Is there a legit legal argument here?

[NightFox]

So the sexes are not equal and men can and should be considered victims for not having the same reproductive rights as women.

Of course they're not equal, Men don't have ovaries and a womb and thus aren't obliged to carry a fetus to term.

Once the child is born then the father is ethically and legally obligated to provide for the child because the child exists and either the parents of said child are on the hook to care for it, they get someone else to voluntarily take the responsibility (e.g. adoption) or the rest of society is and the rest of society had no say whatsoever in the conception and birth of the child.

Your premise is flawed unless of course you want to advocate for the rights of the male in determining whether or not an abortion or adoption takes place, i.e. using the judiciary to obtain a forced abortion or adoption decree...

It’s not flawed unless the women was forced to carry to term, which she isn’t...because abortion so... Women have reproductive rights, but men don’t.

Men do have reproductive rights, they can choose whether or not to reproduce (either through abstinence or by using birth control), in other words they have all the rights necessary to control the use of their biological reproductive plumbing as they see fit, just like women do.

Your premise is flawed because as I said, lacking ovaries and womb Men aren't obliged to carry a fetus to term and thus aren't biologically affected by the choice of whether or not to do so.

Since when was it ok to distribute things like rights selectively? I thought that was a bad thing.

Where in your estimation do rights originate?

 

[sakinago]

I'm anti-Roe. To me abortion for medical reasons is a no brainer. In cases of rape its also a no brainer.

However birth control abortions suck, considering the availability of actual birth control.

My issue is Roe is terrible case law, based on nothing but the hopes and dreams of a progressive court. As I live in NY abortions will be protected, and I have no issue with it.

I also have no issue with Alabama banning it.

To me this thread's argument is about the inherent inequality of women having a legal out from parenthood that men do not have.

true equality would require either both having it, or neither having it.

My problem with Roe v Wade is it doesn't go far enough. You know how most if you cons are afraid where the bump-stock ban is gonna go? That's what the rest of us worry about with the nibbling away at abortion rights.

No don't get me wrong, I do not approve of abortion as a birth control any more than you do, but I also don't approve of bringing unwanted, uncared-for, abused and neglected children into the world. If you conservative kids would stop freaking out over birth control, welfare, and other things for taking care of needy children I might go along with stricter controls on it.

Who are the people freaking out against birth control? It’s maybe a fractal of 1% who think that extremely cheap and extremely effective BC should be banned. I don’t think there’s a bigger strawman argument made than the one suggesting that the right wants to ban birth control. Sure there are Catholics who make a personal choice not to use, and parents who don’t want their 14 year old kids to be given condoms at school...but again those are personal decisions made since maybe it isn’t the best idea to encourage or condone, irresponsible kids to be participating in the act of reproduction. Religion is often mocked as being anti-sex and encouraging abstinence when there is a very clear biological logic to waiting until marriage to have sex. I didn’t wait, and I was lucky because I was pretty damn irresponsible when it came to wrapping before tapping. Why? Because I was a shithead, like most other shitheads at that age. I had raging hormones and society told me that it was ok to not try to control those urges.

Republicans in general tend to have problems with it, particularly with providing it in employer or government insurance policies.

No it’s religious institutions like Catholics who have religious objections to being forced to pay for something they are opposed too. You know that whole first amendment thing. If you want your employer to pay for birth control, don’t work for an institution that is opposed to such things. You are not forced to work there, yet they are forced to pay for something they are opposed too. Even though it’s cheap AF, and would bring down their insurance rates if included. Because prenatal care+childbirth+baby+new human to cover > the pill. So it’s not like they don’t want to include it because they’re cheapskates.

Haven't you ever heard the term "religious right"?

Really...how many practicing Catholics do you see out there with ginormous families, because they don’t believe in birth control? Maybe, maybe 5% of catholic families are like that? That’s a more than fair estimate in my opinion.

 

[Crepitus]

My problem with Roe v Wade is it doesn't go far enough. You know how most if you cons are afraid where the bump-stock ban is gonna go? That's what the rest of us worry about with the nibbling away at abortion rights.

