Male's right to abortion.

[Pennywise]

Yeah, you did. That's why you deleted the rest of my comment and yours which I quoted.

The rest of your comment was irrelevant.

Please quote me where I said I wanted the government involved.

It's implied.

So you can't quote it. Thank you.

You "have no sympathy" regarding child support payments. Who determines child support? And who will put you in prison for failure to pay? Chuck E Cheese?

You can keep this going if you want, but you have no ground, so why not just exit the discussion.

Of course I have ground. You are either a liar or you don't read very well because I never implied any such thing.

Child support is the law. That's a plain and simple fact. It has nothing to do with my opinion on whether or not it should exist at all nor is that the topic of this discussion. You're the one who read into something that wasn't there and that's your problem, not mine.

The LAW is the GOVERNMENT. I really have no interest in debating with dishonest people. Take a stand and defend it, don't play nonsense with words.

You are a poor debater, not because you are inconsistent in your stands, but because you try and play fast and loose when your inconsistency is shown. Adios.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The rest of your comment was irrelevant.

Please quote me where I said I wanted the government involved.

So you can't quote it. Thank you.

You "have no sympathy" regarding child support payments. Who determines child support? And who will put you in prison for failure to pay? Chuck E Cheese?

You can keep this going if you want, but you have no ground, so why not just exit the discussion.

Of course I have ground. You are either a liar or you don't read very well because I never implied any such thing.

Child support is the law. That's a plain and simple fact. It has nothing to do with my opinion on whether or not it should exist at all nor is that the topic of this discussion. You're the one who read into something that wasn't there and that's your problem, not mine.

The LAW is the GOVERNMENT. I really have no interest in debating with dishonest people. Take a stand and defend it, don't play nonsense with words.

You are a poor debater, not because you are inconsistent in your stands, but because you try and play fast and loose when your inconsistency is shown. Adios.

No need for you to get all butt hurt because you're wrong.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So you are not in favor of abortion being legal?

No one is ‘pro-abortion.’

Everyone is in agreement that the practice of abortion needs to be ended.

The disagreement and conflict manifest as to how to reach that goal, where one faction wants to ‘ban’ abortion, in violation of the Constitutional right to privacy, thus giving more unwarranted power to the state to interfere in our private lives – not to mention the fact that ‘banning’ abortion will in no way end the practice; and the faction that seeks to restrict the authority of the state, allowing the individual to make decisions concerning private matters absent interference from the state, while working to find ways that will actually bring about an end to the practice of abortion that comport with Constitutional case law.

if you defend the right of a woman to kill her innocent unborn child you are pro abortion and lying to yourself doesn't change that.

This doesn’t make any sense.

If you acknowledge the right exists and might be defended, then abortion is not ‘murder.’

 

[Luddly Neddite]

So you are not in favor of abortion being legal?

No one is ‘pro-abortion.’

Everyone is in agreement that the practice of abortion needs to be ended.

The disagreement and conflict manifest as to how to reach that goal, where one faction wants to ‘ban’ abortion, in violation of the Constitutional right to privacy, thus giving more unwarranted power to the state to interfere in our private lives – not to mention the fact that ‘banning’ abortion will in no way end the practice; and the faction that seeks to restrict the authority of the state, allowing the individual to make decisions concerning private matters absent interference from the state, while working to find ways that will actually bring about an end to the practice of abortion that comport with Constitutional case law.

if you defend the right of a woman to kill her innocent unborn child you are pro abortion and lying to yourself doesn't change that.

I believe the KKK, Westboro, limbaugh and other useless scum have the right to be and talk like useless scum.

That does not mean I'm in favor of their words or actions.

Understand?

 

[Katzndogz]

You can go to court and voluntarily terminate parental rights, which will also relinquish any obligation or responsibility.

Both parties can do that.

2nd but not likely to happen, a pre-talk with potential sex partner about their stand on abortion/pregnancy once you know where they stand if you disagree choose not to sleep together.

A person can go to court and voluntarily terminate parental RIGHTS. What they cannot do is terminate parental RESPONSIBILITIES. Otherwise millions of men would have done it by now.

Can I have the rights of the other parent terminated?
Probably not. Courts generally think children should have 2 parents and don’t want to
terminate the rights of one parent unless there is a very good reason. This is true even if both
parents agree to the termination.

About the only reason to terminate the rights of the other parent is if your current spouse
wants to adopt the children. If the other parent agrees to the termination, you can file a
petition with the local Juvenile Court asking the court to terminate the other parent’s rights
and allow your spouse to adopt your children. Your children’s other parent will need to give
his or her consent in writing.

