How do I feel about this? That's a doozy. I don't think you could ever set this type of precedent, because once you do it leads to every deadbeat father in the country trying to get out of paying child support. Countless hours of court time. Taxpayers money. The sad thing is, there are probably some out there who are, at least to a degree, on the wrong end of the current laws. The plaintiff here claims the woman he impregnated assured him over and over again that she could not get pregnant. Should the man be expected to take her in for a physical? If she's telling the truth, and can prove it, the responsibility lies somewhere in the middle; If such a condition doesn't exist, though, doesn't the risk and therefore consequence, lay more squarely in her court?
Let's beat this one into the ground people, cause I am excited to figure out how I really feel about it!
6 comments:
I have lived through a dead-beat Dad. Upon my mother and father getting divorced after 13 years of marriage (I was 11 and my bro was 8) my dickhead father left to Canada to avoid alimony.
I also have the opposite example: my step father and my step brother, Lenny and Bob. Both of them got someone pregnant, married her and raised the kids. Both marriages were/are not the happiest, but they did what they knew was right. They fucked, and they followed through with supporting the consequences of that action. I give them praise for it.
As far as my step goes, once both children (yes he had another with the same woman) were 18, they divorced.
I stick to what I said over our private emails. If you want to fuck, you better realize what the potential consequences are and you better be ready to pay those consequences, be it pregnancy or a venerial disease. I don't see how you can think any other way about it.
Now the issue here has to do with the father not wanting the kid, and the mother wanting the kid. In the end, her decision has veto power. Well fellas, that's part of the risk described above.
So only one party has to pay for the consequences...the men. Women have sex too and yet the decision to abort or not is %100 their decision as well as their right. I say that is another consequence men have to endure, especially if they want to keep the child.
Look, all this article says to me is that this fella came up with a really lame argument in order to get out of child support, but I think there are equally lame arguments that support abortion, but it seems that no one questions those. And whether a man wants to keep a child is a non issue. I think that is BS.
To make a long story short, I find the current abortion laws to be incredibly unfair.
1. I don't think kids under 18 should be allowed to abort without parental consent (thankfully that is decided by the state)
2. I don't think abortions after 3 months should legal unless it is a danger to the mother.
3. I think states should decide on their own whether abortion should be legal.
4. Lastly, and this was my point on this whole deal, I think the husband should be given some say on whether the child is to be born or not.
I know I am out dated or whatever, but that is how I feel.
Wow, Blogust, I know you're a conservative and all, but that's pretty heavy stuff. Let me hit your points.
1)Probably best, but arguable. Someone under 18 having a child would be among the most burdened by an adolescent mistake. Of course, since none of us ever had sex before we were of consenting age, it's hard for us to imagine those types of consequences or the kind of Godless whores who would face them. It seems that it would be somewhat of a shame that a person's future could be so drastically altered depending on the views of their parents. Of course, I feel the same way about organized religion. Which, ironically, is the same thing.
2)Well, I'm glad to see someone finally take a stand and explain to me exactly when a fetus becomes a person.
3)It's unfortunate to think that geography should play such an important role in the decision as well. I think California would likely still allow it, and overpopulation is already a problem.
4)Just utterly impossible. Would you give the husband the choice to have the child aborted against his wishes? Or do you think that if the husband doesn't want the child that he should not be responsible for caring for it because it was against his wishes? If that were the case, every guy who didn't want to pay support would need only to say that the child was born against their wishes. As far as saying a man should choose for the woman to have the child, I just don't see how you could have it one way and not the other.
1. it is important for parents consent because it is an adult decistion and if children are allowed to make adult decisions then we might as well see them as adults, which i am sure Nambla would be very happy about.
2. It isn't a fetus to human issue. Arguments that abortion should be legal because incest or rape are good arguments, but they sorta lose their power if the mother has not decided to abort in a timely manner.
3. I just don't think that the federal govt. should get involved or that this issue involves the constitution.
4. This one is tough, but I think it is best to err on the side of life.
How about the scenario that man wants child/happy about pregnancy but woman doesn't/wants to terminate a.s.a.p.? Is the woman forced to carry the child to term? What's to prevent her from trying to induce a miscarriage? Would that be considered theft (baby is dad's) or murder? How is she compensated for being a breeding vessel against her will? What if dad changes his mind after 4 months?
And in the extreme case, could it become mandatory for a woman to become pregnant? If laws can dictate around conception, why stop there? Let's have laws about where, when, with whom, and in what position men are allowed to impregnate women. Let's make it a federal offense to have sex unless properly trained and certified.
Procreation, like driving, is a privilege not a right.
Post a Comment