Men and Abortion

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
It is a baby's life that is at stake


No. She's making a decision whether or not to have a baby. There is no baby at the time she makes the decision to abort or not.

Only if she goes through with the pregnancy will there be a baby. What's in a woman when she becomes pregnant is no more a baby than a sperm or an egg is a baby. A baby is what would result if she continued the pregnancy to term, just like I said. But a zygote or an embryo is not a baby.

And if you want to argue about that you can probably find someone to argue with you about it in the other thread you started.




and all that agonizing sounds a lot like premeditation, if the victim were just a little older.


I'm not too surprised that's your perception.




posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't really expect you guys to understand.


Oh come on BH, you don’t think a guy, the father, agonizes over such a situation too? We may not physically carry the baby, but we can have just as strong of an emotional tie to it as the mother. We’re not heartless, emotionless robots, I would very much feel "pain" in such a situation, and I’m sure many other guys would too.

IMO for us its just as bad, if not worse, we have to sit on the sideline and watch knowing full well that we cant do anything about the situation, our chance to be a father could be denied to use this time, we may have to wait for another first born. That’s just the beginning, what about wondering whether it would have been a boy or girl, who would he/she have looked like, name, what would he/she have been like, the missed potential, then all the while saying they may be hope, she may deice to have him/her, the uncertainty, and finally the devastation when an abortion is performed. BH that would eat away at anyone, I don't care how tough you think you are, this is a very powerful emotional topic and one that is very hard on all sides.

[edit on 25-7-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Oh come on BH, you don’t think a guy, the father, agonizes over such a situation too?


I said no such thing. In fact I have sympathized with the 'guy' several times in this thread.



We may not physically carry the baby, but we can have just as strong of an emotional tie to it as the mother.


Uh... okay.



I don't care how tough you think you are, this is a very powerful emotional topic and one that is very hard on all sides.


What? How tough I think I am? I don't know what you mean. Regardless. I never said it was easy on anyone. I don't claim that.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 09:20 PM
link   
I hate to be redundant, but the best way to avoid the issue is for men to keep it in their pants.

Sure, there will be those who will question your manliness and the women will ask you if you're gay because you won't succumb to their advances, but if you want to control your progeny, that is the price you will have to pay.

Tradition rears its ugly head again.

Once they're impregnated, the women have us just where they want us. All the victimhood rhetoric aside, it's payback time.




[edit on 2006/7/25 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Uh... okay.


What, you don't think its possible?


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What? How tough I think I am? I don't know what you mean. Regardless. I never said it was easy on anyone. I don't claim that.


No, no, you misunderstood me, my fault, it was one of those statements aimed at those guys, or people, who say I’ll never feel like that, blah blah, macho stuff, you know.


Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Once they're impregnated, the women have us just where they want us. All the victimhood rhetoric aside, it's payback time.


Yeah, then they have you by the cajones, not a good situation to be in. That's why I’m always extra careful, hey, I have needs, I’m only human, but so far nothing unintentional has happened, hopefully I don't lull myself into a false sense of security.

[edit on 25-7-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
What, you don't think its possible?


No, that's not what I mean. I'm just taking your word for it. I know what maternity feels like. I've been there. I don't know if I believe that a man can be as connected to the idea of a child until it's actually born, but I'm not denying it, because I can't.

I think once the child is born and the man sees it (because men are visual creatures), is when the man usually forms the bond. But that certainly doesn't have to apply to all men.



No, no, you misunderstood me, my fault, it was one of those statements aimed at those guys, or people, who say I’ll never feel like that, blah blah, macho stuff, you know.


Ahhh... Got it. Thanks.



Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Once they're impregnated, the women have us just where they want us. All the victimhood rhetoric aside, it's payback time.




That cracked me up! Yeah, Grady, that's our mission... You've figured out our plan. It's all about getting you where we want you and paying you back for... something.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That cracked me up! Yeah, Grady, that's our mission... You've figured out our plan. It's all about getting you where we want you and paying you back for... something.