But,
 If you are not remarried, or
 if you are but your spouse doesn’t want to adopt, or
 if the other parent doesn’t agree with the termination,
it is almost impossible to do.

It is even harder if you or your children get any sort of public
benefits. Taking away a parent’s rights also takes away their responsibility to support the
children. If there is any chance they can afford support, the state will not be willing to end
their parental rights if it means you or the children need public benefits.

http://www.lawhelpmn.org/files/1765...C9C37/f-10-termination-of-parental-rights.pdf

Termination of parental rights is not an easy thing to do, courts are not quick to grant it. But once they do your financial responsibility is also relinquished.

Typically this happens when a parent puts their baby up for adoption and they adoptive parents are now responsible.

But in cases of abuse there can also be termination of parental rights.

I never said it was an easy thing to get done.

However, in looking at what the original person posting said, if women have the right to abort should men have the right to terminate their parental rights?

That seems to be the question.

In cases of abuse, parental rights might be terminated but not the responsibility to provide support. In an adoption, the adoptive parents assume responsibility for the child's support. The court is only going to look at the child's right to be supported by a parent. Biological or adoptive. If you want to terminate the parental rights of another parent, there is a provision in the legal system for that, including the right to terminate parental rights AND keep getting child support.

The courts have held that when a man has unprotected sex with a woman, he assumes the risk that a pregnancy may occur, EVEN IF it is proved that the mother was actively lying and misleading him.

 

[BobPlumb]

A person can go to court and voluntarily terminate parental RIGHTS. What they cannot do is terminate parental RESPONSIBILITIES. Otherwise millions of men would have done it by now.

Can I have the rights of the other parent terminated?
Probably not. Courts generally think children should have 2 parents and don’t want to
terminate the rights of one parent unless there is a very good reason. This is true even if both
parents agree to the termination.

About the only reason to terminate the rights of the other parent is if your current spouse
wants to adopt the children. If the other parent agrees to the termination, you can file a
petition with the local Juvenile Court asking the court to terminate the other parent’s rights
and allow your spouse to adopt your children. Your children’s other parent will need to give
his or her consent in writing.

But,
 If you are not remarried, or
 if you are but your spouse doesn’t want to adopt, or
 if the other parent doesn’t agree with the termination,
it is almost impossible to do.

It is even harder if you or your children get any sort of public
benefits. Taking away a parent’s rights also takes away their responsibility to support the
children. If there is any chance they can afford support, the state will not be willing to end
their parental rights if it means you or the children need public benefits.

http://www.lawhelpmn.org/files/1765...C9C37/f-10-termination-of-parental-rights.pdf

Termination of parental rights is not an easy thing to do, courts are not quick to grant it. But once they do your financial responsibility is also relinquished.

Typically this happens when a parent puts their baby up for adoption and they adoptive parents are now responsible.

But in cases of abuse there can also be termination of parental rights.

I never said it was an easy thing to get done.

However, in looking at what the original person posting said, if women have the right to abort should men have the right to terminate their parental rights?

That seems to be the question.

In cases of abuse, parental rights might be terminated but not the responsibility to provide support. In an adoption, the adoptive parents assume responsibility for the child's support. The court is only going to look at the child's right to be supported by a parent. Biological or adoptive. If you want to terminate the parental rights of another parent, there is a provision in the legal system for that, including the right to terminate parental rights AND keep getting child support.

The courts have held that when a man has unprotected sex with a woman, he assumes the risk that a pregnancy may occur, EVEN IF it is proved that the mother was actively lying and misleading him.

But should the male have the right to op out of the responsibility to be a parent before the fetus becomes a child. The mother has this right through abortion. If not, then why without using arguments that would also be against a woman's right to abortion?


For those of you that are against abortion but for abortion being legal, then you can also be against a male opting out of the responsibility of being a parent while the"child" is a fetus, but be for the male being legally able to do this.

P.S. Don't restate what the law currently is, state what you think it should be and why.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

http://www.lawhelpmn.org/files/1765...C9C37/f-10-termination-of-parental-rights.pdf

Termination of parental rights is not an easy thing to do, courts are not quick to grant it. But once they do your financial responsibility is also relinquished.

Typically this happens when a parent puts their baby up for adoption and they adoptive parents are now responsible.

But in cases of abuse there can also be termination of parental rights.

I never said it was an easy thing to get done.

However, in looking at what the original person posting said, if women have the right to abort should men have the right to terminate their parental rights?

That seems to be the question.

