Abortion / "Rape" question

[manifold]

The text of the Equal Rights Amendment

"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

Based on this, if abortion is a right, how do you deny the right of a man to abort a fetus that is partly his without violating his right to equality of rights based on sex? You may have a "possesion" way out of it, but I guarantee a court case would be filed almost immediately.

Furthermore things like child support and custody would no longer favor the woman, because in doing so you would be denying equality of rights.

If you're right about the first part, I'd wager that the court(s) would quickly set the precedent that a man cannot legally force a woman into an abortion.

As for the second part, good, child support and custody matters should give equal consideration to both parents.

I agree on the not being able to force a woman into an abortion, as Ravi agreed with above, the possesion aspect of it would be a deciding factor.

What you would have to watch out for would be a "legal" abortion. If a woman can deny parental responsibility via an abortion, shouldnt a man, once again assuming an in place ERA as stated above, be able to rescind parental responsibility as well? Remember under an ERA if one can do it, the other has to be able to do it too.

Regardless of the legal ramifications of a possible ERA, I maintain that it would be a terrible idea to give men the freedom to carelessly spread their seed without any monetary consequences.

 

[martybegan]

If you're right about the first part, I'd wager that the court(s) would quickly set the precedent that a man cannot legally force a woman into an abortion.

As for the second part, good, child support and custody matters should give equal consideration to both parents.

I agree on the not being able to force a woman into an abortion, as Ravi agreed with above, the possesion aspect of it would be a deciding factor.

What you would have to watch out for would be a "legal" abortion. If a woman can deny parental responsibility via an abortion, shouldnt a man, once again assuming an in place ERA as stated above, be able to rescind parental responsibility as well? Remember under an ERA if one can do it, the other has to be able to do it too.

Regardless of the legal ramifications of a possible ERA, I maintain that it would be a terrible idea to give men the freedom to carelessly spread their seed without any monetary consequences.

It would suck, but thats what you need to implement if you want true gender equality.

and right now what percentage of men are actually held to child support. I'm sure in the higher income brackets its a large percentage, but down at the bottom of the pay scales, how many of them contribute a dime?

I can go on a ramble about the breakdown of the family unit and the destigmatization of single parenthood out of wedlock, but then my libertarian side smacks my moral high-ground side with a glove and challenges it to a duel.

 

[mal]

A Mother shouldn't be able to Terminate a Father's Child and be able to make him pay for it if she decides to keep it...

I don't Think Abortion is Justified in ANY Case and I Think that Deadbeat Fathers should be put in Prisons where they Work to Pay for their Children.

I'm having tremendous difficulty reconciling these two sentiments. To me they seem mutually exclusive and wholly contradictory. Unless perhaps you do not think the mother should be able to force the father to pay, but it's ok for the state to do so, which is an academic hair not worth splitting IMO.

I don't Think that IF she is able to Kill his Child without his Consent that she should be able to make him pay for it if HER Choice is to keep it.

I am VERY Consistent on MY Stand personally... I was Observing and Commenting on a Specific thing there.

This is me on the Issue Generally and it is Consistent:

I don't Think Abortion is Justified in ANY Case and I Think that Deadbeat Fathers should be put in Prisons where they Work to Pay for their Children.

Children are the Repsonsibility of BOTH Parents and those who Choose to not be Responsible for the Life they Created, either by Aborting or Walking away from are the Cancers of our Society.

Now you bring in the Realities of the Law today and we have a Discussion about those things...

The "Inconsistencies" you are Observing are Specific to me Commenting on various scenerios.



peace...

 

[Eaglewings]

Not only will she get child support, but victims of rape who choose to keep the child invariably have to face custody and visitation rights of the rapist, even if he is serving time in prison, AND might have to pay child support to the rapist for his joint custody periods.

Some states are passing specific laws relating to the rights of a rapist to their children, but they don't have them now.

Having to face the rapist over and over again would be PTS continuously and could possibly affect the relationship between mother and child. I find it cruel, and can certainly understand a woman not wanting to have this for the rest of her life. If it comes into law that she has to carry this child full term, adoption should be ready available.
Or the rapist should get 0 rights.

 

[manifold]

A Mother shouldn't be able to Terminate a Father's Child and be able to make him pay for it if she decides to keep it...

I'm having tremendous difficulty reconciling these two sentiments. To me they seem mutually exclusive and wholly contradictory. Unless perhaps you do not think the mother should be able to force the father to pay, but it's ok for the state to do so, which is an academic hair not worth splitting IMO.

