BS: Roe V Wade For Men

Subject: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 03:41 PM

From CBS News

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/09/national/main1385124.shtml

Verrra interesting......

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: Charmion
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 03:58 PM

Hmmm. I wonder whether anyone -- judge, lawyer, media pundit -- will have the guts to point out to Mr. Dubay that he had a choice and made it, that choice being whether to indulge in unprotected sexual intercourse with the lady in question.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 04:04 PM

If a woman engages in unprotected sex, she has the OPTION to have the baby or not....

Shouldn't it be fair?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 04:12 PM

In fairness i have always felt that if a woman gets pregnant and wishes to abort the child, but the father wishes the child to be born and is willing to accept all responsibilities including financial, then the woman should have the baby and hand it over to the father. That strikes me as equality.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 04:16 PM

" then the woman should have the baby and hand it over to the father. That strikes me as equality."

So wait... a man should be able to tell a woman she HAS to have his baby?!?! Sorry... can't agree there... IF the two can work out a deal where she carries it and gives it to him after it's born, sure...

Saying NO always has to be an option

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 04:35 PM

That's a form of slavery, idiot-guest. Hands down. "Fairness" has nothing to do with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 04:37 PM

The father can't possibly assume all of the responsibilities because he doesn't assume any of the health risks inherent in pregnancy and childbirth.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: GUEST,Not the eejit above
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 04:41 PM

We could always use male castration as a deterrent for those who fuck around without benefit of birth control. Now there is a "solution" to something that isn't even a problem for you.

Only in neo-con America would Guest 4:12 be taken seriously.

Which is quite frightening.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: Peace
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 04:41 PM

'"None of these are easy questions," said Gandy, a former prosecutor. "But most courts say it's not about what he did or didn't do or what she did or didn't do. It's about the rights of the child."'

Rights of the child as of when?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: gnu
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 04:43 PM

Frightening? I have stronger words than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 04:48 PM

*tsk*..any suggested solution which involves 'should' or 'rights' has to be considered very carefully, and this bit about the father's 'rights' is damn sticky! Proving exactly who had the responsibility and who has to deal with how much fall out and who can make what portion of the final decision is NOT a simple thing.

The mother is usually the one to have final say, (and it would be hard to force her decision either way), but it is easy to write a script where her actions lead to a scenario where the father ought to be consulted....

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: Barry Finn
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 05:03 PM

All rights & options belong to the one person who's body is living this process & has to continue to live with, for life, only. Her body & in the end her choice, alone. No matter the situation. Any one who wants different for a body that's not their own is one who'd ride lord over life & death itself. I'm not a woman but there's not a power in heaven or hell, in the capitol or in the church that would be able demand of my body what I didn't choose for myself.
Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 05:06 PM

Having known at least a half dozen couples where the "external evidence" supports the claim that the woman asserted that she was either "unable" to become pregnant or that she was "on the pill," when her actual intent was deliberately to become pregnant in the hope that the "father" would marry her, I'd have to give due consideration to the claim that the woman has a bit more "power of choice" than the male in some situations.

In one specific instance among my acquaintances, the female asserted her infertility in order deliberately to become pregnant so that she could have a child to raise by herself. She had no intention of making any claim for support from the father, and so far as I know has made none.

Unfortunately(?) under existing laws, should she ever need to apply for any public assistance (even unemployment benefits), the courts claim the right to demand that she reveal who the father was, and may take the child from her and/or jail her if she refuses to tell. Even though she has now supported the child for a dozen years, the court has the authority to decide that the child "could have been better off" if the father had contributed and can (and has in some similar cases) demand that the father pay "back support" for all the years since the birth of the child. Neither "parent" has much choice if the judge gets to decide, sometimes arbitrarily, what should be done.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 05:14 PM

Well John, there is a simple solution to the she-devil who trapped him rant: the guy can take personal responsibility for birth control. If a man ain't willin' to be proactive and take responsibility for his penis being stuck in women's vaginas by insisting on HIM using birth control, getting a vasectomy, etc. then he has no right to bitch.