In cases of abuse, parental rights might be terminated but not the responsibility to provide support. In an adoption, the adoptive parents assume responsibility for the child's support. The court is only going to look at the child's right to be supported by a parent. Biological or adoptive. If you want to terminate the parental rights of another parent, there is a provision in the legal system for that, including the right to terminate parental rights AND keep getting child support.

The courts have held that when a man has unprotected sex with a woman, he assumes the risk that a pregnancy may occur, EVEN IF it is proved that the mother was actively lying and misleading him.

But should the male have the right to op out of the responsibility to be a parent before the fetus becomes a child. The mother has this right through abortion. If not, then why without using arguments that would also be against a woman's right to abortion?


For those of you that are against abortion but for abortion being legal, then you can also be against a male opting out of the responsibility of being a parent while the"child" is a fetus, but be for the male being legally able to do this.

P.S. Don't restate what the law currently is, state what you think it should be and why.

There is no ‘responsibility’ for the father to ‘opt out of’ prior to birth in the first place; once the child is born both parents are equally responsible. And if the parents aren’t living together the law addresses the rights and responsibilities of the custodial parent and the non-custodial parent.

This is why the issue of the responsibilities of the soon-to-be non-custodial parent are in no way related to the issue of abortion.

 

[BobPlumb]

In cases of abuse, parental rights might be terminated but not the responsibility to provide support. In an adoption, the adoptive parents assume responsibility for the child's support. The court is only going to look at the child's right to be supported by a parent. Biological or adoptive. If you want to terminate the parental rights of another parent, there is a provision in the legal system for that, including the right to terminate parental rights AND keep getting child support.

The courts have held that when a man has unprotected sex with a woman, he assumes the risk that a pregnancy may occur, EVEN IF it is proved that the mother was actively lying and misleading him.

But should the male have the right to op out of the responsibility to be a parent before the fetus becomes a child. The mother has this right through abortion. If not, then why without using arguments that would also be against a woman's right to abortion?


For those of you that are against abortion but for abortion being legal, then you can also be against a male opting out of the responsibility of being a parent while the"child" is a fetus, but be for the male being legally able to do this.

P.S. Don't restate what the law currently is, state what you think it should be and why.

There is no ‘responsibility’ for the father to ‘opt out of’ prior to birth in the first place; once the child is born both parents are equally responsible. And if the parents aren’t living together the law addresses the rights and responsibilities of the custodial parent and the non-custodial parent.

This is why the issue of the responsibilities of the soon-to-be non-custodial parent are in no way related to the issue of abortion.

Yes they are related. A female can decide to avoid the responsibilities of being a parent by having an abortion. Of course a male cannot have an abortion for obvious biological reasons, but shouldn't he also be able to op out of the responsibility. The fetus is not yet a child so there is still a window of time to make a decision......at least there is for the female.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

But should the male have the right to op out of the responsibility to be a parent before the fetus becomes a child. The mother has this right through abortion. If not, then why without using arguments that would also be against a woman's right to abortion?


For those of you that are against abortion but for abortion being legal, then you can also be against a male opting out of the responsibility of being a parent while the"child" is a fetus, but be for the male being legally able to do this.

P.S. Don't restate what the law currently is, state what you think it should be and why.

There is no ‘responsibility’ for the father to ‘opt out of’ prior to birth in the first place; once the child is born both parents are equally responsible. And if the parents aren’t living together the law addresses the rights and responsibilities of the custodial parent and the non-custodial parent.

This is why the issue of the responsibilities of the soon-to-be non-custodial parent are in no way related to the issue of abortion.

Yes they are related. A female can decide to avoid the responsibilities of being a parent by having an abortion. Of course a male cannot have an abortion for obvious biological reasons, but shouldn't he also be able to op out of the responsibility. The fetus is not yet a child so there is still a window of time to make a decision......at least there is for the female.

Does your imaginary "man" know about birth control?

Seriously, if he's not a Republican, he surely knows, understands and uses birth control.

 

[BobPlumb]

There is no ‘responsibility’ for the father to ‘opt out of’ prior to birth in the first place; once the child is born both parents are equally responsible. And if the parents aren’t living together the law addresses the rights and responsibilities of the custodial parent and the non-custodial parent.

This is why the issue of the responsibilities of the soon-to-be non-custodial parent are in no way related to the issue of abortion.

Yes they are related. A female can decide to avoid the responsibilities of being a parent by having an abortion. Of course a male cannot have an abortion for obvious biological reasons, but shouldn't he also be able to op out of the responsibility. The fetus is not yet a child so there is still a window of time to make a decision......at least there is for the female.

Does your imaginary "man" know about birth control?

Seriously, if he's not a Republican, he surely knows, understands and uses birth control.

