abortion or no abortion?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Nothing equitable about how women get pregnant and men don't, so there's nothing equitable about who gets to choose whether the child will be born or not. It's very, very fair that the man pays to support the child, even if he doesn't want it. He chose to have sex, the consequences are that he has to take responsibility for that choice, just as the women does. You want to fight nature, and societies that hold you accountable for your acts. Good luck!

As for men within a marriage who parent children that they come to find out are not their bio kids, the law assumes that the husband is also the father. That's the root of the rulings that continue to hold the duped husband responsible for child support.

[akdiver 3]

Nothing equitable about how women get pregnant and men don't, so there's nothing equitable about who gets to choose whether the child will be born or not. It's very, very fair that the man pays to support the child, even if he doesn't want it. He chose to have sex, the consequences are that he has to take responsibility for that choice, just as the women does. You want to fight nature, and societies that hold you accountable for your acts. Good luck!

Thanks, mom.

As for men within a marriage who parent children that they come to find out are not their bio kids, the law assumes that the husband is also the father. That's the root of the rulings that continue to hold the duped husband responsible for child support.

...and for those not paying attention, the issue isn't what the law says, the issue is changing it. But thanks for playing.

[myperfectflaw 11]

Whilst AKDiver's proposal sounds reasonable in theory, I'm not sure it can be used in a practical sense. The issue of child support (for those mother's who want it) could be overturned, I suppose, based on the man saying that he wanted her to have an abortion.

Well, it's a simple matter really. If a woman finds out she is pregnant, goes to the potential father and reveals this information. At this time, he can either sign a standardized contract indicating that he will receive parental rights in exchange for assuming 18 years of financial servitude. This document must be properly notarized to avoid any opportunity for forgeries, etc. Now, should the woman fail to secure this contract, then she will know that she will be absorbing the full costs of parenthood and can make her choice whether to have the baby accordingly.

This way - both parties get an equitable choice.

Man cannot later say, "oh, nevermind" - the contract is enforceable by the courts.

The problem with this sort of thinking is....if the baby is born, <b>the baby</b> has the right to be fully supported by both parents. It didn't chose whether it got to come in to this world, and shouldn't have to suffer because it has irresponsible parents that don't know how to use bc or keep it in their pants. Signing a contract to support the kid shouldn't be allowed....the kid exists because of you, support it. Plain and simple. Otherwise, get n abortion. Woman doesn't want an abortion? Oh well, sucks to be you!! You're still half responsible for that child existing, be half responsible for it's financial support. I don't think there are many women out there that chose to abort solely to "escape" financial responsibility. Not that there are none, but that the ones that do are few and far between.

[akdiver 3]

The problem with this sort of thinking is....if the baby is born, <b>the baby</b> has the right to be fully supported by both parents.

I simply disagree.

[Emancipation 2]

I don't agree with you there.. how exactly does the woman get off scott free if she's taking care of a child 24-7?

Because she gets what she wants while getting someone else to involuntarily subsidize it.

I think that's an incredibly jaded way to look at life.. not all women are looking to have an "anchor" baby..

It wasn't a comment about foreign women in particular - and had nothing to do with "anchor" babies....which - incidentally, strikes me as an awfully jaded term.......or is it just reality?

I wasn't referring to women that are foreigners at all, merely using the phrase to prove a point.. you said it.. that's basically what it is to you.. an anchor baby "a way to get something she otherwise wouldn't be entitled to".

[Sister Fracas 5]

I can think of plenty men who would say no. Not wanting to risk a baby is a great reason to only have sex with a woman you trust.

Realistically speaking I can think of a few men I would love to f**k but I wouldn't even waste my time asking as I know I'm too old and that they are into women a lot younger than me. I could always try to get some hot young guy drunk but by the time he was drunk enough he would be too drunk to perform. On top of that I think it's despicable for a man to get a woman drunk to get past her better judgement so I have to behave by the same standards myself.

are you married?

no looking for dates here, sister fracas!

nutter....

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

I can think of plenty men who would say no. Not wanting to risk a baby is a great reason to only have sex with a woman you trust.

Realistically speaking I can think of a few men I would love to f**k but I wouldn't even waste my time asking as I know I'm too old and that they are into women a lot younger than me. I could always try to get some hot young guy drunk but by the time he was drunk enough he would be too drunk to perform. On top of that I think it's despicable for a man to get a woman drunk to get past her better judgement so I have to behave by the same standards myself.

are you married?

no looking for dates here, sister fracas!

nutter....

[akdiver 3]

an anchor baby "a way to get something she otherwise wouldn't be entitled to".

Well, that certainly seems pretty true to me. One reason why I think the Constitution should be corrected to specify that you can only obtain citizenship by birth if both parents are in the country legally and acting in accordance with their visa conditions. In other words, if a couple comes here on a non-immigrant visa and are not permanent residents, and have a kid while they're here, the kid does not get citizenship.

[IAMX 3,055]

an anchor baby "a way to get something she otherwise wouldn't be entitled to".

Well, that certainly seems pretty true to me. One reason why I think the Constitution should be corrected to specify that you can only obtain citizenship by birth if both parents are in the country legally and acting in accordance with their visa conditions. In other words, if a couple comes here on a non-immigrant visa and are not permanent residents, and have a kid while they're here, the kid does not get citizenship.

Makes sense to me.