Got curious about something... (regards abortion and father`s duties)

[McBell]

The woman can renounce to her obligation by adoption.

Yes she can.
What does that have to do with her choosing not to?

Seems to me that 9/10s Penguin already addressed this when he addressed the whole "the woman can renounce her obligation by getting an abortion" argument was presented.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The woman can renounce to her obligation by adoption.

Again: I agree that she can (well, sorta: her obligation doesn't go away until she finds someone to take the child, but I'm willing to take as given that she can do this). But is it UNREASONABLE for her not to do this?

I've asked you this question several times now. I don't think I'm willing to continue with you until you answer it.

 

[Me Myself]

Again: I agree that she can (well, sorta: her obligation doesn't go away until she finds someone to take the child, but I'm willing to take as given that she can do this). But is it UNREASONABLE for her not to do this?

I've asked you this question several times now. I don't think I'm willing to continue with you until you answer it.

Not any more unreasonable than the father doing the same.

The father didnt "do" the baby "to her"

Both concieved a baby (wait, zygote for this OP) the zygote grew and eventually was birth as a baby. The baby has 2 parents, but only one can renounce his rights and the other one is dependant on this one?

That is the part that goes off.

 

[McBell]

I am asking you and you do not answer. I did answer your.

But in any case, think I had enough of you for this thread

Maybe I ll reply to you later if you even comment your angle, but just maybe.

The man has a responsibility and your only consistent argument has been that you think said responsibility is unfair.

you have been hopping around like a jumping bean in a hot skillet in your attempt to support your position of "it's not fair'.

It is not any fault of mine that you have thus far been completely unsuccessful in supporting your position.

 

[Me Myself]

Basically, the law punishes the parent as if he was "more responsible" than the woman for the baby.

I think it wants to compensate the 9 months of biology problems that were BOTH of their faults (not in any means more of the father than of the mother in the case of consensual sex with an agreed anticonceptive method) with only giving the option to the mother to something that would cost them both for EIGHTEEN years.

Makes no sense.

 

[Me Myself]

The man has a responsibility

I base my self in something you in nothing.

Least I talk man.

 

[McBell]

I base my self in something you in nothing.

Least I talk man.

Your sad attempt at claiming the high ground is as bad as your attempts at getting the man out of owning up to his responsibility.


the really sad thing is that you are not taking a few things into consideration with your whole "it's not fair' stance.

See, I have had full care control custody and concern of my daughter from get go.
My ex-wife was ordered to pay child support.

now being the custodial parent, I could have very well put my daughter up for adoption. I chose not to.

Seems to me that it is your claim that i had the duty to put my daughter up for adoption because my ex-wife did not want her.

 

[Koldo]

She did accept the consequences, she had the baby.
Thus the reason the man is whining about how unfair it is that he has to pay child support.

We are losing context here...

Our conversation began when i said:

"Exactly. You already have pills, implants, patches, cervical caps and condoms.
If an unplanned pregnancy occurs, that is a result of your personal choices. Therefore, you should be woman enough to accept the consequence."

The exact same argument can be used against abortion. See?"

 

[McBell]

Basically, the law punishes the parent as if he was "more responsible" than the woman for the baby.

I think it wants to compensate the 9 months of biology problems that were BOTH of their faults (not in any means more of the father than of the mother in the case of consensual sex with an agreed anticonceptive method) with only giving the option to the mother to something that would cost them both for EIGHTEEN years.

Makes no sense.

Really?
You honestly think that paying child support is MORE responsibility that raising the child?
Seriously?

 

[McBell]

We are losing context here...

Our conversation began when i said:

"Exactly. You already have pills, implants, patches, cervical caps and condoms.
If an unplanned pregnancy occurs, that is a result of your personal choices. Therefore, you should be woman enough to accept the consequence."

The exact same argument can be used against abortion. See?"

Nope.
Abortion is one of the choices available to the woman.
now as soon as it is the man who gets pregnant, abortion will be one of the choices to him.

 

[Me Myself]

Your sad attempt at claiming the high ground is as bad as your attempts at getting the man out of owning up to his responsibility.

My puttin g the high ground? you keep using words like "sad attempt" "Tail tucked" and such and so on, I am merely saying I am arguing wheter a law is fair or not.

If you do not see the argument of fairness to be important, I dont think we have anything to argue with.

And no, I dont think you HAD to put her on adoption, I believe that you had the choice to but the mother had the choice to not have parental rights if she didnt want to economically pay for her.

you dont know this because you were to bussy trying to think on things to put down my commentaries instead of actually reading what they are about.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not any more unreasonable than the father doing the same.

The father didnt "do" the baby "to her"

Both concieved a baby (wait, zygote for this OP) the zygote grew and eventually was birth as a baby. The baby has 2 parents, but only one can renounce his rights and the other one is dependant on this one?

That is the part that goes off.

Why can't you just give a yes or no answer?