You've got me all wrong, Heretic. It's called opportunism. Just like any generalization, the statement has exceptions, but trust me, I've seen enough to know the truth and so have you. The difference is, I'll be honest about it. Been there; done that.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Perhaps I'm a retard, or warped in some way or another, but I think if a man's wife gets pregnant then he damn well should have a say in whether or not it gets a chance to become a baby. I think it is just plain wrong that a woman, even though she's married, can choose to abort without consideration for the desire of her husband. No marriage, no say for the man, but when married yes.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   
I've mentioned this before, but in the state of New Mexico, a man is financially responsible for any children birthed by his wife, regardless of paternity. It seems that a man's rights regarding reproduction is approaching nil.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer70
I think if a man's wife gets pregnant then he damn well should have a say in whether or not it gets a chance to become a baby.


When you say that a man should have "a say", what does that mean exactly? I have asked this question throughout this thread and can't seem to get an answer.

Do you mean he should be able to talk with her? Reason with her? Plead with her to go through with the pregnancy? Sure he can.

Do you mean he should be able to legally force her to? Do you mean he should be allowed to physically disallow her to get an abortion? Should he have final say?

What do you mean exactly? That she should go along with his wishes, even though she doesn't want another child? Or that the law should be involved?

Because all I'm saying is that the pregnant woman has the final decision. Sure, I think the husband's wishes should be considered and taken into account. I think he can talk to her, plead with her. But ultimately, it's her choice.

Do you disagree with that?



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Damn Grady, that’s an eye opener, I have to check out the laws in Pennsylvania regarding that, that’s terrible though. In my view (unless I otherwise agree) if I’m not the biological father of said baby then he isn’t my responsibility even if my wife did have him.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Grady, do you have a source on that because I can't find it? I agree that it's ridiculous that a man should be legally required to support a child that isn't his. In fact, I find it a little hard to believe. I'm not saying you're lying, but are you sure it's still like that?

Thanks.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Adulterine bastard, though not used in many places, is a term used to describe a child born to a married woman when the woman's husband is not the father of the child. This may occur if a woman becomes pregnant by someone other than her husband during the marriage; if a woman enters the marriage already pregnant (by someone other than her husband); or if a woman, without her husband's consent, becomes pregnant through artificial insemination by donor.

In the past, many divorcing husbands attempted to evade paying child support in these situations, claiming that the children were adulterine bastards and therefore not "theirs." Many states, however, have laws which irrebuttably presume (that is, the presumption cannot be disproved) that a child born during a marriage is the child of the husband, regardless of who the biological father is."

www.statelawyers.com...:75


I don't know what I can add to that, except to say that the marriage "playing field" seems to be slanted in a direction other than that most often alluded to by some.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Presumed Father

If any of the following are true, a man is presumed to be the father of a child, unless he or the mother proves otherwise to a court:

•He was married to the mother when the child was conceived or born, although some states do not consider a man to be a presumed father if the couple has separated

•He attempted to marry the mother (even if the marriage was not valid) and the child was conceived or born during the "marriage"

•He married the mother after the birth and agreed either to have his name on the birth certificate or to support the child, or

•He welcomed the child into his home and openly held the child out as his own.

In some states, the presumption of paternity is considered conclusive, which means it cannot be disproven, even with contradictory blood tests. In Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld California's presumed father statute as a rational method of protecting the integrity of the family against challenges based on the due process rights of the father and the child. A presumed father must pay child support.

Link


OMG, it is true! Not in Pennsylvania, but some states do practice this blind system of determining paternity, and to think it was upheld by the Supreme Court. Shocking. How is this not a violation of someone’s rights?

[edit on 26-7-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 08:39 AM
link   
It seems to me that your source is saying that a man cannot discontinue paying support for a child that he has already acknowledged is his. A divorcing man.

New Mexico Presumption of Paternity

This states that paternity is presumed, but one can certainly challenge that. Only if the man voluntarily commits to caring for the child can he be held to that. In other words, he is not obligated to care for the child unless he has acknowledged it as his or promises to support the child.