Prevention of pregnancy, like prevention of STDs, is the responsibility of BOTH tango partners.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: Peace
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 05:15 PM

Well, one thing IS for sure. The cause of the uproar has been neglected in the rhetoric: namely, the child.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 05:22 PM

And let's be clear. This is yet another lawsuit brought by the National Center for Men, who have been campaigning for years against court-imposed child support.

That is, in the case of a man who refuses to keep it in his pants, and then whines when a woman or the state (depending upon the case) says "it's his".

So yeah--think of the best interests of the child, instead of the best interests of the male who doesn't want to pay child support to a woman he got pregnant when he was whoring around and acting like a slut.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 05:30 PM

" pay child support to a woman he got pregnant when he was whoring around and acting like a slut."
Takes two to whore and slut...

I can see, in the future a 'consent' form....
"The undersigned agree that the sex that is about to happen is for pleasure and pregnancy resulting from said sex will be the responsibility of the one issuing this form"

Or a warning label tattoo!

"Warning! If I knock you up, don't come crying to me for $"

"Warning! Fertile gold-digging woman. Enter with protection"

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 05:35 PM

Yes, it does take two to whore around and slut. Exactly the point. And historically, two people have been required by society to pay the emotional and physical price for it, bear the brunt of the social stigma, and suffer the financial consequences.

The mother and child.

Time to even things up and level the playing field, now that medical technology and social mores have allowed it.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 05:46 PM

Ya... whatever... Every child ever born was born of an absent (but somehow still abusive) father and an untouchable, should-have-been-sainted mother...

Give yer stupid head a shake...

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 05:50 PM

"whore around and slut?!" Jaysus! It's a natural act and about time we quit equating it with archaic "dirty" terms ala Puritans!

Feit and Dubay are pretty glib over how "easy" it is for a woman to make such choices.

Barrydarlin'...you got it in a nutshell. Her body, her choice, period. When men can have babies, then we'll talk equality. In the meantime, ANYONE who does not want to have a child is RESPONSIBLE for their own form of birth control. Got a condom? Wear it!

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 05:51 PM

I didn't say any such thing! What a wanker!

The point is, "out of wedlock" births have, until very recently in our history, been the problem/responsibility of the mother, have let the father off the hook completely, and the child has suffered the consequences of both parents' bad choices.

Court ordered child support is a no-fault solution to that. All cases like this do is make asshole jerks feel justified in trying to avoid paying child support for their kids. And make no mistake about it, the paternity tests don't lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 05:53 PM

Whoring around and slut was said tongue in cheek.

Jaysus, save us from the literal minded.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 06:07 PM

Oh, literally a GUEST idjit. Wow, we've been graced.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 06:15 PM

It doesn't matter what the woman tells the man. If he has unprotected sex with her, he bears fifty percent of the responsibility. If you want to make sure you don't ever have to pay child support, keep your sperm to yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 06:21 PM

"It doesn't matter what the woman tells the man."

Bullshit.... in the same way it matters what a man tells a woman

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: Peace
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 06:22 PM

It's much ado about nothing, anyway, because the case will lose in court.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 06:25 PM

Doesn't matter what the man tells the woman either. If she doesn't make sure she is protected, she bears fifty percent of the responsibility. See how fair that is?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 06:28 PM

If she doesn't make sure she is protected, she bears fifty percent of the responsibility

...except in cases of rape.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: Grab
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 06:41 PM

Got to agree with Clinton - this lawsuit is fair. There's no way a woman should be forced to become a mother - that's utterly wrong. But equally there's no way a man should be forced to become a father. If anyone thinks it's only 9 months of pregnancy and childbirth that's the problem for the mother, boy do you have your priorities screwed up! The problem is being chained to a kid you don't want, having no money, having no opportunities, and your kid likewise having no opportunities.

Whether or not the situation was reversed until recently, it doesn't make inequality the other way around right. And using past inequality as the justification is a damn sight worse - it's saying "screw equal rights, I want revenge".

FWIW, I was glad to see equality upheld in the case of the woman in the UK who wanted to use her and her ex-boyfriend's frozen embryos without her ex-boyfriend's approval.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 07:23 PM

If he has unprotected sex with her, he bears fifty percent of the responsibility.