My imaginary man knew just as much about birth control as my imaginary woman. And the imaginary woman still has access to a form of birth control called abortion. And she can have an abortion even if the imaginary man wants to be a parent of this future child. Yet if the imaginary man doesn't want responsibility for this future child then too bad for him if the female decides to have the child.

 

[Trajan]

So, women should be 100% responsible for a live birth even though the male is 50% responsible for the pregnancy?

This is what dead beat dads believe and, on a very practical level, they're correct.

IMO, both men and women have sovereign rights over their own bodies. They also have responsibility for their actions and equal responsibility for their children.

If you don't want to support your children, don't make them. Take responsibility for what you say and do.

imho theres an equal share of responsibility, if men don't want a baby don't make them , ok, agreed and the same applies for a woman, there is no abrogation of responsibility for her either. NO means NO, right?

so lets say they mess up, both agree that a child was not planned.

the woman gets the final say, she can either keep it and then expect payment via child sppt. or abort.

the man has zero choice, though each are equally responsible for the pregnancy, the man simply becomes a bystander; she can abort even if he wants it and will take responsibility in full, she can keep it even if he doesn't want responsibility, his part or ability to influence the decision in his favor is- zero. The woman's ability to influence the decision in her favor, either way, is total.

I think there is a fundamental inequity in that.

 

[Trajan]

this is the clean debate zone, no personal remarks etc. no flames, no nasty asides, keep it clean please.

 

[BobPlumb]

So, women should be 100% responsible for a live birth even though the male is 50% responsible for the pregnancy?

This is what dead beat dads believe and, on a very practical level, they're correct.

IMO, both men and women have sovereign rights over their own bodies. They also have responsibility for their actions and equal responsibility for their children.

If you don't want to support your children, don't make them. Take responsibility for what you say and do.

imho theres an equal share of responsibility, if men don't want a baby don't make them , ok, agreed and the same applies for a woman, there is no abrogation of responsibility for her either. NO means NO, right?

so lets say they mess up, both agree that a child was not planned.

the woman gets the final say, she can either keep it and then expect payment via child sppt. or abort.

the man has zero choice, though each are equally responsible for the pregnancy, the man simply becomes a bystander; she can abort even if he wants it and will take responsibility in full, she can keep it even if he doesn't want responsibility, his part or ability to influence the decision in his favor is- zero. The woman's ability to influence the decision in her favor, either way, is total.

I think there is a fundamental inequity in that.

And that fundamental inequality is what the op is based upon.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

so lets say they mess up, both agree that a child was not planned.

the woman gets the final say, she can either keep it and then expect payment via child sppt. or abort.

the man has zero choice, though each are equally responsible for the pregnancy, the man simply becomes a bystander; she can abort even if he wants it and will take responsibility in full, she can keep it even if he doesn't want responsibility, his part or ability to influence the decision in his favor is- zero. The woman's ability to influence the decision in her favor, either way, is total.

I think there is a fundamental inequity in that.

Take it up with God. He designed it that way, right?

If people waited until they were married to start popping out kids this wouldn't even be an issue. It all comes down to a complete lack of responsibility. As a man, don't put yourself in the situation and you won't have to worry about it.

 

[BobPlumb]

so lets say they mess up, both agree that a child was not planned.

the woman gets the final say, she can either keep it and then expect payment via child sppt. or abort.

the man has zero choice, though each are equally responsible for the pregnancy, the man simply becomes a bystander; she can abort even if he wants it and will take responsibility in full, she can keep it even if he doesn't want responsibility, his part or ability to influence the decision in his favor is- zero. The woman's ability to influence the decision in her favor, either way, is total.

I think there is a fundamental inequity in that.

Take it up with God. He designed it that way, right?

If people waited until they were married to start popping out kids this wouldn't even be an issue. It all comes down to a complete lack of responsibility. As a man, don't put yourself in the situation and you won't have to worry about it.

Yet you don't say the same about a woman.

You want limited government. Let's let everyone just do what ever they want and then just take it up with God.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

If he has sex and that sex results in a pregnancy, he is just as liable for that as she is.

If you're trying to say its not fair that she can abort, that's just not germane. If she has a baby, he can walk away from supporting it. Women have always gotten stuck raising kids alone. How is that fair?

Actions have consequences.

 

[BobPlumb]

If he has sex and that sex results in a pregnancy, he is just as liable for that as she is.

If you're trying to say its not fair that she can abort, that's just not germane. If she has a baby, he can walk away from supporting it. Women have always gotten stuck raising kids alone. How is that fair?

Actions have consequences.