No don't get me wrong, I do not approve of abortion as a birth control any more than you do, but I also don't approve of bringing unwanted, uncared-for, abused and neglected children into the world. If you conservative kids would stop freaking out over birth control, welfare, and other things for taking care of needy children I might go along with stricter controls on it.

Who are the people freaking out against birth control? It’s maybe a fractal of 1% who think that extremely cheap and extremely effective BC should be banned. I don’t think there’s a bigger strawman argument made than the one suggesting that the right wants to ban birth control. Sure there are Catholics who make a personal choice not to use, and parents who don’t want their 14 year old kids to be given condoms at school...but again those are personal decisions made since maybe it isn’t the best idea to encourage or condone, irresponsible kids to be participating in the act of reproduction. Religion is often mocked as being anti-sex and encouraging abstinence when there is a very clear biological logic to waiting until marriage to have sex. I didn’t wait, and I was lucky because I was pretty damn irresponsible when it came to wrapping before tapping. Why? Because I was a shithead, like most other shitheads at that age. I had raging hormones and society told me that it was ok to not try to control those urges.

Republicans in general tend to have problems with it, particularly with providing it in employer or government insurance policies.

If I have to pay for my condoms, why shouldn't women have to pay for their pills?

And there we go. I appreciate the help proving my point.

What does party have to do with it? I'm against "free stuff" in general because someone has to pay for it.

Sorry, but if you can't spend $20 a month to not get pregnant, and it is that important to you, then methinks you have to re-shuffle your life priorities,

Cheaper for all of us in the long run if we just covered it.

 

[Crepitus]

I'm anti-Roe. To me abortion for medical reasons is a no brainer. In cases of rape its also a no brainer.

However birth control abortions suck, considering the availability of actual birth control.

My issue is Roe is terrible case law, based on nothing but the hopes and dreams of a progressive court. As I live in NY abortions will be protected, and I have no issue with it.

I also have no issue with Alabama banning it.

To me this thread's argument is about the inherent inequality of women having a legal out from parenthood that men do not have.

true equality would require either both having it, or neither having it.

My problem with Roe v Wade is it doesn't go far enough. You know how most if you cons are afraid where the bump-stock ban is gonna go? That's what the rest of us worry about with the nibbling away at abortion rights.

No don't get me wrong, I do not approve of abortion as a birth control any more than you do, but I also don't approve of bringing unwanted, uncared-for, abused and neglected children into the world. If you conservative kids would stop freaking out over birth control, welfare, and other things for taking care of needy children I might go along with stricter controls on it.

Who are the people freaking out against birth control? It’s maybe a fractal of 1% who think that extremely cheap and extremely effective BC should be banned. I don’t think there’s a bigger strawman argument made than the one suggesting that the right wants to ban birth control. Sure there are Catholics who make a personal choice not to use, and parents who don’t want their 14 year old kids to be given condoms at school...but again those are personal decisions made since maybe it isn’t the best idea to encourage or condone, irresponsible kids to be participating in the act of reproduction. Religion is often mocked as being anti-sex and encouraging abstinence when there is a very clear biological logic to waiting until marriage to have sex. I didn’t wait, and I was lucky because I was pretty damn irresponsible when it came to wrapping before tapping. Why? Because I was a shithead, like most other shitheads at that age. I had raging hormones and society told me that it was ok to not try to control those urges.

Republicans in general tend to have problems with it, particularly with providing it in employer or government insurance policies.

That is an outright false statement. Republicans in general have absolutely no problem with birth control, and in general have absolutely no problem with employers offering insurance that covers it.

The sticking point, and any honest person will acknowledge it, is where an employer is forced by law to provide insurance that covers it, even though he personally abhors it.

And I want my condoms covered too, dammit.

I say sure, let's cover them too. Only fair.

 

[playtime]

Is there an argument to be made for a man to not have to pay child support, if he can prove he encouraged the mother to get an abortion, and she went against his wishes?

There is an argument, but it is a tough one to make.

The basis is one of equal rights. If a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy, and thus avoid parental responsibility, an absolutist viewpoint on equal rights requires men to have the same ability.

then wear a rubber.

 

[Skylar]

Is there an argument to be made for a man to not have to pay child support, if he can prove he encouraged the mother to get an abortion, and she went against his wishes?

