About Father's Rights Pertaining to Choice and Child Support.

[caseymoz]

Introduction

This entry is my opinion, and it's a rebuttal to this man's opinion, and in fact, the opinion of other men in that section of youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tpLr8jgVTA

To summarize it: the opinion he expresses is that the man should have a say in whether a woman aborts a pregnancy, and if he wants to but she brings it to term anyway, he should have the legal right to refuse to pay child support.

My Counter-argument

The man has the right to turn down sex; he might not like it, he might find it difficult, but that's his absolute right.

In the act of sex, his right is equal to hers, (presuming its consensual and not rape). Somehow I think men would be hurting more if women asserted that right to refuse sex more often, and more men would be much grouchier and probably more pushy and even violent about wanting sex. In other words, the pain wouldn't be equally shared.

Once the child is conceived, the woman then has the complete legal right whether or not to abort it, and he has no legal choice except by her non-binding agreement. Why? Because even though the nucleus is genetically 50-50, her body's contribution in bringing it to term greatly surpasses the man's. He had the completely easy pleasurable task of helping to create just a zygote, one tiny cell, but HER body turns it into a baby, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080502134332.htm">and her cells stay within her offspring throughout its life and help it along, and vice-versa. (Something that has just now been discovered. Mom is with you always.)

Not to mention the DNA in the nucleus, for which the male contributes 50 percent, is not the only DNA in the cell: all of the mitochondria, and other organelles, which have their own DNA, are 100 percent her contribution. Plus, all of the other cellular machinery are her contribution.

There could be no guarantee to him on whether the zygote he helped make becomes a baby. That is true even in nature.

If she keeps it and has a baby, from there, the responsibility and the rights revert to the 50-50 genetic contribution. Why? First, as far what biology has shown, he is the one benefiting, his genes are being passed on another generation. More practically, however, a man cannot be awarded a free lunch when it comes to his offspring. Otherwise the biggest reprobates in society would have 60 kids all being raised by somebody else, and/or raised very badly. It would be a social disaster to the rest of us if genetic parasitism were made a legal right, because genetic parasitism is what it would be. It would be an incredible burden on society, oppressive to women, and harmful to all who decide to be responsible.

Hidden in males is a program not only to get laid, but more broadly, to try to pass on as many of their genes to the next generations. For us guy's, it's too pleasurable to do and take away responsibilities and some guys will work overtime to burden everyone else with their kids. Not all men, or even most, but not too many of them have to do this to disrupt the lives for everyone else and lower the state of society.

Despite what some men might believe, it isn't easy for the vast majority of women to abort if the pregnancy has progressed. At the very least, their bodies want the baby. They are generally not inclined to choose abortions, nor should they be pushed to do so by fathers who derelict their responsibilities. More importantly, it takes a lot of resources to effectively raise a child, the very fact of having one will give the woman a lower chance of finding a mate, anyone else to help raise the child; if not the man who started the process, and who stands to benefit genetically, then who who should get the bill? He might not have a legal say in aborting, but he isn't just a bystander. If he isn't willing to be a father then he is a "perpetrator"; his "bullet" did it.

Now, since we're trying to make things totally equal here, what if the pregnancy goes wrong, and it sterilizes her, and maybe she gets an infection that does more damage? Should she then be able to sue the guy for his part in the injury? Should courts look at his genetics and determine if the flaw was actually his?

Child support (and confidence of paternity) is one of the great, social and cultural advances in humankind. It stems a serious historical problem of a growing class of abandoned children, bastards they used to call them, and for good reason: they were a permanent, growing badly socialized and criminal underclass, that tended to grow constantly in cities. Their fathers were unknown; they weren't any man's responsibility, and the women who had them were cast out by their families, so couldn't get the resources to effectively raise the child. These women generally had to turn to prostitution to raise the child, which in turn created more poor, under-socialized men, or they simply abandoned the child, filling the orphanages.

This is only avoided not just by giving women choice, but by determining the fathers, and having them take responsibility. Rights? They have them already. Anything else is just whining.

[Hello_Kitty]

1. Laws that give a man the right of "choice" are a dangerous slippery slope.

As imperfect, in practice, as the current situation is now, it at least provides for support of children without unduly impinging on the bodily integrity of women. Abortion is an "artificial" interruption of a pregnancy and no man should expect a woman to undergo it, no matter how much he objects to being a father. At the same time, pregnancy is a grueling ordeal for the woman and no man should have the right to compel her to go through it if she doesn't want to. Then there is the problem of men impregnating one or several women and then "opting out" of fatherhood. God knows there are enough unsupported children out there, without giving men carte blanche to strew their sperm all over the place. Honestly, if guys don't want to be a father they should not ejaculate anywhere near a vagina.

