Women Will Ask Men's Permission To Have An Abortion

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

OMG!

Now an abusive man can force a woman to have his child. Now a rapist can force a woman to have his child.

No he can't. It's a proposed law and has zero chance of passing.

 

[irosie91]

oh---ok 1.5 out of 14 is ~ ten percent------now I do not feel all
that unique. I am not up on current trends----in my time
it took a really seriously damaged chick to lose custody-----
not the kind who make big bucks

That's changed for sure. I got lucky 20 years ago, my ex abandoned her child, or I probably would not have got custody in a court battle. Today that's changed, finally Courts no longer default to "the mother is the best parent absent proof that she is abusive or something"

Actually, the newest trend appears to be joint custody with no child child support

"joint custody" ??? both bathe and dress and feed and
guard the kid?--------no child support? both do the shopping?

Kid lives with mom one week and dad the next. BOTH have custody

oh-----they live near each other-----and neither is running from the law

Yes, see how that works. Keep both parents in the child's life by not making one feel compelled to run because of child support. I mean let's fact it the system of just making the man give the woman money with no say in how it was spent on the child plus little contact with the child wasn't fair, OR working.

I know of no such cases that a man runs simply because of child support. The fact WAS that interference with visitation was a cause for refusing to pay. I just don't know
about any cases of that which you describe-----but I don't doubt that there are such cases. In my time (ancient times) I agree that divorce was entirely cook book-----
almost silly. I lived in a "no fault" state-------either side could get screwed----generally one or the other. -----but
even better------nothing got enforced

 

[JakeStarkey]

Proposed Bill Would Require Women To Ask Men s Permission To Have An Abortion is nonsense.

 

[Dana7360]

A bill proposed by a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri would require a woman seeking an abortion to obtain notarized consent from the baby's father, even if he is physically abusive toward her.

Proposed Bill Would Require Women To Ask Men s Permission To Have An Abortion

Since the legalization of abortion in 1973, over 56 million unborn children have been killed, more than the entire population of Spain. And we need to do something with it.

OMG!

Now an abusive man can force a woman to have his child. Now a rapist can force a woman to have his child.

There's so much wrong with that I just don't know where to start.

republicans are taking freedom, rights and liberty from women. I just don't understand why anyone would ever vote for a republican.

I'm so glad I don't live in any of the red states that are hell bent on taking freedom, rights and liberty from women.

It won't pass

I sure hope you're right.

The women of this nation are being treated like garbage. It needs to stop.

 

[Dana7360]

OMG!

Now an abusive man can force a woman to have his child. Now a rapist can force a woman to have his child.

Now he can't. It's a proposed law and has zero chance of passing.

I sure hope you're right.

No man should ever have the right to force a woman to have a child she doesn't want.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

That's changed for sure. I got lucky 20 years ago, my ex abandoned her child, or I probably would not have got custody in a court battle. Today that's changed, finally Courts no longer default to "the mother is the best parent absent proof that she is abusive or something"

Actually, the newest trend appears to be joint custody with no child child support

"joint custody" ??? both bathe and dress and feed and
guard the kid?--------no child support? both do the shopping?

Kid lives with mom one week and dad the next. BOTH have custody

oh-----they live near each other-----and neither is running from the law

Yes, see how that works. Keep both parents in the child's life by not making one feel compelled to run because of child support. I mean let's fact it the system of just making the man give the woman money with no say in how it was spent on the child plus little contact with the child wasn't fair, OR working.

I know of no such cases that a man runs simply because of child support. The fact WAS that interference with visitation was a cause for refusing to pay. I just don't know
about any cases of that which you describe-----but I don't doubt that there are such cases. In my time (ancient times) I agree that divorce was entirely cook book-----
almost silly. I lived in a "no fault" state-------either side could get screwed----generally one or the other. -----but
even better------nothing got enforced

um no in fact interfering with visitation is NOT an excuse not to pay. Nor is not paying child support a valid reason for refusing visitation.

Courts look very unkindly on parents who do either.


And OF COURSE there are non custodial parents who simply bail because they aren't that attached to their child AND they don't want to pay child support. It's simply pathetic, but one can almost understand why back in the day a man would be ordered to pay 1/4 of his paycheck, or more AND be told that he could only see his child(ren) one weekend out of the month, why many would simply say "fuck that" and disappear.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

OMG!

Now an abusive man can force a woman to have his child. Now a rapist can force a woman to have his child.

Now he can't. It's a proposed law and has zero chance of passing.

I sure hope you're right.

No man should ever have the right to force a woman to have a child she doesn't want.

