Is there a legit legal argument here?

[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.

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

The point is; he can't choose to surrender the child, so he doesn't have to pay child support, without the mothers permission.

 

[Skylar]

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.

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.

Nope. Any parent can surrender the child. Not just him. Not just her. Either or both of them. Or anyone either or both give permission to.

Again, the word 'mother' or 'father' doesn't appear anywhere in the entire law. Only 'parent'. Please, just read it.

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

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

Reading and comprehension is not your strongest suit. Is it.

Here's a clue.

My post had nothing to do with biology.

 

[Skylar]

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.

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

The point is; he can't choose to surrender the child, so he doesn't have to pay child support, without the mothers permission.

There are no such restrictions in the law. Any parent can surrender the child. Any legal guardian for the child can surrender it.

And there is no unequal obligation: either both are responsible or neither are. There's no scenario in the surrender laws where one parent is obligated, but the other not.

Which is exactly my point. Their obligation is always equal. And in terms of surrendering the child, they have the same authority.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

Nope. Any parent can surrender the child. Not just him. Not just her. Either or both of them. Or anyone either or both give permission to.

Again, the word 'mother' or 'father' doesn't appear anywhere in the entire law. Only 'parent'. Please, just read it.

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

Again, the father surrenders the child without the mothers permission she can just get the child back and charge him child support. He doesn't get a say in the matter. He can't surrender the child without the mothers permission.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

Nope. Any parent can surrender the child. Not just him. Not just her. Either or both of them. Or anyone either or both give permission to.

Again, the word 'mother' or 'father' doesn't appear anywhere in the entire law. Only 'parent'. Please, just read it.

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

Father

Mother

Parent

Child. . .


Nope.


No biology in any of those things.


Right?

 

[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.

Reading and comprehension is not your strongest suit. Is it.

Here's a clue.

My post had nothing to do with biology.

Yawning......come on back later when you figure out this is a legal discussion.

 

[Skylar]

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.

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.

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.

Nope. Any parent can surrender the child. Not just him. Not just her. Either or both of them. Or anyone either or both give permission to.

Again, the word 'mother' or 'father' doesn't appear anywhere in the entire law. Only 'parent'. Please, just read it.

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

Again, the father surrenders the child without the mothers permission she can just get the child back and charge him child support. He doesn't get a say in the matter. He can't surrender the child without the mothers permission.

And the mother can surrender the child and the father can just get the child back and charge her child support.

Your 'scenario' works in either direction, as there is no special preference given to either mother or fathers in the Surrender laws. There's not even MENTION of mothers or fathers in those laws.

And in either scenario they are *both* obligated. Their obligation is always equal. There's no scenario where one is obligated but the other not. Either both are obligated, or neither are.

Which is perfectly fair.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

Reading and comprehension is not your strongest suit. Is it.

Here's a clue.

My post had nothing to do with biology.

Yawning......come on back later when you figure out this is a legal discussion.

A legal discussion of non biological entities like "parents, mothers, fathers and children."

Right?

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

Nope. Any parent can surrender the child. Not just him. Not just her. Either or both of them. Or anyone either or both give permission to.

Again, the word 'mother' or 'father' doesn't appear anywhere in the entire law. Only 'parent'. Please, just read it.

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

Again, the father surrenders the child without the mothers permission she can just get the child back and charge him child support. He doesn't get a say in the matter. He can't surrender the child without the mothers permission.

And the mother can surrender the child and the father can just get the child back and charge her child support.

Your 'scenario' works in either direction, as there is no special preference given to either mother or fathers in the Surrender laws. There's not even MENTION of mothers or fathers in those laws.

And in either scenario they are *both* obligated. Their obligation is always equal. There's no scenario where one is obligated but the other not. Either both are obligated, or neither are.

Which is perfectly fair.

ok, so were back to the abortion argument. If she can choose to abort her responsibility he should be free to do so too, at least figuratively speaking.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Nope. Any parent can surrender the child. Not just him. Not just her. Either or both of them. Or anyone either or both give permission to.

Again, the word 'mother' or 'father' doesn't appear anywhere in the entire law. Only 'parent'. Please, just read it.

