"Roe v. Wade for Men"

[jj]

Yeah. He does that.

I am not responsible for your inability to understand simple english. You have, more than once or twice, created a position for me, and then demanded that I reply to it.

This is, of course, a completely dishonest, unethical behavior on your part. Your complaint that I do not reply to your straw men is simply more unethical behavior.

 

[HeavyAaron]

four cases

After reading all of this I feel that some getting back to basics is required.

Fundamentally what we are looking for is a consistant legal policy to deal with custody and child support under four seperate cases:

1) mom & dad want baby
2) neither mom or dad wants baby
3) mom wants baby but dad does not
4) dad wants baby but mom does not

I think any sensible policy (under legal abortion) answers 1 and 2 easily (1 - shared custody and support) (2 - no custody and no support due to no baby)

If the objective is true equality in decision making power a policy would have to treat cases 3 and 4 equally (reflected.)

Current policy does not. Current US policy is:
3) mom gets custody and support is split (custody could be split if dad sorta wants baby and is forced...)
4) no custody and no support due to no baby

It seems as though the proposals are about changing case 3 to mom gets custody and support. This proposal fails to treat cases 3 and 4 equally (but reflected.) One might argue that it's better, or more fair, than the current system, but it is NOT equal.

As far as I can tell there are only two truely equal options:

I.
3) mom chooses between adoption/abortion/mom has sole custody; mom has sole support if baby
4) dad chooses between adoption/abortion/dad has sole custody; dad has sole support if baby

II.
3) mom chooses between adoption/abortion/mom has sole custody; shared support if baby
4) dad chooses between adoption/abortion/dad has sole custody; shared support if baby

I know the objection will be that dad shouldn't be given any power in an abortion decision, but that's what I find the result to be for truly equal power.

Aaron

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It seems as though the proposals are about changing case 3 to mom gets custody and support. This proposal fails to treat cases 3 and 4 equally (but reflected.) One might argue that it's better, or more fair, than the current system, but it is NOT equal.

As far as I can tell there are only two truely equal options:

...

I know the objection will be that dad shouldn't be given any power in an abortion decision, but that's what I find the result to be for truly equal power.

That is not equal power at all. The woman in your proposed scenarios has no power equivalent to the man's power to force the women to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

In the end women are always going to have a bit more power when it comes to reproductive decision-making because the fetus grows inside their bodies, and one of the most fundamental liberties is to say what will go on regarding your own body. Women are also the ones who get post-partum depression, stretch marks, haemorrhoids and incontinence out of the deal, so frankly I still think they get the worst of it.

 

[Tmy]

Wrong.

No Im not wrong.

The State can take custody of a child and often do in mant situations. That does not mean the parents rights or responsibilties are severd permanately. So if mom is a crack addict or leaves the child at the hospital its not as if she gives up all claims at that moment.

Lets say the kid is given to grandma by Child Social Services. Granma may be a Gardian of the child but thats not the same as adopting the kid. Mom and dad could be on the hook to pay granma some child support.

 

[jj]

No Im not wrong.

The State can take custody of a child and often do in mant situations. That does not mean the parents rights or responsibilties are severd permanately. So if mom is a crack addict or leaves the child at the hospital its not as if she gives up all claims at that moment.

Lets say the kid is given to grandma by Child Social Services. Granma may be a Gardian of the child but thats not the same as adopting the kid. Mom and dad could be on the hook to pay granma some child support.

Well, in the states I've looked into this, you are wrong. That's all I can say. The woman can simply walk. Even then, sometimes, dad can't.

 

[Tmy]

Well, in the states I've looked into this, you are wrong. That's all I can say. The woman can simply walk. Even then, sometimes, dad can't.

Is she criminally libel?? NO. But thats not what Im talking about. Many times women will dump kids and then change their minds. They dont lose their kids forever just cause in a moment of weakness they left them at a hospital or somewhere.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Is she criminally libel?? NO. But thats not what Im talking about. Many times women will dump kids and then change their minds. They dont lose their kids forever just cause in a moment of weakness they left them at a hospital or somewhere.

So they can switch parental responsibilities (and rights) on and off at will?

That's handy.

It would be terrible if men could do that, of course.

 

[chris epic]

chris epic wrote:

I would like you to show some evidence of this. I would like to know more particulars, too. Do you have any?

Okay, here it is...

From "Fathers' Rights" page 199

"In 1983 the United States Supreme Court warned that the parental rights of unmarried fathers are perishable. For single dads, the court ruled, fatherhood is an "opportunity" that a father who wishes to participate in his child's life must grasp in a timely manner. In most states, an unmarried father whose children are more than six months old can likely establish parental status if:

He was married to the child's mother on or within three hundred days prior to the child's birth;

He has maintained contact with the child throughout the child's life and contributes to the child's financial support; or,

He openly lives with the child and publicly acknowledges that the child is his"


PS: I'll be finished with my paper today on this topic and will post it on the foum

but it would be impossible to do this if the mother of the child doesn't even inform the father about that child

 

[jj]

Is she criminally libel?? NO. But thats not what Im talking about. Many times women will dump kids and then change their minds. They dont lose their kids forever just cause in a moment of weakness they left them at a hospital or somewhere.

Again, you need to look at the law, and I don't mean criminally liable, I mean liable for support in a civil sense, anyhow.

Go look at the laws for some forms of "child rescue" where a baby can be dropped off at a specified list of places, no questions asked. Some of those laws are very, very clear, doing so terminates all rights, period, then, there, finis.

I wondered when reading such laws what happens if the baby sitter drops the kid off.