I don't Think that IF she is able to Kill his Child without his Consent that she should be able to make him pay for it if HER Choice is to keep it.

I am VERY Consistent on MY Stand personally... I was Observing and Commenting on a Specific thing there.

This is me on the Issue Generally and it is Consistent:

I don't Think Abortion is Justified in ANY Case and I Think that Deadbeat Fathers should be put in Prisons where they Work to Pay for their Children.

Children are the Repsonsibility of BOTH Parents and those who Choose to not be Responsible for the Life they Created, either by Aborting or Walking away from are the Cancers of our Society.

Now you bring in the Realities of the Law today and we have a Discussion about those things...

The "Inconsistencies" you are Observing are Specific to me Commenting on various scenerios.



peace...

So under what circumstances should the father be off the hook for paying child support?

 

[Ravi]

The text of the Equal Rights Amendment

"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

Based on this, if abortion is a right, how do you deny the right of a man to abort a fetus that is partly his without violating his right to equality of rights based on sex? You may have a "possesion" way out of it, but I guarantee a court case would be filed almost immediately.

Furthermore things like child support and custody would no longer favor the woman, because in doing so you would be denying equality of rights.

If you're right about the first part, I'd wager that the court(s) would quickly set the precedent that a man cannot legally force a woman into an abortion.

As for the second part, good, child support and custody matters should give equal consideration to both parents.

I agree on the not being able to force a woman into an abortion, as Ravi agreed with above, the possesion aspect of it would be a deciding factor.

What you would have to watch out for would be a "legal" abortion. If a woman can deny parental responsibility via an abortion, shouldnt a man, once again assuming an in place ERA as stated above, be able to rescind parental responsibility as well? Remember under an ERA if one can do it, the other has to be able to do it too.

I don't really have a problem with that except for the fact that it harms a living, breathing child. But having a reluctant father may be worse.

 

[mal]

I'm having tremendous difficulty reconciling these two sentiments. To me they seem mutually exclusive and wholly contradictory. Unless perhaps you do not think the mother should be able to force the father to pay, but it's ok for the state to do so, which is an academic hair not worth splitting IMO.

I don't Think that IF she is able to Kill his Child without his Consent that she should be able to make him pay for it if HER Choice is to keep it.

I am VERY Consistent on MY Stand personally... I was Observing and Commenting on a Specific thing there.

This is me on the Issue Generally and it is Consistent:

I don't Think Abortion is Justified in ANY Case and I Think that Deadbeat Fathers should be put in Prisons where they Work to Pay for their Children.

Children are the Repsonsibility of BOTH Parents and those who Choose to not be Responsible for the Life they Created, either by Aborting or Walking away from are the Cancers of our Society.

Now you bring in the Realities of the Law today and we have a Discussion about those things...

The "Inconsistencies" you are Observing are Specific to me Commenting on various scenerios.



peace...

So under what circumstances should the father be off the hook for paying child support?

My Stand how it should be has been made ABUNDANTLY Clear... I have also told you that the way it is currently is NOT Fair in that a Father can either have his Child Murdered by a **** or that same **** can Charge him for it for 18 years...

His lack of Voice in this is Wrong.

It's an Observation and an Opinion.

Not sure why you are having a hard time Grasping it there mani.



peace...

 

[martybegan]

If you're right about the first part, I'd wager that the court(s) would quickly set the precedent that a man cannot legally force a woman into an abortion.

As for the second part, good, child support and custody matters should give equal consideration to both parents.

I agree on the not being able to force a woman into an abortion, as Ravi agreed with above, the possesion aspect of it would be a deciding factor.

What you would have to watch out for would be a "legal" abortion. If a woman can deny parental responsibility via an abortion, shouldnt a man, once again assuming an in place ERA as stated above, be able to rescind parental responsibility as well? Remember under an ERA if one can do it, the other has to be able to do it too.

I don't really have a problem with that except for the fact that it harms a living, breathing child. But having a reluctant father may be worse.

It would probably involve some combination of a notification window and a time limit, so both sides have the same amount of time to make a choice. As with all dealings between people there would probably be laws stating the mother has to notify the father before day X and the father has to terminate his custodial rights by day Y.

Basically like anything like this, in the end, the lawyers win.

 

[manifold]

I don't Think that IF she is able to Kill his Child without his Consent that she should be able to make him pay for it if HER Choice is to keep it.