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

Again, the father surrenders the child without the mothers permission she can just get the child back and charge him child support. He doesn't get a say in the matter. He can't surrender the child without the mothers permission.

And the mother can surrender the child and the father can just get the child back and charge her child support.

Your 'scenario' works in either direction, as there is no special preference given to either mother or fathers in the Surrender laws. There's not even MENTION of mothers or fathers in those laws.

And in either scenario they are *both* obligated. Their obligation is always equal. There's no scenario where one is obligated but the other not. Either both are obligated, or neither are.

Which is perfectly fair.

ok, so were back to the abortion argument. If she can choose to abort her responsibility he should be free to do so too, at least figuratively speaking.

Abortion is never mentioned in anything I just posted in my reply. It was exclusively dedicated to the Surrender laws. And the laws simply don't say what you claim they do.

If you'd like to go back to abortion, its a matter of control of one's body. He has control of his own body. She has control over her body.

That's equal rights. They both have the right to the use of their own body.

And you're again calling for unequal obligation, where she is responsible for every child she bears while he is never responsible for any child he fathers.

That's obviously not fair. Which is why its been rejected by every state, every court, at every level.

 

[Slyhunter]

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

Nope. Any parent can surrender the child. Not just him. Not just her. Either or both of them. Or anyone either or both give permission to.

Again, the word 'mother' or 'father' doesn't appear anywhere in the entire law. Only 'parent'. Please, just read it.

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

Again, the father surrenders the child without the mothers permission she can just get the child back and charge him child support. He doesn't get a say in the matter. He can't surrender the child without the mothers permission.

And the mother can surrender the child and the father can just get the child back and charge her child support.

Your 'scenario' works in either direction, as there is no special preference given to either mother or fathers in the Surrender laws. There's not even MENTION of mothers or fathers in those laws.

And in either scenario they are *both* obligated. Their obligation is always equal. There's no scenario where one is obligated but the other not. Either both are obligated, or neither are.

Which is perfectly fair.

ok, so were back to the abortion argument. If she can choose to abort her responsibility he should be free to do so too, at least figuratively speaking.

Abortion is never mentioned in anything I just posted in my reply. It was exclusively dedicated to the Surrender laws. And the laws simply don't say what you claim they do.

If you'd like to go back to abortion, its a matter of control of one's body. He has control of his own body. She has control over her body.

That's equal rights. They both have the right to the use of their own body.

And you're again calling for unequal obligation, where she is responsible for every child she bears while he is never responsible for any child he fathers.

That's obviously not fair. Which is why its been rejected by every state, every court, at every level.

She's not responsible for every child she bears if she can simply surrender it.

 

[Skylar]

Nope. Any parent can surrender the child. Not just him. Not just her. Either or both of them. Or anyone either or both give permission to.

Again, the word 'mother' or 'father' doesn't appear anywhere in the entire law. Only 'parent'. Please, just read it.

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

Again, the father surrenders the child without the mothers permission she can just get the child back and charge him child support. He doesn't get a say in the matter. He can't surrender the child without the mothers permission.

And the mother can surrender the child and the father can just get the child back and charge her child support.

Your 'scenario' works in either direction, as there is no special preference given to either mother or fathers in the Surrender laws. There's not even MENTION of mothers or fathers in those laws.

And in either scenario they are *both* obligated. Their obligation is always equal. There's no scenario where one is obligated but the other not. Either both are obligated, or neither are.

Which is perfectly fair.

ok, so were back to the abortion argument. If she can choose to abort her responsibility he should be free to do so too, at least figuratively speaking.

Abortion is never mentioned in anything I just posted in my reply. It was exclusively dedicated to the Surrender laws. And the laws simply don't say what you claim they do.

If you'd like to go back to abortion, its a matter of control of one's body. He has control of his own body. She has control over her body.

That's equal rights. They both have the right to the use of their own body.

And you're again calling for unequal obligation, where she is responsible for every child she bears while he is never responsible for any child he fathers.

That's obviously not fair. Which is why its been rejected by every state, every court, at every level.

She's not responsible for every child she bears if she can simply surrender it.