Nope. Not in any state. As the father's obligation to the child is based on the child's existence. Not the father's desires.

 

[playtime]

Why not?

It is called "personal responsibility"

How can one responsibility for a decision that they had zero say in the matter?

Did the woman rape them? Did the woman make them have sex? I do not think so.

That doesn’t change that fact that men are still held responsible without any say in the matter.

What if the women requested to go raw dog, or lied about being on BC? This hypos can go on all day, the issue at hand is still one party holds the sole decision making ability, and the other is held responsible for it.

then say no maam- no rubber, no sex. & if it's THAT important, don't trust her saying she is on BC.

 

[Skylar]

Is there an argument to be made for a man to not have to pay child support, if he can prove he encouraged the mother to get an abortion, and she went against his wishes?

There is an argument, but it is a tough one to make.

No there isn't. Not a single court in the land has every accepted that meaningless piece of pseudo-legal gibberish.

The basis is one of equal rights. If a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy, and thus avoid parental responsibility, an absolutist viewpoint on equal rights requires men to have the same ability.

Nope. As a mother can never create an unequal obligation. Either she and the father are both obligated to care for the child....or neither is.

Your piece of meaningless pseudo-legal flotsam that has never been accepted in any court, ever.......is about unequal obligation. Where a mother is responsible for every child she bears. But a father is never responsible for any child he sires.

Um, that dog won't hunt.

Your 'equal rights' argument isn't about equality. But unequal obligation. Which is why its failure has been perfect, never succeeding once in any court of law.

Ever.

I wouldn't put much weight on what Marty has to say about legal matters. Marty regularly insists that his personal opinion is the law. Alas, the courts simply don't recognize that. And a 'legal argument' that neither the law nor the courts recognize is a legally meaningless one.

Ask the 'Sovereign Citizens' how well their imagination works as law.

 

[Skylar]

Why not?

It is called "personal responsibility"

How can one responsibility for a decision that they had zero say in the matter?

Did the woman rape them? Did the woman make them have sex? I do not think so.

That doesn’t change that fact that men are still held responsible without any say in the matter.

What if the women requested to go raw dog, or lied about being on BC? This hypos can go on all day, the issue at hand is still one party holds the sole decision making ability, and the other is held responsible for it.

then say no maam- no rubber, no sex. & if it's THAT important, don't trust her saying she is on BC.

A man has the right to the use of his body. And if he uses that body to impregnate a woman......he doesn't magically gain the right to the use of HER body. He still only has a right to the use of his own.

Thus, their rights are equal. And their obligations are equal. Which is the standard that every court, in every state, at every time, follows.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why not?

You did the deed, now pay for your fun. Be a man, live up to your responsibility.

Love how people actually think that I knocked someone up and am coming to USMB to try to get out of it.

If the sexes are truly equal, and there is no ethical issues in getting an abortion...then a man should have the same opportunity to opt out of responsibility for the very same reasons a women would choose to get a perfectly ethical abortion. It’s the same decision being made, but just because one has a dong, he all of a sudden turns into a monster...even though he could easily cite the exact same reasons to not take responsibility as a women wanting to get an abortion. So either abortion is unethical, the sexes are not equal legally or ethically speaking...or a man shouldn’t have to be forced to pay child support unless he didn’t want the woman to abort.

Sorry kid, in this one case the woman has the upper hand. If you can't make child support payments keep it in your pants.

So the sexes are not equal and men can and should be considered victims for not having the same reproductive rights as women.

Wrong.

The right to privacy prohibits the state from interfering with a woman’s choice as to whether to have a child or not, including the state compelling a woman to have the consent of the father as a prerequisite to terminating her pregnancy.

Whether the father encouraged the woman to get an abortion or not is legally irrelevant and not a mitigating circumstance with regard to paying child support.

 

[Skylar]

Why not?

It is called "personal responsibility"

So only men are required to have said responsibility?

Women too. Either both a man and a woman are responsible for the child....or neither are.

In your meaningless pseudo-legal nonsense, women are responsible for every child they bear. While men are never responsible for any child they sire.

This you call 'equality'. Which might explain why no court in any state recognizing your nonsense as having any legal validity.

