Is there a legit legal argument here?

[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?

No.

Because "Biology."

Ask any pro-abort leftard. . . It's a well known biological fact that if you are a male, children's lives begin at and by conception and "children" are entitled to child support, medical care etc.

And! If you are a woman, a child's life (and rights) do not begin until you decide that it does OR roughly sometime in the third trimester, if you just can't decide.

Didn't you have biology in school?

Wrong forum. We're having a discussion of the law. If you want to discuss the biology of abortion, feel free to do so in another thread. That's not what we're discussing here.

 

[Chuz Life]

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?

No.

Because "Biology."

Ask any pro-abort leftard. . . It's a well known biological fact that if you are a male, children's lives begin at and by conception and "children" are entitled to child support, medical care etc.

And! If you are a woman, a child's life (and rights) do not begin until you decide that it does OR roughly sometime in the third trimester, if you just can't decide.

Didn't you have biology in school?

Wrong forum. We're having a discussion of the law. If you want to discuss the biology of abortion, feel free to do so in another thread. That's not what we're discussing here.

You're right.

Biological parenthood and the financial obligations of biological fathers has absolutely nothing to do with "biology" or "biological" facts.

What was I thinking?

 

[Slyhunter]

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?

No.

Because "Biology."

Ask any pro-abort leftard. . . It's a well known biological fact that if you are a male, children's lives begin at and by conception and "children" are entitled to child support, medical care etc.

And! If you are a woman, a child's life (and rights) do not begin until you decide that it does OR roughly sometime in the third trimester, if you just can't decide.

Didn't you have biology in school?

Wrong forum. We're having a discussion of the law. If you want to discuss the biology of abortion, feel free to do so in another thread. That's not what we're discussing here.

The point is; either through abortion, or legally surrender of said kid, there are ways the mother can get out of the responsibility of raising the child. The man doesn't get a choice. If the woman keeps the kid the guy is stuck paying child support. That isn't fair.

 

[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?

No.

Because "Biology."

Ask any pro-abort leftard. . . It's a well known biological fact that if you are a male, children's lives begin at and by conception and "children" are entitled to child support, medical care etc.

And! If you are a woman, a child's life (and rights) do not begin until you decide that it does OR roughly sometime in the third trimester, if you just can't decide.

Didn't you have biology in school?

Wrong forum. We're having a discussion of the law. If you want to discuss the biology of abortion, feel free to do so in another thread. That's not what we're discussing here.

The point is; either through abortion, or legally surrender of said kid, there are ways the mother can get out of the responsibility of raising the child. The man doesn't get a choice. If the woman keeps the kid the guy is stuck paying child support. That isn't fair.

And in either instance, neither she nor the father have any financial obligation. Their obligation is always equal. Either they both have financial obligation, or neither does. Which is fair.

Its *perfectly* fair for a father to support his own child.

 

[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?

No.

Because "Biology."

Ask any pro-abort leftard. . . It's a well known biological fact that if you are a male, children's lives begin at and by conception and "children" are entitled to child support, medical care etc.

And! If you are a woman, a child's life (and rights) do not begin until you decide that it does OR roughly sometime in the third trimester, if you just can't decide.

Didn't you have biology in school?

Wrong forum. We're having a discussion of the law. If you want to discuss the biology of abortion, feel free to do so in another thread. That's not what we're discussing here.

You're right.

Biological parenthood and the financial obligations of biological fathers has absolutely nothing to do with "biology" or "biological" facts.

What was I thinking?

You're not reading what you're responding to.

For the second time, we're having a discussion about the law. Not a biological one. Lets see if you'll bother to read the post this time before responding.

 

[Slyhunter]

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?

No.

Because "Biology."

Ask any pro-abort leftard. . . It's a well known biological fact that if you are a male, children's lives begin at and by conception and "children" are entitled to child support, medical care etc.

And! If you are a woman, a child's life (and rights) do not begin until you decide that it does OR roughly sometime in the third trimester, if you just can't decide.

Didn't you have biology in school?

Wrong forum. We're having a discussion of the law. If you want to discuss the biology of abortion, feel free to do so in another thread. That's not what we're discussing here.

The point is; either through abortion, or legally surrender of said kid, there are ways the mother can get out of the responsibility of raising the child. The man doesn't get a choice. If the woman keeps the kid the guy is stuck paying child support. That isn't fair.