No woman should ever have the right to force a man to pay for a child he doesn't want.

 

[irosie91]

OMG!

Now an abusive man can force a woman to have his child. Now a rapist can force a woman to have his child.

Now he can't. It's a proposed law and has zero chance of passing.

I sure hope you're right.

No man should ever have the right to force a woman to have a child she doesn't want.

it's consistent with shariah law. -----a real experience-----
"please take this slip to radiology----for an Xray of your shoulder"

answer "I have to ask my brother"

note----the woman was in her thirties

 

[irosie91]

"joint custody" ??? both bathe and dress and feed and
guard the kid?--------no child support? both do the shopping?

Kid lives with mom one week and dad the next. BOTH have custody

oh-----they live near each other-----and neither is running from the law

Yes, see how that works. Keep both parents in the child's life by not making one feel compelled to run because of child support. I mean let's fact it the system of just making the man give the woman money with no say in how it was spent on the child plus little contact with the child wasn't fair, OR working.

I know of no such cases that a man runs simply because of child support. The fact WAS that interference with visitation was a cause for refusing to pay. I just don't know
about any cases of that which you describe-----but I don't doubt that there are such cases. In my time (ancient times) I agree that divorce was entirely cook book-----
almost silly. I lived in a "no fault" state-------either side could get screwed----generally one or the other. -----but
even better------nothing got enforced

um no in fact interfering with visitation is NOT an excuse not to pay. Nor is not paying child support a valid reason for refusing visitation.

Courts look very unkindly on parents who do either.


And OF COURSE there are non custodial parents who simply bail because they aren't that attached to their child AND they don't want to pay child support. It's simply pathetic, but one can almost understand why back in the day a man would be ordered to pay 1/4 of his paycheck, or more AND be told that he could only see his child(ren) one weekend out of the month, why many would simply say "fuck that" and disappear.

I think that the reasons for CHUCKING it are very varied------
I have heard all kinds. The laws that demand payment regardless -----are observed in the breach. At least in the recent past they were. ------- There is another law-----if the
custodial parent takes the kids OUT OF STATE----a long distance off-----that the non custodial could request ending
support. At least such a law existed in the past----in states in which I lived. Also----a fleeing spouse who does not request visitation------does not get it. -----uhm "I know one such case"----who was told by the judge----"if he shows up and wants to see the kid----call the cops"

 

[irosie91]

OMG!

Now an abusive man can force a woman to have his child. Now a rapist can force a woman to have his child.

Now he can't. It's a proposed law and has zero chance of passing.

I sure hope you're right.

No man should ever have the right to force a woman to have a child she doesn't want.

No woman should ever have the right to force a man to pay for a child he doesn't want.

oh? so if a man in a divorce court says "I never wanted the kid anyway"-----he's off the hook?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Kid lives with mom one week and dad the next. BOTH have custody

oh-----they live near each other-----and neither is running from the law

Yes, see how that works. Keep both parents in the child's life by not making one feel compelled to run because of child support. I mean let's fact it the system of just making the man give the woman money with no say in how it was spent on the child plus little contact with the child wasn't fair, OR working.

I know of no such cases that a man runs simply because of child support. The fact WAS that interference with visitation was a cause for refusing to pay. I just don't know
about any cases of that which you describe-----but I don't doubt that there are such cases. In my time (ancient times) I agree that divorce was entirely cook book-----
almost silly. I lived in a "no fault" state-------either side could get screwed----generally one or the other. -----but
even better------nothing got enforced

Child support and visitation are NOT related

Child Support And Visitation Are Not Related




um no in fact interfering with visitation is NOT an excuse not to pay. Nor is not paying child support a valid reason for refusing visitation.

Courts look very unkindly on parents who do either.


And OF COURSE there are non custodial parents who simply bail because they aren't that attached to their child AND they don't want to pay child support. It's simply pathetic, but one can almost understand why back in the day a man would be ordered to pay 1/4 of his paycheck, or more AND be told that he could only see his child(ren) one weekend out of the month, why many would simply say "fuck that" and disappear.

I think that the reasons for CHUCKING it are very varied------
I have heard all kinds. The laws that demand payment regardless -----are observed in the breach. At least in the recent past they were. ------- There is another law-----if the
custodial parent takes the kids OUT OF STATE----a long distance off-----that the non custodial could request ending
support. At least such a law existed in the past----in states in which I lived. Also----a fleeing spouse who does not request visitation------does not get it. -----uhm "I know one such case"----who was told by the judge----"if he shows up and wants to see the kid----call the cops"

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

OMG!