 

[Skylar]

Why not?

You cannot force an abortion on anyone! Remember a woman has the right to choose! Think about that before you impregnate someone!

Who said anything about enforcing aborting on someone? What? It is a woman’s choice alone, but if women have the choice between being responsible for a kid or not, why don’t men get the same choice?

Simple: Because the man's obligation isn't based on his choice. Its based on the existence of the child.

If he wants to bear the child, there's nothing legally prohibiting him from doing so. However, he can't compel someone else to carry the child.

And if the child exists.....his obligation exists.

Your question about a legal argument has been asked and answered. No court in any state, even the most conservative, recognizes any claim that a man can abdicate his responsibilities to a child merely by advocating an abortion.

What you're left with are meaningless personal opinions or equally meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish. Neither of which have any legal relevance.

 

[sakinago]

So the sexes are not equal and men can and should be considered victims for not having the same reproductive rights as women.

Of course they're not equal, Men don't have ovaries and a womb and thus aren't obliged to carry a fetus to term.

Once the child is born then the father is ethically and legally obligated to provide for the child because the child exists and either the parents of said child are on the hook to care for it, they get someone else to voluntarily take the responsibility (e.g. adoption) or the rest of society is and the rest of society had no say whatsoever in the conception and birth of the child.

Your premise is flawed unless of course you want to advocate for the rights of the male in determining whether or not an abortion or adoption takes place, i.e. using the judiciary to obtain a forced abortion or adoption decree...

It’s not flawed unless the women was forced to carry to term, which she isn’t...because abortion so... Women have reproductive rights, but men don’t.

Men do have reproductive rights, they can choose whether or not to reproduce (either through abstinence or by using birth control), in other words they have all the rights necessary to control the use of their biological reproductive plumbing as they see fit, just like women do.

Your premise is flawed because as I said, lacking ovaries and womb Men aren't obliged to carry a fetus to term and thus aren't biologically affected by the choice of whether or not to do so.

Since when was it ok to distribute things like rights selectively? I thought that was a bad thing.

Where in your estimation do rights originate?

Still not flawed, you want it to be flawed...but it’s not. If it is a reproductive right of women (which is the case today) to choose while pregnant to have offspring or not...that is a right of crazy significant consequences that women have and men don’t. After the act of sex, men have ZERO say in the matter, and let’s remember, both parties still are agreeing to participate in sex, so there is still a stark inequity there. Sure they aren’t carrying the baby to term...but we still hold them responsible for the choices of someone else. This is something we’d laugh at if applied anywhere else. If I had sex with someone once, and they committed a crime 2 months later, it is silly to think I’d be held responsible to that crime as well. There is still quite the disparity of rights in there.

Where I believe rights come from doesn’t matter in this conversation. I’m using what basically a priori for anyone whose pro-choice.

 

[sakinago]

Is there an argument to be made for a man to not have to pay child support, if he can prove he encouraged the mother to get an abortion, and she went against his wishes?

Nope. Not in any state. As the father's obligation to the child is based on the child's existence. Not the father's desires.

So there is a disparity in reproductive rights, since the mother has a say on there being a child, and the father doesn’t.

 

[sakinago]

Why not?

You cannot force an abortion on anyone! Remember a woman has the right to choose! Think about that before you impregnate someone!

Who said anything about enforcing aborting on someone? What? It is a woman’s choice alone, but if women have the choice between being responsible for a kid or not, why don’t men get the same choice?

Simple: Because the man's obligation isn't based on his choice. Its based on the existence of the child.

If he wants to bear the child, there's nothing legally prohibiting him from doing so. However, he can't compel someone else to carry the child.

And if the child exists.....his obligation exists.

Your question about a legal argument has been asked and answered. No court in any state, even the most conservative, recognizes any claim that a man can abdicate his responsibilities to a child merely by advocating an abortion.

What you're left with are meaningless personal opinions or equally meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish. Neither of which have any legal relevance.

How people avoid the issue at hand on this question is incredible. Anything to maintain the illusion I suppose.

 

[Skylar]

Is there an argument to be made for a man to not have to pay child support, if he can prove he encouraged the mother to get an abortion, and she went against his wishes?