I am VERY Consistent on MY Stand personally... I was Observing and Commenting on a Specific thing there.

This is me on the Issue Generally and it is Consistent:



Children are the Repsonsibility of BOTH Parents and those who Choose to not be Responsible for the Life they Created, either by Aborting or Walking away from are the Cancers of our Society.

Now you bring in the Realities of the Law today and we have a Discussion about those things...

The "Inconsistencies" you are Observing are Specific to me Commenting on various scenerios.



peace...

So under what circumstances should the father be off the hook for paying child support?

My Stand how it should be has been made ABUNDANTLY Clear... I have also told you that the way it is currently is NOT Fair in that a Father can either have his Child Murdered by a **** or that same **** can Charge him for it for 18 years...

His lack of Voice in this is Wrong.

It's an Observation and an Opinion.

Not sure why you are having a hard time Grasping it there mani.



peace...

So never then? The father should never be off the hook for child support?

If so, then we agree on that.

 

[mal]

So under what circumstances should the father be off the hook for paying child support?

My Stand how it should be has been made ABUNDANTLY Clear... I have also told you that the way it is currently is NOT Fair in that a Father can either have his Child Murdered by a **** or that same **** can Charge him for it for 18 years...

His lack of Voice in this is Wrong.

It's an Observation and an Opinion.

Not sure why you are having a hard time Grasping it there mani.



peace...

So never then? The father should never be off the hook for child support?

If so, then we agree on that.

If I were King no Baby would be Murdered for Convenience and no Parent would be able to Abandon the Child... If they weren't there for the Child in it's Life they would be in a Work Camp.



peace...

 

[Ravi]

I agree on the not being able to force a woman into an abortion, as Ravi agreed with above, the possesion aspect of it would be a deciding factor.

What you would have to watch out for would be a "legal" abortion. If a woman can deny parental responsibility via an abortion, shouldnt a man, once again assuming an in place ERA as stated above, be able to rescind parental responsibility as well? Remember under an ERA if one can do it, the other has to be able to do it too.

I don't really have a problem with that except for the fact that it harms a living, breathing child. But having a reluctant father may be worse.

It would probably involve some combination of a notification window and a time limit, so both sides have the same amount of time to make a choice. As with all dealings between people there would probably be laws stating the mother has to notify the father before day X and the father has to terminate his custodial rights by day Y.

Basically like anything like this, in the end, the lawyers win.

It'd be a lot easier if everyone just signed a contract stating their expectations before hopping into bed.

 

[midcan5]

....Does the man have any right to demand an abortion and why?

Did anyone answer the question? it seems like most debate the replies are not relevant to the question. Since rights are made up there is no correct answer, but I would say no, based on my reply.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/241999-abortion-rape-question-4.html#post5859215

 

[manifold]

My Stand how it should be has been made ABUNDANTLY Clear... I have also told you that the way it is currently is NOT Fair in that a Father can either have his Child Murdered by a **** or that same **** can Charge him for it for 18 years...

His lack of Voice in this is Wrong.

It's an Observation and an Opinion.

Not sure why you are having a hard time Grasping it there mani.



peace...

So never then? The father should never be off the hook for child support?

If so, then we agree on that.

If I were King no Baby would be Murdered for Convenience and no Parent would be able to Abandon the Child... If they weren't there for the Child in it's Life they would be in a Work Camp.



peace...

Ok, fair enough. But I still have one more thing I'd like to understand about your position as it relates to the real world (where you are not King). Abortion is legal, and that's not likely to change anytime soon. Given this constraint of reality, do you still feel that men should be on the hook to pay child support for the children they sire?

 

[mal]

So never then? The father should never be off the hook for child support?

If so, then we agree on that.

If I were King no Baby would be Murdered for Convenience and no Parent would be able to Abandon the Child... If they weren't there for the Child in it's Life they would be in a Work Camp.



peace...

Ok, fair enough. But I still have one more thing I'd like to understand about your position as it relates to the real world (where you are not King). Abortion is legal, and that's not likely to change anytime soon. Given this constraint of reality, do you still feel that men should be on the hook to pay child support for the children they sire?

Of course... They took 50% part in the Creation of the Life and even though the Law is Geared Against them in an Abundantly Unfair way, the Child doesn't need to be Neglected because the System is shitty.

Beyond that I will always Advocate for the Law to Change.



peace...