And in either instance, neither she nor the father have any financial obligation. Their obligation is always equal. Either they both have financial obligation, or neither does. Which is fair.

Its *perfectly* fair for a father to support his own child.

In both situations the choice is the mothers, the father doesn't get a choice. That is the unfair part.

 

[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?

No.

Because "Biology."

Ask any pro-abort leftard. . . It's a well known biological fact that if you are a male, children's lives begin at and by conception and "children" are entitled to child support, medical care etc.

And! If you are a woman, a child's life (and rights) do not begin until you decide that it does OR roughly sometime in the third trimester, if you just can't decide.

Didn't you have biology in school?

Wrong forum. We're having a discussion of the law. If you want to discuss the biology of abortion, feel free to do so in another thread. That's not what we're discussing here.

The point is; either through abortion, or legally surrender of said kid, there are ways the mother can get out of the responsibility of raising the child. The man doesn't get a choice. If the woman keeps the kid the guy is stuck paying child support. That isn't fair.

And in either instance, neither she nor the father have any financial obligation. Their obligation is always equal. Either they both have financial obligation, or neither does. Which is fair.

Its *perfectly* fair for a father to support his own child.

In both situations the choice is the mothers, the father doesn't get a choice. That is the unfair part.

The father gets a choice of the use of his own body. The mother gets a choice of the use of hers.

That's perfectly fair.

What the father doesn't get is a choice on the use of a mother's body. Nor should he. As then he would have control over his own body AND her body. While she would have control over neither her own body nor his.

And that's obviously not fair.

As far as 'safe surrender', it doesn't speak to mothers or fathers. But parents. And at no point does it say that the state can go after a father for child support after a mother surrenders the child.

You made that up.

 

[Slyhunter]

No.

Because "Biology."

Ask any pro-abort leftard. . . It's a well known biological fact that if you are a male, children's lives begin at and by conception and "children" are entitled to child support, medical care etc.

And! If you are a woman, a child's life (and rights) do not begin until you decide that it does OR roughly sometime in the third trimester, if you just can't decide.

Didn't you have biology in school?

Wrong forum. We're having a discussion of the law. If you want to discuss the biology of abortion, feel free to do so in another thread. That's not what we're discussing here.

The point is; either through abortion, or legally surrender of said kid, there are ways the mother can get out of the responsibility of raising the child. The man doesn't get a choice. If the woman keeps the kid the guy is stuck paying child support. That isn't fair.

And in either instance, neither she nor the father have any financial obligation. Their obligation is always equal. Either they both have financial obligation, or neither does. Which is fair.

Its *perfectly* fair for a father to support his own child.

In both situations the choice is the mothers, the father doesn't get a choice. That is the unfair part.

The father gets a choice of the use of his own body. The mother gets a choice of the use of hers.

That's perfectly fair.

What the father doesn't get is a choice on the use of a mother's body. Nor should he. As then he would have control over his own body AND her body. While she would have control over neither her own body nor his.

And that's obviously not fair.

As far as 'safe surrender', it doesn't speak to mothers or fathers. But parents. And at no point does it say that the state can go after a father for child support after a mother surrenders the child.

You made that up.

They both had a choice before she got pregnant. Only she has a choice after she gets pregnant. And only she gets a choice after giving birth even, so being her body doesn't matter any longer. The father cannot chose the mother can, that is unfair.

 

[Chuz Life]

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?

No.

Because "Biology."

Ask any pro-abort leftard. . . It's a well known biological fact that if you are a male, children's lives begin at and by conception and "children" are entitled to child support, medical care etc.

And! If you are a woman, a child's life (and rights) do not begin until you decide that it does OR roughly sometime in the third trimester, if you just can't decide.

Didn't you have biology in school?

Wrong forum. We're having a discussion of the law. If you want to discuss the biology of abortion, feel free to do so in another thread. That's not what we're discussing here.

You're right.

Biological parenthood and the financial obligations of biological fathers has absolutely nothing to do with "biology" or "biological" facts.

What was I thinking?

You're not reading what you're responding to.

For the second time, we're having a discussion about the law. Not a biological one. Lets see if you'll bother to read the post this time before responding.

So, there should be no discussion of biological facts in a thread about laws that are based on scientific (biological) facts.

Huh.

Imagine that.