Nope. Not in any state. As the father's obligation to the child is based on the child's existence. Not the father's desires.

So there is a disparity in reproductive rights, since the mother has a say on there being a child, and the father doesn’t.

Not even a little. A man has the right to control his body. A woman has the right to control his.

If he wants to bear the child, he has ever legal right to do so.

 

[Skylar]

Why not?

You cannot force an abortion on anyone! Remember a woman has the right to choose! Think about that before you impregnate someone!

Who said anything about enforcing aborting on someone? What? It is a woman’s choice alone, but if women have the choice between being responsible for a kid or not, why don’t men get the same choice?

Simple: Because the man's obligation isn't based on his choice. Its based on the existence of the child.

If he wants to bear the child, there's nothing legally prohibiting him from doing so. However, he can't compel someone else to carry the child.

And if the child exists.....his obligation exists.

Your question about a legal argument has been asked and answered. No court in any state, even the most conservative, recognizes any claim that a man can abdicate his responsibilities to a child merely by advocating an abortion.

What you're left with are meaningless personal opinions or equally meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish. Neither of which have any legal relevance.

How people avoid the issue at hand on this question is incredible. Anything to maintain the illusion I suppose.

I'm merely addressing the legal realities of the situation. Yours is an argument without legal merit as it is based on inequality.

With a woman responsible for every child she bears while a man is never responsible for any child he sires.

Such pseudo-legal nonsense has rightly been rejected for a fair and reasonable system: The obligation of a man and woman are equal.

The system we have now.

 

[sakinago]

Why not?

You did the deed, now pay for your fun. Be a man, live up to your responsibility.

Love how people actually think that I knocked someone up and am coming to USMB to try to get out of it.

If the sexes are truly equal, and there is no ethical issues in getting an abortion...then a man should have the same opportunity to opt out of responsibility for the very same reasons a women would choose to get a perfectly ethical abortion. It’s the same decision being made, but just because one has a dong, he all of a sudden turns into a monster...even though he could easily cite the exact same reasons to not take responsibility as a women wanting to get an abortion. So either abortion is unethical, the sexes are not equal legally or ethically speaking...or a man shouldn’t have to be forced to pay child support unless he didn’t want the woman to abort.

Sorry kid, in this one case the woman has the upper hand. If you can't make child support payments keep it in your pants.

So the sexes are not equal and men can and should be considered victims for not having the same reproductive rights as women.

Wrong.

The right to privacy prohibits the state from interfering with a woman’s choice as to whether to have a child or not, including the state compelling a woman to have the consent of the father as a prerequisite to terminating her pregnancy.

Whether the father encouraged the woman to get an abortion or not is legally irrelevant and not a mitigating circumstance with regard to paying child support.

If it’s a decision that massively effects someone else, say having to pay child support for 18 years...then the “right of privacy” (an amendment no one seems to understand, and one that was used as USSR style PE steroids for the most amazing mental gymnastics ever) is moot. That’s no where near a “private” decision. You would have an argument if perhaps the father was not by law obligated to be responsible for something they have no say in, then it would be a private decision.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Is there an argument to be made for a man to not have to pay child support, if he can prove he encouraged the mother to get an abortion, and she went against his wishes?

Well with the way that Liberals seem to be changing the births of Children to be a minor incident in the lives of the Nation, I for one suggest that if the Mother does not want the Child and the father does, then the Father needs to take and raise the Kid. If it is the other way around then the Mother should. Now if they both want the child, then the options are to get married or both get a job and pay half of whatever it take to raise it. I seem fair for both person involved.

 

[sakinago]

Is there an argument to be made for a man to not have to pay child support, if he can prove he encouraged the mother to get an abortion, and she went against his wishes?

Well with the way that Liberals seem to be changing the births of Children to be a minor incident in the lives of the Nation, I for one suggest that if the Mother does not want the Child and the father does, then the Father needs to take and raise the Kid. If it is the other way around then the Mother should. Now if they both want the child, then the options are to get married or both get a job and pay half of whatever it take to raise it. I seem fair for both person involved.

Haven’t you read the rest of the thread, you cannot go around sounding so reasonable like that. We just can’t have that type of tomfoolery here.