 

[manifold]

If I were King no Baby would be Murdered for Convenience and no Parent would be able to Abandon the Child... If they weren't there for the Child in it's Life they would be in a Work Camp.



peace...

Ok, fair enough. But I still have one more thing I'd like to understand about your position as it relates to the real world (where you are not King). Abortion is legal, and that's not likely to change anytime soon. Given this constraint of reality, do you still feel that men should be on the hook to pay child support for the children they sire?

Of course... They took 50% part in the Creation of the Life and even though the Law is Geared Against them in an Abundantly Unfair way, the Child doesn't need to be Neglected because the System is shitty.

Beyond that I will always Advocate for the Law to Change.



peace...

Tooth successfully pulled.

 

[Plasmaball]

The OP sounds like last saturday night.....

 

[mal]

The OP sounds like last saturday night.....

Trying his hand at some 4Fing?...



peace...

 

[mal]

Ok, fair enough. But I still have one more thing I'd like to understand about your position as it relates to the real world (where you are not King). Abortion is legal, and that's not likely to change anytime soon. Given this constraint of reality, do you still feel that men should be on the hook to pay child support for the children they sire?

Of course... They took 50% part in the Creation of the Life and even though the Law is Geared Against them in an Abundantly Unfair way, the Child doesn't need to be Neglected because the System is shitty.

Beyond that I will always Advocate for the Law to Change.



peace...

Tooth successfully pulled.

Don't know why you are having Issues Comprehending the Obvious today but if I needed to Spell it out in ****** for you then I am happy to...

And did.

*Even though I know mani wouldn't cry like a little girl over it, I edited it because there are Snitches in this place that are... Less than cool who would.



peace...

 

[Katzndogz]

Not only will she get child support, but victims of rape who choose to keep the child invariably have to face custody and visitation rights of the rapist, even if he is serving time in prison, AND might have to pay child support to the rapist for his joint custody periods.

Some states are passing specific laws relating to the rights of a rapist to their children, but they don't have them now.

Having to face the rapist over and over again would be PTS continuously and could possibly affect the relationship between mother and child. I find it cruel, and can certainly understand a woman not wanting to have this for the rest of her life. If it comes into law that she has to carry this child full term, adoption should be ready available.
Or the rapist should get 0 rights.

States are trying to pass laws that restrict the rights of rapists so they cannot get visitation, custody or child support. Currently the father of a child has to consent to adoption, so a woman trying to adopt out the child of a rapist might be prevented from doing so by his simply saying no. The laws obviously need to be changed to reflect reality.

A man cannot avoid child support even if he didn't mean to get the woman pregnant, even if he used protection but the condom broke and the pill failed. He cannot force her to have an abortion. While the state of current law is that life does not begin at conception for purposes of abortion. Life most certainly begins at conception for purposes of child support. As soon as that life is conceived, the child has a right to support and parenting from both parents that exist independently of both the rights of the mother and father. Women have successfully sued and gotten money for prenatal care and men have gotten the right to receive medical reports on the progression of the pregnancy.

 

[FA_Q2]

IMO if a man willingly puts his penis inside a woman he accepts the consequences, whatever they may be.

Then if a woman willingly allows a penis inside her, she gets to accept the consequences, whatever they may be. Whhops, that arregument works both ways and is false on its face.

Siply put, abortion cannot be illegal because the woman has rights over her body but for some reason you think that a man has no rights over his wallet. The concept is rather dumb IMHO.

The man has no say in an abortion. A fact due to biology. However, the woman should have no say in the support of a child through the father. In the same manner that she can avoid responsibility by ‘disposing’ of the inconvenience, he can avoid responsibility as well.

I understand the logic, but I still think it's a terrible idea to allow men to carelessly impregnate women without suffering any consequences. For starters, you'd see a marked increase in abortions across the board if such a policy were to be legislated. It would also increase welfare rolls and necessitate higher taxes.

I understand your point but again, it can be stated in the exact opposite manner. I can just as easily say that it is a terrible idea to allow women to carelessly get pregnant without nay consequences. I know, personally, one of those ‘non-existent’ (as I am constantly told by extreme lefties here) women who use abortion as a form of birth control.

I don’t think there would be zero consequences here but I don’t think that it would be as bad as many put it either. Really, it would make both parties actually take responsibility in their actions and make people think a little more about what they actually want.

No matter what, the discussion is purely academic and is not going to happen. At this time, I not even sure I could support a change in the law anyway. How I believe that things *should* work is not necessarily a change that the country is prepared for anyway.