 

[Skylar]

Wrong forum. We're having a discussion of the law. If you want to discuss the biology of abortion, feel free to do so in another thread. That's not what we're discussing here.

The point is; either through abortion, or legally surrender of said kid, there are ways the mother can get out of the responsibility of raising the child. The man doesn't get a choice. If the woman keeps the kid the guy is stuck paying child support. That isn't fair.

And in either instance, neither she nor the father have any financial obligation. Their obligation is always equal. Either they both have financial obligation, or neither does. Which is fair.

Its *perfectly* fair for a father to support his own child.

In both situations the choice is the mothers, the father doesn't get a choice. That is the unfair part.

The father gets a choice of the use of his own body. The mother gets a choice of the use of hers.

That's perfectly fair.

What the father doesn't get is a choice on the use of a mother's body. Nor should he. As then he would have control over his own body AND her body. While she would have control over neither her own body nor his.

And that's obviously not fair.

As far as 'safe surrender', it doesn't speak to mothers or fathers. But parents. And at no point does it say that the state can go after a father for child support after a mother surrenders the child.

You made that up.

They both had a choice before she got pregnant. Only she has a choice after she gets pregnant.

They both had a choice on the uses of their own body before she got pregnant. And they both had a choice on the uses of their own body after she got pregnant.

That's perfectly fair.

And only she gets a choice after giving birth even, so being her body doesn't matter any longer. The father cannot chose the mother can, that is unfair.

More made up nonsense. The surrender laws don't specify that 'only a mother' can surrender a child. Any parent of a child younger than 72 hours can. Hell, anyone can drop the kid off on a parent's behalf.

You're making up pseudo-legal nonsense to justify your argument. You made up the claim that the state would go after the father for child support if they could, after a mother surrendered the child. The law doesn't say this. You made up a claim that 'only a mother gets a choice after giving birth'. The law doesn't say this either.

The word 'mother' doesn't appear once in the entire law.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1001-1050/ab_1048_bill_20100930_chaptered.pdf

The word 'parent' appears 26 times.

 

[Slyhunter]

The point is; either through abortion, or legally surrender of said kid, there are ways the mother can get out of the responsibility of raising the child. The man doesn't get a choice. If the woman keeps the kid the guy is stuck paying child support. That isn't fair.

And in either instance, neither she nor the father have any financial obligation. Their obligation is always equal. Either they both have financial obligation, or neither does. Which is fair.

Its *perfectly* fair for a father to support his own child.

In both situations the choice is the mothers, the father doesn't get a choice. That is the unfair part.

The father gets a choice of the use of his own body. The mother gets a choice of the use of hers.

That's perfectly fair.

What the father doesn't get is a choice on the use of a mother's body. Nor should he. As then he would have control over his own body AND her body. While she would have control over neither her own body nor his.

And that's obviously not fair.

As far as 'safe surrender', it doesn't speak to mothers or fathers. But parents. And at no point does it say that the state can go after a father for child support after a mother surrenders the child.

You made that up.

They both had a choice before she got pregnant. Only she has a choice after she gets pregnant.

They both had a choice on the uses of their own body before she got pregnant. And they both had a choice on the uses of their own body after she got pregnant.

That's perfectly fair.

And only she gets a choice after giving birth even, so being her body doesn't matter any longer. The father cannot chose the mother can, that is unfair.

More made up nonsense. The surrender laws don't specify that 'only a mother' can surrender a child. Any parent of a child younger than 72 hours can. Hell, anyone can drop the kid off on a parent's behalf.

You're making up pseudo-legal nonsense to justify your argument. You made up the claim that the state would go after the father for child support if they could, after a mother surrendered the child. The law doesn't say this. You made up a claim that 'only a mother gets a choice after giving birth'. The law doesn't say this either.

The guy can't surrender the child without the mothers permission.
Get unstuck on irrelevant arguments. I used a poor use of wording when trying to explain my argument, it doesn't invalidate the entire argument.
The point is she gets a choice, he doesn't. If she can legally abort then he should be able to abort too or at least not be forced to support the kid once it's born.
If she can give the child away with no repercussions after it's born then he should be able to too and not be forced to pay to support the kid if she chooses not to surrender the child.
Both cases she gets to choose and the man is screwed.

 

[Skylar]

And in either instance, neither she nor the father have any financial obligation. Their obligation is always equal. Either they both have financial obligation, or neither does. Which is fair.