Now an abusive man can force a woman to have his child. Now a rapist can force a woman to have his child.

Now he can't. It's a proposed law and has zero chance of passing.

I sure hope you're right.

No man should ever have the right to force a woman to have a child she doesn't want.

No woman should ever have the right to force a man to pay for a child he doesn't want.

oh? so if a man in a divorce court says "I never wanted the kid anyway"-----he's off the hook?

we're not talking about divorce court.

Can a woman go into divorce court and say "I want to abort my child?

 

[Pop23]

Where is the requirement that the father pay to rear the child?

RWs would have us back in the Dark Ages if they could. Abortion did not just start in 1973, nor will it ever end.

Most abortions are medically necessary but the reason for an abortion is not germane to the question of rights. Nor should we take away basic rights based on the whims of another person.

Then there's the flip side. If he wants her to abort, and she refuses, should she take singular financial responsibility?

Your coin appears to have but one side.

no. <<<< my declaration. He planted it----he has to
water it and feed it and----set up the stakes to SUPPORT
its growth

unless of course you decide to abort, in which case he has no say. Right?

And you don't see the hypocrisy of that position?

no......you were never in labor

Abortion requires no labor. What are you talking about.

Why is only one partner completely responsible? The other gets choice?

Makes zero sense.

 

[irosie91]

OMG!

Now an abusive man can force a woman to have his child. Now a rapist can force a woman to have his child.

Now he can't. It's a proposed law and has zero chance of passing.

I sure hope you're right.

No man should ever have the right to force a woman to have a child she doesn't want.

No woman should ever have the right to force a man to pay for a child he doesn't want.

oh? so if a man in a divorce court says "I never wanted the kid anyway"-----he's off the hook?

we're not talking about divorce court.

Can a woman go into divorce court and say "I want to abort my child?

I was responding to the issue of men being forced to
support children that they did not want.----child support orders are made -----against men-----for children they fathered even
if they did not want the child. I do believe that some men
are TRICKED into having children------that they do not want---
there are many many issues-------it is an extremely complex
problem-----HOWEVER I still do not accept the idea that
a man who fathers a child should have a right to prevent
the mother from aborting. In our species and society-----having children (ie being pregnant and giving birth) and
caring for children remains the burden foisted on women.
Even an abortion is a physiological nightmare for the mother.
Men should have nothing to say about it. If they do not
want to support children----they should make sure not have them by the means available to them. Making a woman
pregnant and then insisting that she abort against her will--
is barbaric-------it's not his apparatus under attack or his
hormonal make up SCREWED UP .

There are real sequelae that follow abortions-----I got to learn about that issue when I was about seven years old and SINCE

 

[irosie91]

Where is the requirement that the father pay to rear the child?

RWs would have us back in the Dark Ages if they could. Abortion did not just start in 1973, nor will it ever end.

Most abortions are medically necessary but the reason for an abortion is not germane to the question of rights. Nor should we take away basic rights based on the whims of another person.

Then there's the flip side. If he wants her to abort, and she refuses, should she take singular financial responsibility?

Your coin appears to have but one side.

no. <<<< my declaration. He planted it----he has to
water it and feed it and----set up the stakes to SUPPORT
its growth

unless of course you decide to abort, in which case he has no say. Right?

And you don't see the hypocrisy of that position?

no......you were never in labor

Abortion requires no labor. What are you talking about.

Why is only one partner completely responsible? The other gets choice?

Makes zero sense.

Abortion has very negative effects on a woman's Physiology---it has no effect on the physiology of the
man who's action initiated the pregnancy----her body, her choice

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Then there's the flip side. If he wants her to abort, and she refuses, should she take singular financial responsibility?

Your coin appears to have but one side.

no. <<<< my declaration. He planted it----he has to
water it and feed it and----set up the stakes to SUPPORT
its growth

unless of course you decide to abort, in which case he has no say. Right?

And you don't see the hypocrisy of that position?

no......you were never in labor

Abortion requires no labor. What are you talking about.

Why is only one partner completely responsible? The other gets choice?

Makes zero sense.

Abortion has very negative effects on a woman's Physiology---it has no effect on the physiology of the
man who's action initiated the pregnancy----her body, her choice

Really, so you don't believe finding out you're going to be a father, and then being told "I'm aborting your child" without so much as a conversation has ANY affect on a man?

That ma'am is an antiquated, and sexist, opinion. You're no better than the man who believes a woman belongs in the kitchen.

 

[irosie91]

Where is the requirement that the father pay to rear the child?

