opting out is a death warrant for baby. How is she gonna pay for it? great.

more poverty. more kids in overburdened, underfunded welfare program (which means more sexual abuse cases) who will grow up to be criminals. or mom killing the baby to spare its life from poverty.

Steinhauer said:
in the OP's situation, there was no fine print, it was underscored and in bold "I do not want to be a father"


I guess what he wanted meant nothing. No rights, no recourse .... yada yada.
Click to expand...

what's next? if a man got STD from her.. he sues her to pay for his medical cost? :roll:

Once you bang her - you automatically accept all risks and responsibility - despite of any verbal agreement or acknowledgement. If you are not willing to accept the consequence - then don't do it. simple as that.
 
Jiro said:
opting out is a death warrant for baby. How is she gonna pay for it? great.

more poverty. more kids in overburdened, underfunded welfare program (which means more sexual abuse cases) who will grow up to be criminals. or mom killing the baby to spare its life from poverty.



what's next? if a man got STD from her.. he sues her to pay for his medical cost? :roll:

Once you bang her - you automatically accept all risks and responsibility - despite of any verbal agreement or acknowledgement. If you are not willing to accept the consequence - then don't do it. simple as that.
Click to expand...

Same apply to women who get pregnant unintentionally .... or no?

Your still missing the point.
 
Steinhauer said:
well, its not like killing a baby or anything ..... :roll:


in the OP's situation, there was no fine print, it was underscored and in bold "I do not want to be a father"


I guess what he wanted meant nothing. No rights, no recourse .... yada yada.
Click to expand...

the fine print is in federal and state laws. in fact - it's in simple plain English - https://newyorkchildsupport.com/non_custodial_parent_info.html

What is Child Support?
Child support is financial support provided by the noncustodial parent. Child support includes
Cash payments (based on the parent's income and the needs of the child)
Health insurance for the child (medical support)
Payments for child care, and
Payments for reasonable health care costs that are not covered by health insurance.

Family court officials (support magistrates) determine the amount of child support the noncustodial parent will pay (see how much, below). Under New York State law, parents are responsible for supporting their child until the child is 21 years old.

Every child is entitled to financial and emotional support from both parents. This is true even if the child's parents do not live together and were never married.

If you are the parent of a child, New York law says you are responsible for the financial support of that child until the child is 21, even if you have never lived with the child or do not live with the child now.

If the child does not live with you, you will have to make child support payments to the other parent or to the person who is taking care of the child. This support should start the day your child is born.
Click to expand...

What happens if I do not pay what I am supposed to?
Your obligation to support your child begins when your child is born. If you do not start paying support when your child is born or do not pay what you owe for pregnancy or birth expenses, the amount you should have paid starts to add up. Even if you start paying later, you may still owe money from the time before you were paying. This is another reason why it is best to pay support right from the beginning.
Click to expand...

What else do I need to think about?
Were both your parents there when you grew up?

How did it feel?

Take care of what counts…

Be there for your child.
Click to expand...

simple. very simple. Beside - Everybody lies.... including cheating bf/gf. You have every power and rights to cover your ass. How? simple - don't do it.
 
Who has more say in whether the "dad" is a parent or not? In fact, does the "father" have a right to choose .... at all?

No.

well .... before conception, yes, after .... no.
 
Steinhauer said:
Who has more say in whether the "dad" is a parent or not?
Click to expand...
please refer to Child Support link in my post #176.

What if I am not sure or do not think the child is mine?
If you are not sure or do not think you are the father of the child, do not sign the Acknowledgment of Paternity form. You or the person taking care of the child can start a court action to decide the issue of paternity. If this action is taken, you will have to appear in court. You have the right to hire a lawyer for this action; if you are unable to afford a lawyer, New York State law provides that the court may assign you one.

When you appear in court, the court will order you, the mother, and the child to submit to certain genetic or DNA tests. These tests are simple to take and they will tell how likely it is that you are the child's father. These tests are very accurate, and if you are not the child's father, these tests will show that you are not the child's father.