Its *perfectly* fair for a father to support his own child.

In both situations the choice is the mothers, the father doesn't get a choice. That is the unfair part.

The father gets a choice of the use of his own body. The mother gets a choice of the use of hers.

That's perfectly fair.

What the father doesn't get is a choice on the use of a mother's body. Nor should he. As then he would have control over his own body AND her body. While she would have control over neither her own body nor his.

And that's obviously not fair.

As far as 'safe surrender', it doesn't speak to mothers or fathers. But parents. And at no point does it say that the state can go after a father for child support after a mother surrenders the child.

You made that up.

They both had a choice before she got pregnant. Only she has a choice after she gets pregnant.

They both had a choice on the uses of their own body before she got pregnant. And they both had a choice on the uses of their own body after she got pregnant.

That's perfectly fair.

And only she gets a choice after giving birth even, so being her body doesn't matter any longer. The father cannot chose the mother can, that is unfair.

More made up nonsense. The surrender laws don't specify that 'only a mother' can surrender a child. Any parent of a child younger than 72 hours can. Hell, anyone can drop the kid off on a parent's behalf.

You're making up pseudo-legal nonsense to justify your argument. You made up the claim that the state would go after the father for child support if they could, after a mother surrendered the child. The law doesn't say this. You made up a claim that 'only a mother gets a choice after giving birth'. The law doesn't say this either.

The guy can't surrender the child without the mothers permission.

Says you. The law says that any parent can or anyone who has lawful custody of the child. Or anyone can on the parent's behalf with their permission. It never says a thing about 'only mothers can'.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1001-1050/ab_1048_bill_20100930_chaptered.pdf

In fact, the law never once uses the word 'mother'. It uses the word 'parent', 26 times.

You're making up pseudo-legal nonsense that the law simply doesn't support.

Get unstuck on irrelevant arguments. I used a poor use of wording when trying to explain my argument, it doesn't invalidate the entire argument.

Not your entire argument, no. But it does invalidate your claims regarding the surrender laws. There are no 'mothers only' requirements in those laws. Nixing your 'after the birth only the mother gets to choose' argument. That argument has no basis in the law.

The point is she gets a choice, he doesn't. If she can legally abort then he should be able to abort too or at least not be forced to support the kid once it's born.

She gets a choice about the use of her body. He gets a choice about the use of his body.

That's perfectly fair.

What *you're* proposing is that he get control over his body AND he gets control over her body. While she has no choices, having no control over her own body nor his.

That's not fair. That's fantastically unequal.

Which is why no court in the nation backs such nonsense.

 

[Slyhunter]

In both situations the choice is the mothers, the father doesn't get a choice. That is the unfair part.

The father gets a choice of the use of his own body. The mother gets a choice of the use of hers.

That's perfectly fair.

What the father doesn't get is a choice on the use of a mother's body. Nor should he. As then he would have control over his own body AND her body. While she would have control over neither her own body nor his.

And that's obviously not fair.

As far as 'safe surrender', it doesn't speak to mothers or fathers. But parents. And at no point does it say that the state can go after a father for child support after a mother surrenders the child.

You made that up.

They both had a choice before she got pregnant. Only she has a choice after she gets pregnant.

They both had a choice on the uses of their own body before she got pregnant. And they both had a choice on the uses of their own body after she got pregnant.

That's perfectly fair.

And only she gets a choice after giving birth even, so being her body doesn't matter any longer. The father cannot chose the mother can, that is unfair.

More made up nonsense. The surrender laws don't specify that 'only a mother' can surrender a child. Any parent of a child younger than 72 hours can. Hell, anyone can drop the kid off on a parent's behalf.

You're making up pseudo-legal nonsense to justify your argument. You made up the claim that the state would go after the father for child support if they could, after a mother surrendered the child. The law doesn't say this. You made up a claim that 'only a mother gets a choice after giving birth'. The law doesn't say this either.

The guy can't surrender the child without the mothers permission.

Says you. The law says that any parent can or anyone who has lawful custody of the child. Or anyone can on the parent's behalf with their permission. It never says a thing about 'only mothers can'.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1001-1050/ab_1048_bill_20100930_chaptered.pdf

In fact, the law never once uses the word 'mother'. It uses the word 'parent', 26 times.