[Lost in CT]

2. It is a double standard which I endorse...

but lets not muddy the waters too much it is definitely a double standard.

[caseymoz]

3. For reproduction, the contributions of the two sexes are not biologically equal.

In this case, the youtube guy makes an argument based on equality. The problem with that is, the contribution of each sex in actual reproduction and birth are hardly equal in any terms. Any effort to force it to fit into our ideology concerning equality (without a lot of technology we don't have) would be unworkable.

[Lost in CT]

4. well I was referring to the double standard that a man has to take care of a

child for 18+ years whether he wants the child or not while the woman has the choice...

I feel there is a double standard with child support that way and I endorse the current status quo... I feel it would place an undue burden on the state otherwise.

[pnwmom]

6. The baby is the only one with no choice.

The father had the choice to contribute his sperm or not. The mother had her choice to go through with the pregnancy, once it occurred.

So the baby, once born, is entitled to the financial support of both of its parents.

[caseymoz]

7. Sorry I misunderstood, and you have that point.

Yes, it will end up that somebody else would have to raise the child, more than likely the State.

Of course, as I said, I could see a few guys fathering 60 children and taking responsibility for none of them. The most repulsive person I ever met, at a temporary job, said he had fathered 18 children with I don't remember how many different women, and either joked or boasted about getting out of paying child support for all of them. Even if it was a joke, it wasn't funny.

[pnwmom]

5. A quicker reason: he owes the financial support to the CHILD, not to the mother.

The child exists because of the father's action together with the mother's. Therefore they both owe this child financial support after it's born. The fact that the father's biological contribution ended with his sperm donation is irrelevant. The baby wouldn't exist without BOTH the parents' contributions.

[caseymoz]

8. I made that and other points.

I thought I'd take the argument apart from every angle.

[pnwmom]

9. And you did a great job. Thanks. n/t

[caseymoz]

10. You're welcome, and ty for the compliment.

I hope that these arguments help women to refute claims of mens rights such as his. They need every weapon in their arsenal to combat them.

[uppityperson]

12. That is the big factor people overlook. Child support is for the child, not the other parent.

It gets managed by the parent it goes to, but is for the child. Then there are those who whine that the other parent doesn't spend it on the child, which I am sure does happen, but having been on the receiving and giving end of child support, it does. Being able to provide housing, food, clothing, extras that make life better for your child, all that is good. The control issue can be difficult, but child support is for the child, and (generally) positively impacts the child.

[Azalea]

20. But

If you didn't want the child in the first place why are you forced to do anything for it? Because one person decided they DID want to be a parent? I never fault anyman for walkig away and not being a father to some child he didn't want from the jump. Parenthood is not something that should ever be forced on anyone male or female just because they are fertile and sexually active. If that's the case abortions should only exist for medical reasons and adoption shouldn't be an option for anyone since having sex means consent to parenthood.

[Scout]

22. "I never fault anyman for walkig away and not being a father to some child he didn't want "

you must be a real prize catch

:eyes:

[Warpy]

11. You can also look at child support in terms of liability law

Once he deposited his semen into her body instead of trapping it within a condom, he assumed liability for anything that happened because of this process. In this case, it's offshpring.

As for her, she is risking her health and life bringing a pregnancy to term. That risk must be voluntary, meaning the choice of whether or not to proceed with an unplanned pregnancy is all hers, not his. The right to one's life always overrules someone else's right to property, which is what the male argument always boils down to.

[caseymoz]

13. A liability case is totally something else.

I could be wrong, but I could don't thing that's the way the legal system has shaped the issue. In liability, what is awarded is "damages." That's not really the way the law approaches child support. I don't think arguments about the actual law are going to change that.

Rather, it's best to go to the theory behind the law. I was treating the issue of "fathers' choice" as an issue of natural rights, as the video commentator did, and the immediate consequences of recognizing the "fathers' rights" he proposes. Any judge can take his argument and put it into a ruling, based on that interpretation of rights. That ruling could actually reach higher courts. I wanted to head that off and give it a counter-argument. Arguing it legally, though, is something else, and it requires, well, a lawyer.

I agree, of course, that a woman takes a risk when bringing a pregnancy to term. It's also quite a responsibility. She must not be compelled or coerced into it. The father doesn't have a legal say on this, his contribution ended when fertilization took place. Her contribution begins there and continues for 9 months.

[caseymoz]

14. Did I massacre that first sentence!

"I could be wrong, but I don't think that's the way the legal system has shaped the issue."

That should have been the sentence.