Exactly, then so does she. Why is it beyond thought that the man therefore has an equal share and an equal say in the child about to be aborted? If he wishes to have his child and is willing to take all repsonsibility then why is his wish so scorned? We seem to have an attitude to men here almost the reverse of the attitude we had to women a 100 years ago.
And i'm dissapointed that men on this thread are so willing to deny their sex parental feelings and needs equal to that of any woman.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 07:34 PM

Grab, unless he is raped, it is impossible to force a man to become a father. If he takes responsibility for his sperm, it will just never become an issue. If he doesn't take responsibility for his sperm, he bears fifty percent of the responsibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 07:50 PM

So why can't he take that responsibility and be granted 50% of the say in whether the child is born or not?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 08:03 PM

So why can't he take that responsibility and be granted 50% of the say in whether the child is born or not?

Because that's not responsibility, seeing as how he won't have to experience fifty percent of the abortion. If he doesn't want to be a daddy, all he has to do is keep his little spermies to his little self.

BTW, my comments are not intended to address the tragic situation of the frozen embryos. I don't have any good answers for that one.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 08:12 PM

"So why can't he take that responsibility and be granted 50% of the say in whether the child is born or not?"

Because the courts would, if the father said he wanted the fetus aborted, have to compel the mother to have an abortion.

Or, if the father said he didn't want the fetus aborted, the courts would have to compel the mother to have the child against her will.

It's all about who has the right to control a woman's body in the event of pregnancy.

I'm voting for the woman, and the woman only.

Also, this idea that a man is being compelled to pay ALL child support for the child. That just isn't the case. They are compelled to pay a fair and reasonable sum, based upon their income, to raise the child they are responsible for, instead of foisting the cost on taxpayers.

I think that is a very fair deal. Unless of course you think we should compel the men to raise the child so they don't have to pay support to the ho who had it.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: Peace
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 08:13 PM

"If he doesn't want to be a daddy, all he has to do is keep his little spermies to his little self."

However, the other side of that is that if she doesn't want to be a mommy, she should keep her ova locked away, too. Sounds like a case of people--male and female--being irresponsible, but both 'sides' saying the other is MORE responsible.

I'd still like to know where the foetus/baby fits in the argument, but we don't really care about that, do we! It's all about US, US, US.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 08:20 PM

So why can't he take that responsibility and be granted 50% of the say in whether the child is born or not?

Because slavery is illegal.
Because he doesn't do 50% of the child bearing.
Because, if a man would want to have a kid without marrying a woman, or even caring for her, he would just have to impregnate her and wait for the baby-growing thing to produce.

When it becomes possible to transplant embreyos into men, they can bear their own. Will they?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 08:21 PM

No, not MORE responsible based upon who was "at fault" for the conception. EQUALLY responsible for the raising of the child they played an EQUAL part in conceiving through the act of sex, protected or not.

Face it, no matter who says what to whom, no matter what birth control is or isn't used, etc there is always a risk that the outcome of the act may be pregnancy.

Do you need books, videos, graphs and charts to get that part, fellers? It is always a risk. Don't want to do 18-20 years of parenting, don't whip it out.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 08:21 PM

As I said before, if she gets pregnant through having consentual sex, she bears fifty percent of the responsibility (for the child). Fair's fair.

And it is about the child. We are talking about who bears responsibility for the child. That's what this thread is about.

All of my posts in this thread are about taking responsiblity. If people were more conscientious about doing that, maybe there would be fewer unwanted children in the world, don't you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 08:22 PM

...but we sure as hell don't promote responsible behavior by letting men off the hook when they knock women up, for whatever reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 08:27 PM

And I don't think it is "fair" to make me the taxpayer pay to raise another couple's child, just so the couple could get their jollies for free, no strings attached.

Homey don't play dat tune.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 08:39 PM

well, Laura Bush believes in choice!

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: Barry Finn
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 08:43 PM

That's the only one case where the choice should've been made by more intellegant people.
Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 08:43 PM

They aren't compelled to pay a fair and reasonable sum. What rock did you crawl out from under? Men get off easy or scot free in the child support department most of the time. Show me a man who paid HALF the costs of raising a child he didn't want to stick around for and I'll show you a pile of bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 08:49 PM

Dubay should be paying about $1500 a month for his child. That would be fair. If he didn't want a baby he shouldn't have had sex. Plus, add a fine for being a naive idiot!