You're making up pseudo-legal nonsense that the law simply doesn't support.

Get unstuck on irrelevant arguments. I used a poor use of wording when trying to explain my argument, it doesn't invalidate the entire argument.

Not your entire argument, no. But it does invalidate your claims regarding the surrender laws. There are no 'mothers only' requirements in those laws. Nixing your 'after the birth only the mother gets to choose' argument. That argument has no basis in the law.

The point is she gets a choice, he doesn't. If she can legally abort then he should be able to abort too or at least not be forced to support the kid once it's born.

She gets a choice about the use of her body. He gets a choice about the use of his body.

That's perfectly fair.

What *you're* proposing is that he get control over his body AND he gets control over her body. While she has no choices, having no control over her own body nor his.

That's not fair. That's fantastically unequal.

Which is why no court in the nation backs such nonsense.

You're saying if the mother wants to keep the kid and the father surrenders the kid he doesn't have to pay child support when the woman goes to the authorities to demand the kid back?

 

[Slyhunter]

In both situations the choice is the mothers, the father doesn't get a choice. That is the unfair part.

The father gets a choice of the use of his own body. The mother gets a choice of the use of hers.

That's perfectly fair.

What the father doesn't get is a choice on the use of a mother's body. Nor should he. As then he would have control over his own body AND her body. While she would have control over neither her own body nor his.

And that's obviously not fair.

As far as 'safe surrender', it doesn't speak to mothers or fathers. But parents. And at no point does it say that the state can go after a father for child support after a mother surrenders the child.

You made that up.

They both had a choice before she got pregnant. Only she has a choice after she gets pregnant.

They both had a choice on the uses of their own body before she got pregnant. And they both had a choice on the uses of their own body after she got pregnant.

That's perfectly fair.

And only she gets a choice after giving birth even, so being her body doesn't matter any longer. The father cannot chose the mother can, that is unfair.

More made up nonsense. The surrender laws don't specify that 'only a mother' can surrender a child. Any parent of a child younger than 72 hours can. Hell, anyone can drop the kid off on a parent's behalf.

You're making up pseudo-legal nonsense to justify your argument. You made up the claim that the state would go after the father for child support if they could, after a mother surrendered the child. The law doesn't say this. You made up a claim that 'only a mother gets a choice after giving birth'. The law doesn't say this either.

The guy can't surrender the child without the mothers permission.

Says you. The law says that any parent can or anyone who has lawful custody of the child. Or anyone can on the parent's behalf with their permission. It never says a thing about 'only mothers can'.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1001-1050/ab_1048_bill_20100930_chaptered.pdf

In fact, the law never once uses the word 'mother'. It uses the word 'parent', 26 times.

You're making up pseudo-legal nonsense that the law simply doesn't support.

Get unstuck on irrelevant arguments. I used a poor use of wording when trying to explain my argument, it doesn't invalidate the entire argument.

Not your entire argument, no. But it does invalidate your claims regarding the surrender laws. There are no 'mothers only' requirements in those laws. Nixing your 'after the birth only the mother gets to choose' argument. That argument has no basis in the law.

The point is she gets a choice, he doesn't. If she can legally abort then he should be able to abort too or at least not be forced to support the kid once it's born.

She gets a choice about the use of her body. He gets a choice about the use of his body.

That's perfectly fair.

What *you're* proposing is that he get control over his body AND he gets control over her body. While she has no choices, having no control over her own body nor his.

That's not fair. That's fantastically unequal.

Which is why no court in the nation backs such nonsense.

What I propose is if she chooses to keep the kid but the father doesn't want it he's no longer financially liable for the kid as long as he was willing to pay for the abortion that the woman turned down.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

At least you’re consistent at being wrong.

And again:

Men and women enjoy the same right to privacy with regard to decisions concerning whether to have a child or not.

That the courts have recognized a woman’s interests outweigh the authority of the state in no manner places the father at a ‘disadvantage’ – the state cannot compel through force of law a woman obtaining the consent of her husband or the father of the child as a ‘pre-condition’ allowing her to have an abortion.

Because there’s no lawful basis for the husband or father to interfere with a woman’s decision to have an abortion, that he might have advocated for an abortion in an effort to avoid paying child support is completely devoid of legal merit.

Your thread premise asked the question is there is a legitimate legal argument to be made that a father advocating for an abortion of a child he conceived would remove from him the obligation to pay child support.