RWs would have us back in the Dark Ages if they could. Abortion did not just start in 1973, nor will it ever end.

Most abortions are medically necessary but the reason for an abortion is not germane to the question of rights. Nor should we take away basic rights based on the whims of another person.

Then there's the flip side. If he wants her to abort, and she refuses, should she take singular financial responsibility?

Your coin appears to have but one side.

no. <<<< my declaration. He planted it----he has to
water it and feed it and----set up the stakes to SUPPORT
its growth

unless of course you decide to abort, in which case he has no say. Right?

And you don't see the hypocrisy of that position?

no......you were never in labor

Abortion requires no labor. What are you talking about.

Why is only one partner completely responsible? The other gets choice?

Makes zero sense.

which one do you imagine is "COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE" and which gets choices? I have
never encountered such a situation. I gave birth----
I had a "CHOICE" as to whether or not to feed the kid?----well---my labor did not go well-----I was given the choice of
" C-section or die"....... In fact no one asked him-----should they have? If I opted not to feed the kid---who would be charged with the crime?

 

[irosie91]

no. <<<< my declaration. He planted it----he has to
water it and feed it and----set up the stakes to SUPPORT
its growth

unless of course you decide to abort, in which case he has no say. Right?

And you don't see the hypocrisy of that position?

no......you were never in labor

Abortion requires no labor. What are you talking about.

Why is only one partner completely responsible? The other gets choice?

Makes zero sense.

Abortion has very negative effects on a woman's Physiology---it has no effect on the physiology of the
man who's action initiated the pregnancy----her body, her choice

Really, so you don't believe finding out you're going to be a father, and then being told "I'm aborting your child" without so much as a conversation has ANY affect on a man?

That ma'am is an antiquated, and sexist, opinion. You're no better than the man who believes a woman belongs in the kitchen.

Depends on the circumstances of the relationship and the
characters of the players. Your question is far too broad..
There are men who do not believe that women belong in
the kitchen? how many. Right now I am busy doing the
laundry-----he does not know how to use the machine-------we
have a very egalitarian relationship----he just does other things. If I were pregnant with HIS child------I would consider his RIGHTS

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

unless of course you decide to abort, in which case he has no say. Right?

And you don't see the hypocrisy of that position?

no......you were never in labor

Abortion requires no labor. What are you talking about.

Why is only one partner completely responsible? The other gets choice?

Makes zero sense.

Abortion has very negative effects on a woman's Physiology---it has no effect on the physiology of the
man who's action initiated the pregnancy----her body, her choice

Really, so you don't believe finding out you're going to be a father, and then being told "I'm aborting your child" without so much as a conversation has ANY affect on a man?

That ma'am is an antiquated, and sexist, opinion. You're no better than the man who believes a woman belongs in the kitchen.

Depends on the circumstances of the relationship and the
characters of the players. Your question is far too broad..
There are men who do not believe that women belong in
the kitchen? how many. Right now I am busy doing the
laundry-----he does not know how to use the machine-------we
have a very egalitarian relationship----he just does other things. If I were pregnant with HIS child------I would consider his RIGHTS

So , you concede he has rights in regards to you getting pregnant?

 

[irosie91]

no......you were never in labor

Abortion requires no labor. What are you talking about.

Why is only one partner completely responsible? The other gets choice?

Makes zero sense.

Abortion has very negative effects on a woman's Physiology---it has no effect on the physiology of the
man who's action initiated the pregnancy----her body, her choice

Really, so you don't believe finding out you're going to be a father, and then being told "I'm aborting your child" without so much as a conversation has ANY affect on a man?

That ma'am is an antiquated, and sexist, opinion. You're no better than the man who believes a woman belongs in the kitchen.

Depends on the circumstances of the relationship and the
characters of the players. Your question is far too broad..
There are men who do not believe that women belong in
the kitchen? how many. Right now I am busy doing the
laundry-----he does not know how to use the machine-------we
have a very egalitarian relationship----he just does other things. If I were pregnant with HIS child------I would consider his RIGHTS

So , you concede he has rights in regards to you getting pregnant?

Yes----he does------but the other one has NO RIGHTS at all---so ruled the judge----correctly. He actually thought he did. Different persons----different circumstances.

I think he still thinks he has rights-------32 years later----in fact I know he does. Some men are like that. and, of course---some women are like -----other stuff. I see no way to discuss these issues so theoretically. I absolutely do not believe that a man should be able to cancel a woman's choice to have an abortion------but I would see his objection as a cause for divorce in his favor. In cases of unmarried people---he is stuck but his situation should get full consideration if he claims he was "tricked"