A man is presumed to be the natural father of a child if:
...
(a) he has acknowledged his paternity of the child in writing filed with the vital statistics bureau of the public health division of the department of health;

(b) with his consent, he is named as the child's father on the child's birth certificate; or

(c) he is obligated to support the child under a written voluntary promise or by court order;

(4) while the child is under the age of majority, he openly holds out the child as his natural child and has established a personal, financial or custodial relationship with the child; or

(5) he acknowledges his paternity of the child pursuant to Section 24-14-13 NMSA 1978 or in writing


There's more at the link, but the legal mumbo-jumbo has me a bit overwhelmed.

Ultimately, I don't think it's as simple as "A married man is financially responsible for the child even if it isn't his." I think if you'll do more research, you'll find that isn't exactly true.

He can challenge the paternity and not be held responsible, but if he has been supporting the child and has acknowledged the child as his, he can't just stop that when he gets divorced. He has an obligation to the child at that point.


Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I don't know what I can add to that, except to say that the marriage "playing field" seems to be slanted in a direction other than that most often alluded to by some.


In this case, it's slanted toward the child.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

I KNOW!!! Don't you think they should??? That's when the man needs to think with his brain.
He knows very well what could happen. If he doesn't want to be in the position of having another person decide whether or not his child will be born, he needs to stop and think about it, talk about it, be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN all protection against possible pregnancy is being used because he's about to completely give up all 'say' in the matter. He knows this ahead of time! If he goes ahead with it, then he's made his choice.


I couldnt have said it better myself.

I do not understand why people want to make this a court issue. What is wrong with having a conversation with the person before you sleep with them???



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
This states that paternity is presumed, but one can certainly challenge that.


Read my post, it specifically states and I quote, In some states, the presumption of paternity is considered conclusive, which means it cannot be disproven, even with contradictory blood tests.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
He can challenge the paternity and not be held responsible, but if he has been supporting the child and has acknowledged the child as his, he can't just stop that when he gets divorced.


Again, see above. And what if the father only found out that the child isn’t his, let’s say a year later? He of course acknowledged beforehand the child was his, and I’m sure he supported said child, because he didn’t know otherwise. So, should he still be made to support that child even though he was probably deceived into doing so?



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
In Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld California's presumed father statute



In this case, the 2 'fathers' were fighting over presumed parantage of the child. In other words, they both wanted to be the child's presumed father. The court awarded parantage to the man with whom the mother lived, even though he was not her biological father.

Michael v Harold



Carole D., ... and Gerald D., ... were married...
Carole became involved in an adulterous affair with ... Michael H. In September 1980, she conceived a child, Victoria D...
Gerald was listed as father on the birth certificate and has always held Victoria out to the world as his daughter...
Carole and Michael had blood tests of themselves and Victoria, which showed a 98.07% probability that Michael was Victoria's father...
Superior Court granted Gerald's motion for summary judgment, rejecting Michael's...
What Michael asserts here is a right to have himself declared the natural father and thereby to obtain parental prerogatives...


They were fighting to claim the child, not to disown her. The court awarded parantage to the husband.

Edited for clarity (weren't > were)


[edit on 26-7-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
So, should he still be made to support that child even though he was probably deceived into doing so?


I'm not saying it's right and I certainly would support punishment of the woman somehow, but not the child. Sorry.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
They weren't fighting to claim the child, not to disown her. The court awarded parantage to the husband.


Ok, got that, still not clear about who the court would have granted paternity to if they were both fighting to disown her though. I'm afraid the presumed father would still be the one held responsible since he cannot disprove that he isn’t the father.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm not saying it's right and I certainly would support punishment of the woman somehow, but not the child. Sorry.


The child does not have to get punished; just find the biological father to pay the child support. BTW I’ve got an idea about that punishment. If you’re going to hold the presumed father responsible regardless then grant him full custody of the child in question and in doing so he would continue to pay child support and the mother gets punished? How’s that? It’s not going to happen, I know, the laws are too biased to allow something like that, just want to see if you agree with it.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join