The answer is no, and you have been given an explanation as to why the answer is no – that you don’t like the answer doesn’t mean it’s ‘wrong.’

 

[Skylar]

The father gets a choice of the use of his own body. The mother gets a choice of the use of hers.

That's perfectly fair.

What the father doesn't get is a choice on the use of a mother's body. Nor should he. As then he would have control over his own body AND her body. While she would have control over neither her own body nor his.

And that's obviously not fair.

As far as 'safe surrender', it doesn't speak to mothers or fathers. But parents. And at no point does it say that the state can go after a father for child support after a mother surrenders the child.

You made that up.

They both had a choice before she got pregnant. Only she has a choice after she gets pregnant.

They both had a choice on the uses of their own body before she got pregnant. And they both had a choice on the uses of their own body after she got pregnant.

That's perfectly fair.

And only she gets a choice after giving birth even, so being her body doesn't matter any longer. The father cannot chose the mother can, that is unfair.

More made up nonsense. The surrender laws don't specify that 'only a mother' can surrender a child. Any parent of a child younger than 72 hours can. Hell, anyone can drop the kid off on a parent's behalf.

You're making up pseudo-legal nonsense to justify your argument. You made up the claim that the state would go after the father for child support if they could, after a mother surrendered the child. The law doesn't say this. You made up a claim that 'only a mother gets a choice after giving birth'. The law doesn't say this either.

The guy can't surrender the child without the mothers permission.

Says you. The law says that any parent can or anyone who has lawful custody of the child. Or anyone can on the parent's behalf with their permission. It never says a thing about 'only mothers can'.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1001-1050/ab_1048_bill_20100930_chaptered.pdf

In fact, the law never once uses the word 'mother'. It uses the word 'parent', 26 times.

You're making up pseudo-legal nonsense that the law simply doesn't support.

Get unstuck on irrelevant arguments. I used a poor use of wording when trying to explain my argument, it doesn't invalidate the entire argument.

Not your entire argument, no. But it does invalidate your claims regarding the surrender laws. There are no 'mothers only' requirements in those laws. Nixing your 'after the birth only the mother gets to choose' argument. That argument has no basis in the law.

The point is she gets a choice, he doesn't. If she can legally abort then he should be able to abort too or at least not be forced to support the kid once it's born.

She gets a choice about the use of her body. He gets a choice about the use of his body.

That's perfectly fair.

What *you're* proposing is that he get control over his body AND he gets control over her body. While she has no choices, having no control over her own body nor his.

That's not fair. That's fantastically unequal.

Which is why no court in the nation backs such nonsense.

What I propose is if she chooses to keep the kid but the father doesn't want it he's no longer financially liable for the kid as long as he was willing to pay for the abortion that the woman turned down.

That's unequal obligation again. Where she's responsible for every child she bears. But he's never responsible for any child he fathers.

That doesn't work. As the obligation is to the child itself. Not to the mother. Either both are responsible for the child, or neither are.

 

[Slyhunter]

They both had a choice before she got pregnant. Only she has a choice after she gets pregnant.

They both had a choice on the uses of their own body before she got pregnant. And they both had a choice on the uses of their own body after she got pregnant.

That's perfectly fair.

And only she gets a choice after giving birth even, so being her body doesn't matter any longer. The father cannot chose the mother can, that is unfair.

More made up nonsense. The surrender laws don't specify that 'only a mother' can surrender a child. Any parent of a child younger than 72 hours can. Hell, anyone can drop the kid off on a parent's behalf.

You're making up pseudo-legal nonsense to justify your argument. You made up the claim that the state would go after the father for child support if they could, after a mother surrendered the child. The law doesn't say this. You made up a claim that 'only a mother gets a choice after giving birth'. The law doesn't say this either.

The guy can't surrender the child without the mothers permission.

Says you. The law says that any parent can or anyone who has lawful custody of the child. Or anyone can on the parent's behalf with their permission. It never says a thing about 'only mothers can'.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1001-1050/ab_1048_bill_20100930_chaptered.pdf

In fact, the law never once uses the word 'mother'. It uses the word 'parent', 26 times.

You're making up pseudo-legal nonsense that the law simply doesn't support.

Get unstuck on irrelevant arguments. I used a poor use of wording when trying to explain my argument, it doesn't invalidate the entire argument.