Based on the genetic or DNA tests and other evidence, the court will decide whether or not you are legally the father of the child. If you are not the father, the court will dismiss the action brought against you and will not hold you responsible for paying child support for the child. If you are the father, the court will issue an order of filiation that says you are the child's father. After the order of filiation is issued, the court will decide how much you will have to pay for child support.
Click to expand...

does this answer your question?

Steinhauer said:
In fact, does the "father" have a right to choose .... at all?

No.

well .... before conception, yes, after .... no.
Click to expand...
I don't follow. What are you talking about? Choose what?
 
Jiro said:
please refer to Child Support link in my post #176.

What if I am not sure or do not think the child is mine?


does this answer your question?


I don't follow. What are you talking about? Choose what?
Click to expand...

That wasn't the issue I was addressing. But ... thanks for posting that information (previously, I was under the impression that the mother did not have to submit any DNA evidence if there was a dispute).

The issue I was addressing was the one in which a mother can choose if she wants to go full term, or abort. This is a "right" under current Federal Law.

These "rights" do not exist for men.

I know everyone has their own personal opinions based on the outcome of Roe v. Wade; regardless of personal opinion however, there is absolutely no dispute that a woman has the "right" to proceed into motherhood, or completely abort during the first trimester of her pregnancy. It is her "choice" to be a mother .... or not.

I am not privy to current abortion laws (and I need to read up on it) but I am quite certain there are political activists somewhere that are trying to make it legal to abort even after the child has been born. I think Peter Singer is one such activist.

Peter Singer's views should be reviewed by those who have disabilities, as he feels it is a mother's right to have a child aborted up to 30 days after the child has been born (to insure it is a healthy and "defect free" baby). However, that is an entirely different subject.

The issue I was addressing was personal reproductive "choice" as it only applies to women, and does not apply to men. If a woman does not want to have children, she has the same options men have - she can abstain or have a minor surgical procedure. Those two choices prevent "unwanted" pregnancy.

However, after conception, the ball is completely in a woman's court. The male has absolutely no rights. He cannot "abort" if it is an unwanted child. He cannot prevent an abortion if he wants the child. He has no "choice" in the matter, whereas women do.

It isn't equal protection under the law.
 
Steinhauer said:
That wasn't the issue I was addressing. But ... thanks for posting that information (previously, I was under the impression that the mother did not have to submit any DNA evidence if there was a dispute).

The issue I was addressing was the one in which a mother can choose if she wants to go full term, or abort. This is a "right" under current Federal Law.

These "rights" do not exist for men.

I know everyone has their own personal opinions based on the outcome of Roe v. Wade; regardless of personal opinion however, there is absolutely no dispute that a woman has the "right" to proceed into motherhood, or completely abort during the first trimester of her pregnancy. It is her "choice" to be a mother .... or not.

I am not privy to current abortion laws (and I need to read up on it) but I am quite certain there are political activists somewhere that are trying to make it legal to abort even after the child has been born. I think Peter Singer is one such activist.

Peter Singer's views should be reviewed by those who have disabilities, as he feels it is a mother's right to have a child aborted up to 30 days after the child has been born (to insure it is a healthy and "defect free" baby). However, that is an entirely different subject.

The issue I was addressing was personal reproductive "choice" as it only applies to women, and does not apply to men. If a woman does not want to have children, she has the same options men have - she can abstain or have a minor surgical procedure. Those two choices prevent "unwanted" pregnancy.

However, after conception, the ball is completely in a woman's court. The male has absolutely no rights. He cannot "abort" if it is an unwanted child. He cannot prevent an abortion if he wants the child. He has no "choice" in the matter, whereas women do.

It isn't equal protection under the law.
Click to expand...

the men had the "rights" for a very long time before Roe v. Wade existed. Not exactly an equal protection under the law, isn't it?

perhaps you should read up on abortion laws first before you continue any further. it would refine your fallacious argument.
 
Back
Top