Any parent can surrender the child. Remember, all the 'only the mother can surrender the child' claims you made about Surrender Laws......were entirely inaccurate. There are no such restrictions. In fact, the word 'mother' never appears in the law.

And in the scenario of surrendering the child......there is equal obligation. Either both of the parents are responsible, or neither are. This is where your argument consistently breaks. As you are demanding UNequal obligation.

Where a mother is responsible for any child she bears, but a father is never responsible for any child he sires.

Nope. Unequal obligation is not 'equality'. Its a wild misunderstanding of the obligation....as the obligation isn't to either parent. Its to the child.

 

[hadit]

The bottom line is this:. Biology wins. We can complain and strain all day long that men and women are completely equal in every way, but biology wins. We can say that a woman who says she's a man can compete in male sports, but biology wins. We can say that a man who says he's a woman can use a bathroom with little girls, by biology wins.

No, it's not equal.

But in this case there is a biological out for the woman, and thus a legal out for her, but no legal out for the man.

Practicality would demand the man make his intentions known, say be week 10 or so, so the woman can decide to abort if the man wants nothing to do with the kid.

The law certainly does give the woman control over the man's reproductive freedom because she can legally prevent him from becoming a father or force him to become a father, that much is true.

It is not equal, and can't be.

Why not? What is sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose.

Completely equal would set conception as the point where both lose their reproductive freedom. They've made a baby, now they both need to take care of said baby. As long as birth is that point, it can't be equal because only one is carrying the child.

 

[NightFox]

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

Indeed it does since it appears to be the principle cause of you not being able to recognize the flaw in your argument.

Men have all the reproductive rights that nature has granted them within the constraints set forth by biology up to the moment of conception, after conception generally accepted morality dictates the decision rests with the woman since she's the one carrying the potential child and if she decides to carry it to term then the father has the responsibility to bear his share of the burden for it's care.

Arguing that Men should be able to nullify the consequences of their actions simply by declaring he doesn't want the child he conceived is akin to arguing that people should have the right to nullify their financial obligations by declaring they never really wanted the money in the first place and if the bank has a right to call in a loan they should have the right to opt out of it.

 

[Slyhunter]

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

Indeed it does since it appears to be the principle cause of you not being able to recognize the flaw in your argument.

Men have all the reproductive rights that nature has granted them within the constraints set forth by biology up to the moment of conception, after conception generally accepted morality dictates the decision rests with the woman since she's the one carrying the potential child and if she decides to carry it to term then the father has the responsibility to bear his share of the burden for it's care.

Arguing that Men should be able to nullify the consequences of their actions simply by declaring he doesn't want the child he conceived is akin to arguing that people should have the right to nullify their financial obligations by declaring they never really wanted the money in the first place and if the bank has a right to call in a loan they should have the right to opt out of it.

Yet women can do it by having an abortion.

 

[Blackrook]

The best interests of the child is the criteria the courts use in making decisions about child support, custody and visitation.

It will never be in the child's best interests that the biological father be excused from paying child support because he wanted the child aborted.

 

[Chuz Life]

The best interests of the child is the criteria the courts use in making decisions about child support, custody and visitation.

It will never be in the child's best interests that the biological father be excused from paying child support because he wanted the child aborted.

But. But but....

According to the leftardz, it's not a child until the little bastard sticks its head out of the other end of a birth canal.

 

[Slyhunter]

The best interests of the child is the criteria the courts use in making decisions about child support, custody and visitation.

It will never be in the child's best interests that the biological father be excused from paying child support because he wanted the child aborted.

Yet the mother can make that choice simply by aborting it for as flimsy an excuse as it interfere's with her bar hopping. Would be better to have better reasons for abortion like due to genetic defect like Downs syndrome or having the Gay gene.

 

[Skylar]

The best interests of the child is the criteria the courts use in making decisions about child support, custody and visitation.

It will never be in the child's best interests that the biological father be excused from paying child support because he wanted the child aborted.

Yet the mother can make that choice simply by aborting it for as flimsy an excuse as it interfere's with her bar hopping.

The mother has a constitutional right to the control of her own body. I wouldn't call a constitutionally protected right a 'flimsy excuse'.

Nor would any court. Which might explain the perfect failure of your argument in every court of law.