Not your entire argument, no. But it does invalidate your claims regarding the surrender laws. There are no 'mothers only' requirements in those laws. Nixing your 'after the birth only the mother gets to choose' argument. That argument has no basis in the law.

The point is she gets a choice, he doesn't. If she can legally abort then he should be able to abort too or at least not be forced to support the kid once it's born.

She gets a choice about the use of her body. He gets a choice about the use of his body.

That's perfectly fair.

What *you're* proposing is that he get control over his body AND he gets control over her body. While she has no choices, having no control over her own body nor his.

That's not fair. That's fantastically unequal.

Which is why no court in the nation backs such nonsense.

What I propose is if she chooses to keep the kid but the father doesn't want it he's no longer financially liable for the kid as long as he was willing to pay for the abortion that the woman turned down.

That's unequal obligation again. Where she's responsible for every child she bears. But he's never responsible for any child he fathers.

That doesn't work. As the obligation is to the child itself. Not to the mother. Either both are responsible for the child, or neither are.

Wrong, she can surrender the child and not be obligated, he can't.

 

[Chuz Life]

This entire conundrum can be put to rest with the banning of elective abortions.

 

[Skylar]

The father gets a choice of the use of his own body. The mother gets a choice of the use of hers.

That's perfectly fair.

What the father doesn't get is a choice on the use of a mother's body. Nor should he. As then he would have control over his own body AND her body. While she would have control over neither her own body nor his.

And that's obviously not fair.

As far as 'safe surrender', it doesn't speak to mothers or fathers. But parents. And at no point does it say that the state can go after a father for child support after a mother surrenders the child.

You made that up.

They both had a choice before she got pregnant. Only she has a choice after she gets pregnant.

They both had a choice on the uses of their own body before she got pregnant. And they both had a choice on the uses of their own body after she got pregnant.

That's perfectly fair.

And only she gets a choice after giving birth even, so being her body doesn't matter any longer. The father cannot chose the mother can, that is unfair.

More made up nonsense. The surrender laws don't specify that 'only a mother' can surrender a child. Any parent of a child younger than 72 hours can. Hell, anyone can drop the kid off on a parent's behalf.

You're making up pseudo-legal nonsense to justify your argument. You made up the claim that the state would go after the father for child support if they could, after a mother surrendered the child. The law doesn't say this. You made up a claim that 'only a mother gets a choice after giving birth'. The law doesn't say this either.

The guy can't surrender the child without the mothers permission.

Says you. The law says that any parent can or anyone who has lawful custody of the child. Or anyone can on the parent's behalf with their permission. It never says a thing about 'only mothers can'.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1001-1050/ab_1048_bill_20100930_chaptered.pdf

In fact, the law never once uses the word 'mother'. It uses the word 'parent', 26 times.

You're making up pseudo-legal nonsense that the law simply doesn't support.

Get unstuck on irrelevant arguments. I used a poor use of wording when trying to explain my argument, it doesn't invalidate the entire argument.

Not your entire argument, no. But it does invalidate your claims regarding the surrender laws. There are no 'mothers only' requirements in those laws. Nixing your 'after the birth only the mother gets to choose' argument. That argument has no basis in the law.

The point is she gets a choice, he doesn't. If she can legally abort then he should be able to abort too or at least not be forced to support the kid once it's born.

She gets a choice about the use of her body. He gets a choice about the use of his body.

That's perfectly fair.

What *you're* proposing is that he get control over his body AND he gets control over her body. While she has no choices, having no control over her own body nor his.

That's not fair. That's fantastically unequal.

Which is why no court in the nation backs such nonsense.

You're saying if the mother wants to keep the kid and the father surrenders the kid he doesn't have to pay child support when the woman goes to the authorities to demand the kid back?

No. There's a 14 day pick up clause in the law. The law makes no reference to mother's and fathers. Only parents.

Can you just read it rather than make inaccurate assumptions about it? It not long. Like....6 pages. With all of your questions answered in the first 2.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1001-1050/ab_1048_bill_20100930_chaptered.pdf

 

[Skylar]

This entire conundrum can be put to rest with the banning of elective abortions.

Not what we're dicussing Chuz. Start your own thread if you want to talk about 'biology'.

This is a legal discussion on financial obligation and reproductive rights.