Never mind. I just realized that it's irrelevant, because this adoption thing is just a red herring: there are no differences there in the rights of either parent.

Adopttion is a joint decision. Extreme cases aside, unless BOTH parents agree to give up the child, they both keep it. For adoption, gender of the patent is irrelevant, so if the option of adoption justifies a reduction in the man's obligation, it also justifies a reduction in the woman's.

 

[McBell]

My puttin g the high ground? you keep using words like "sad attempt" "Tail tucked" and such and so on, I am merely saying I am arguing wheter a law is fair or not.

If you do not see the argument of fairness to be important, I dont think we have anything to argue with.

And no, I dont think you HAD to put her on adoption, I believe that you had the choice to but the mother had the choice to not have parental rights if she didnt want to economically pay for her.

you dont know this because you were to bussy trying to think on things to put down my commentaries instead of actually reading what they are about.

Nice try.
The fact of the matter is that I am currently on both sides of this particular fence.
I am currently paying child support and I am supposed to be receiving child support.

You keep going on about it not being fair.
I have asked you what you base it on.

you have thus far flat out refused to explain how it is unfair.

you seem to be so concerned with the paying of child support that you seem to be completely ignoring the fact that the other party is actually raising the child.

Instead, you keep claiming that because the custodial party COULD give up their responsibility that the non-custodial parent SHOULD be released from their responsibility.

And you are claiming to be arguing over the "fairness" of it all?

 

[Me Myself]

Why can't you just give a yes or no answer?

Never mind. I just realized that it's irrelevant, because this adoption thing is just a red herring: there are no differences there in the rights of either parent.

Abortion is a joint decision. Extreme cases aside, unless BOTH parents agree to give up the child, they both keep it. For adoption, gender of the patent is irrelevant, so if the option of adoption justifies a reduction in the man's obligation, it also justifies a reduction in the woman's.

Mostly because I see "reasonable" to be very subjective, so I can only say that it seems to be a rough equivalent to the other in "reasonability"


Humm well now I get a decent reason.

I did not know that. While I believe it would be better to have each being able to depart on their own, at least it is not a sexist law as it appeared to be in the begining.

I am amazed we actually came to an understanding on it

 

[Koldo]

Nope.
Abortion is one of the choices available to the woman.
now as soon as it is the man who gets pregnant, abortion will be one of the choices to him.

Why should abortion be a choice available to the woman?
You do agree that the moment a man has sex with a woman he makes his choice, and if it results in a fetus he has to face the consequences by supporting the newborn. Correct?
Therefore, it follows that the moment a woman has sex with a man she makes her choice, and if it results in a fetus she has to face the consequences by supporting the newborn.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Mostly because I see "reasonable" to be very subjective, so I can only say that it seems to be a rough equivalent to the other in "reasonability"

Well, too bad.

The "reasonable person" test is used in all sorts of ways in the law, so if you're arguing that we shouldn't use it, then you're arguing for a wholesale change to the law across the board, not just on this issue.

 

[McBell]

Why should abortion be a choice available to the woman?
You do agree that the moment a man has sex with a woman he makes his choice, and if it results in a fetus he has to face the consequences by supporting the newborn. Correct?
Therefore, it follows that the moment a woman has sex with a man she makes her choice, and if it results in a fetus she has to face the consequences by supporting the newborn.

Except for the fact that abortion is an an option for her.

Seems to me that if you want to argue about whether or not abortion should even be an option, you should really start a new thread or necro one of the hundreds of threads that already exist.

 

[Koldo]

Except for the fact that abortion is an an option for her.

You are missing the point.
The question was: "Why should abortion be a choice available to the woman?"
If we are to use your argument that fathers make their choice the moment they have sex with a woman, it follows that it shouldn't be.

Why should abortion be a choice available to the woman?
Seems to me that if you want to argue about whether or not abortion should even be an option, you should really start a new thread or necro one of the hundreds of threads that already exist.

It pertains this thread though.
It is a response to several posts who have used the same argument against what the OP ( and its following posts ) proposes.
It is an investigation to what such argument entails.

 

[Me Myself]

Well, too bad.

The "reasonable person" test is used in all sorts of ways in the law, so if you're arguing that we shouldn't use it, then you're arguing for a wholesale change to the law across the board, not just on this issue.

I would need another example too

I also had different premises in mind.

I thought she had an option the man didnt have when the "crash accident" was boths fault.

 

[McBell]

You are missing the point.
The question was: "Why should abortion be a choice available to the woman?"
If we are to use your argument that fathers make their choice the moment they have sex with a woman, it follows that it shouldn't be.

Until such time as it is the fathers body being affected by the pregnancy, then the father should have no more say in the matter than the woman whose body is effected allows them.

is your argument that the woman should not have abortion as an option because the father does not?

It pertains this thread though.
It is a response to several posts who have used the same argument against what the OP ( and its following posts ) proposes.
It is an investigation to what such argument entails.

You have lost me.