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 08:52 PM

Right you are 8:43. Let me rephrase that. The only legal remedy on offer to the custodial parent, is that the non-custodial parent be compelled to pay a fair and reasonable sum according to the child support forumula of the state in which the custodial parent resides.

As you note, no child support advocates would claim that deadbeat dads are paying a fair, much less reasonable, sum to support their children. When they pay at all.

My point really is this. It isn't the men who are being treated unfairly. It is the kids they reject, spurn, cast off...and the mothers of the kids they treat with such contempt.

Even if the mother is contemptible, they are still the child's mother.

And I would also like to point out, nowadays, more and more dads are stepping up to the plate and becoming primary custodial parents. Should that mean the non-custodial mother not be required to pay court ordered child support? NO WAY!

If one or the other parent is somehow incapacitated, then as a taxpayer, I want my tax dollars used to make up the difference. But unless that is the case, the parents need to pay the support.

Now, all this is complicated by the other benefits a custodial parent might receive from the state, like housing subsidies, food stamps, medical care, job training, child care. But I do think it fair that both parents should be required to jointly pay for the maintenance and support of any child they co-procreate.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: freightdawg
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 11:02 PM

Okay, now I know who the dumbest person on earth is...guest of 8:43. I know of two situations very closely, and several more on a more general basis where the father was ordered by the courts to pay an exhorbitant amount of money to the woman, who never had to work a day. Worst part of it was, the man then had to go and buy his kids their school clothes, books, etc., because the mother was a drug abusing drunk that smoked, drank and shot up all of her "child support." The whole situation was obscene, but that's the way the courts of today see life...screw the man and who the ***** cares about whether the woman attempts to raise the child properly but because she's the woman she gets the child support. Luckily, over time the worst of these situations was legally remedied but not until years of abuse had taken place and thousands of dollars wasted.

Equality cannot exist legally if there is a fundamental inequality in ethics. If a situation is morally and ethically unequal no amount of legal verbage can make it "equal". I for one applaud any attempt to get the legal system to address the fundamental inequality of this discussion, namely that a woman can dictate to a man that a child will or will not be carried to term regardless of his convictions.

Most of the posts above have been correct: there is joint responsibility in the conception of a child. And I will admit that the woman is responsible for carrying a child to term (until there is a way for a woman to carry 1/2 and a man to carry 1/2 there will never be true equality). But the child that is conceived is not just her child, it is THEIR child. Any law which ignores the rights of the male during pregnancy and then suddenly, only after childbirth, makes the male to be 50% (or in many lawcourts, far in excess of 50%) responsible for the child is quite simply unequal and unjust.

I don't know enough about the lawsuit to say this male Roe v. Wade is the solution. But I do know that the current law gives all of the rights and all of the decisions to the female and that inequality needs to be addressed.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: freightdawg
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 11:11 PM

And another, random thought....

This is just another of the sad consequences of the so-called "sexual freedom" that we "enjoy" today. A few moments of ecstasy and then days, if not months of heartache and regret. Children who will never know the security of a loving home, men who are legally tied to their children but who are emotionally non-existant, and women who are either forced to bear a child they did not want or live with the mental and emotional results of having to be the one to decide to terminate the pregnancy.

No one wins when a pregnancy is "unwanted". Not the man, not the woman, and certainly not the child.

God save us from ourselves.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 11:24 PM

Well, god save us from the likes of youse anyway Mr. Dog.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: Peace
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 12:16 AM

"If people were more conscientious about doing that [being responsible], maybe there would be fewer unwanted children in the world, don't you think?"

Absolutely, Carol.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 12:29 AM

In fairness i have always felt that if... the father wishes the child to be born and is willing to accept all responsibilities including financial, then the woman should have the baby and hand it over to the father.

Sounds fair to me, too. But only if the father is willing to have a ten-pound watermelon stuck up his ass and then spend the next twenty-four hours trying to expell it.