He can just walk away from supporting it, really?

I think quite a number of men that are in prison for unpaid child support would disagree with you.

 

[Michelle420]

http://www.lawhelpmn.org/files/1765...C9C37/f-10-termination-of-parental-rights.pdf

Termination of parental rights is not an easy thing to do, courts are not quick to grant it. But once they do your financial responsibility is also relinquished.

Typically this happens when a parent puts their baby up for adoption and they adoptive parents are now responsible.

But in cases of abuse there can also be termination of parental rights.

I never said it was an easy thing to get done.

However, in looking at what the original person posting said, if women have the right to abort should men have the right to terminate their parental rights?

That seems to be the question.

In cases of abuse, parental rights might be terminated but not the responsibility to provide support. In an adoption, the adoptive parents assume responsibility for the child's support. The court is only going to look at the child's right to be supported by a parent. Biological or adoptive. If you want to terminate the parental rights of another parent, there is a provision in the legal system for that, including the right to terminate parental rights AND keep getting child support.

The courts have held that when a man has unprotected sex with a woman, he assumes the risk that a pregnancy may occur, EVEN IF it is proved that the mother was actively lying and misleading him.

But should the male have the right to op out of the responsibility to be a parent before the fetus becomes a child. The mother has this right through abortion. If not, then why without using arguments that would also be against a woman's right to abortion?


For those of you that are against abortion but for abortion being legal, then you can also be against a male opting out of the responsibility of being a parent while the"child" is a fetus, but be for the male being legally able to do this.

P.S. Don't restate what the law currently is, state what you think it should be and why.

In my personal opinion yes he should have the opt-out right so long as she has the right to abort.

You have mostly focused on if the man doesn't want to pay for the baby, but what is your opinion in the case of if the man wants the responsibility of the baby and she doesn't then what?

Pretty much both men and women should think about it before sex imo.

Afterward is kind of a mess because if he wants the baby and she doesn't or if she wants the baby and he doesn't then what?

If men can opt out and women can abort it doesn't solve the question of men who don't want to opt-out except to say don't sleep around and pick a partner who wants the same thing you want.

 

[BobPlumb]

In cases of abuse, parental rights might be terminated but not the responsibility to provide support. In an adoption, the adoptive parents assume responsibility for the child's support. The court is only going to look at the child's right to be supported by a parent. Biological or adoptive. If you want to terminate the parental rights of another parent, there is a provision in the legal system for that, including the right to terminate parental rights AND keep getting child support.

The courts have held that when a man has unprotected sex with a woman, he assumes the risk that a pregnancy may occur, EVEN IF it is proved that the mother was actively lying and misleading him.

But should the male have the right to op out of the responsibility to be a parent before the fetus becomes a child. The mother has this right through abortion. If not, then why without using arguments that would also be against a woman's right to abortion?


For those of you that are against abortion but for abortion being legal, then you can also be against a male opting out of the responsibility of being a parent while the"child" is a fetus, but be for the male being legally able to do this.

P.S. Don't restate what the law currently is, state what you think it should be and why.

In my personal opinion yes he should have the opt-out right so long as she has the right to abort.

You have mostly focused on if the man doesn't want to pay for the baby, but what is your opinion in the case of if the man wants the responsibility of the baby and she doesn't then what?

Pretty much both men and women should think about it before sex imo.

Afterward is kind of a mess because if he wants the baby and she doesn't or if she wants the baby and he doesn't then what?

If men can opt out and women can abort it doesn't solve the question of men who don't want to opt-out except to say don't sleep around and pick a partner who wants the same thing you want.

Perhaps the mother could "op out" from being responsible for the child after birth if the father agreed to assume full responsibility to prevent the abortion of the fetus/future child.

Note: Many states have safe heaven laws which parents may turn a baby over to be a ward of the state shortly after birth. But this note is slightly off subject.

 

[Trajan]

so lets say they mess up, both agree that a child was not planned.

the woman gets the final say, she can either keep it and then expect payment via child sppt. or abort.

the man has zero choice, though each are equally responsible for the pregnancy, the man simply becomes a bystander; she can abort even if he wants it and will take responsibility in full, she can keep it even if he doesn't want responsibility, his part or ability to influence the decision in his favor is- zero. The woman's ability to influence the decision in her favor, either way, is total.

I think there is a fundamental inequity in that.

Take it up with God. He designed it that way, right?

If people waited until they were married to start popping out kids this wouldn't even be an issue. It all comes down to a complete lack of responsibility. As a man, don't put yourself in the situation and you won't have to worry about it.

I don't see how that addresses what I said