[Iris]

15. "She bore him 7 sons in 7 years"

I've been thinking about choice a lot in terms of attitudes towards women. The quote in the subject line is from a book on tape I listened to while traveling over the weekend. I don't know the title of the book but it made me think about the book "A Thousand Splendid Suns" and the part that described a women's hospital in Afghanistan that had no supplies, not even ether or pain relief for women undergoing Cesarean's. I remember asking a friend (who happens to be a man) why that would happen? Why would the simplest relief from pain and disease be denied to half the members of a population. He said to understand it, you'd have to think like someone who thought women were less than human. That their only purpose was to have children or "bear them sons." It made me think of how that term "bear him children" makes the woman somehow less than human - like some beast in a field. In fact, I thought of this even more today when I was driving to work and passed a cow and a bull in a field and thought of how that cow's life was based on what that bull would do. If he impregnated her, she'd be pregnant, suffer giving birth, and then care for whatever the result was - automatically because the cow is an animal. Women, on the other hand, are thinking sentient beings and when this is dismissed, whether through forced childbirth OR forced abortions, as if what goes on in their bodies has nothing to do with them, they are then being treated as less than human. It's a twist of nature that cultures in the past have tried to turn against women, and now that that is reversed to a certain degree, a lot of men don't like it.

[HockeyMom]

16. No man have ever died from complications

of a pregnancy. Since her life could be in danger, it has to be her decision.

[Azalea]

17. Men should

be able to walk away. No one should be forced into parenthood just because someone wants to be a mommy after a one night stand of round in the hay ended up making a fetus. He should be able to say on paper that he wants absolutely nothing to do with that fetus or the mother and sign papers excusing him of any parental responsibility, including finanical. If she doesn't point out he's the father while pregnant she forsakes claim to funds after the fetus is born.

Oh that "well he shouldnt have sex" crap is the SAME thing that pro-lifers say about WOMEN! So please let's not give them any credence to those arguments with that line. And if done the way I proposed the arguent that children need or deserve is moot, because its all settled before there are any former fetus beings.

[uppityperson]

18. Personal responsibility = pro-life crap? huh

[Azalea]

19. There is no personal responsibility

to UNWANTED fetuses! My point was in utero he should say I want nothing to do with this fetus now or ever in its existence at any point of its development ncluding post natal and it be HIS way of aborting the fetus from his life the same way a woman can abort one from hers. Instead of a physical medical procedure, he undergoes legal paperwork and procedures to give up the fetus and whatever it grows into (wanting a baby doesn't gurantee you one, miscarriages occur). If he KNOWS he wouldn't be a good father he shouldnt be forced into being one just for having sex. His penis isn't there solely for making single mothers out of babycrazed women.

[uppityperson]

21. Not a valid comparison.

If he doesn't want to risk having a baby, he should use multiple types of birth control or not have intercourse. Same thing for her. If he has sex, he need to take responsibility for the outcome, same thing for her. These rights and responsibilities are equal for both partners (considering consensual sex between adults).

You stated in your previous post that my saying this is the same thing that pro-lifers say to women to deny them the right to an abortion. I disagree.

A woman can abort the fetus from her body. It is never in his body. If it was, then he would have the right to an abortion, same as she does now. Sex for neither of them is to simply make babies but if it happens, there is a difference in their rights about the outcome.


Here is another question for you. What if she choses to give up the born baby for adoption? Should his financial responsibility towards the baby end if he/she is adopted by someone else?

[Azalea]

24. He should

never be forced to see r acknowledge the existence of something he would have destroyed (aborted) if given the chance. It's not his fault he's a father, SHE chose not to abort. Abortion isn't all about her body its about not wanting to parent. Most women who have had abortions have given birth so obviously the gripe isn't with pregnancy so much as avoiding parenthood or having to give up a child.


Nobody should be forced into parenthood and I applaud anyone who takes a stand against it and walks away shamelessly. He doesn't have to care just because they share DNA no more than a woman has to feel a fetus is a baby just because she's pregnant. It IS the same thing.

[uppityperson]

26. "It's not his fault he's a father". Yes, it is. HE chose to risk it by having sex.

There are all sorts of reasons for having an abortion, and yes, the woman is the one who gets to have the final say whether or not to have an abortion.

"Most women who have had abortions have given birth"? I would like to see a link for that claim.

Also, simply because a woman may have had a previous successful pregnancy does not mean that the next one will be so. A woman can have serious health issues even AFTER having a pregnancy without them. What I could tolerate at age 45 is different than what I could tolerate at age 30, and every pregnancy is different. There can be serious health issues with any pregancy.

He can chose to not contribute his DNA. I had a friend who had a vasectomy at 21, knew he would never want to make a baby and never wanted to risk it. If a man risks pregnancy by having sex, he risks becoming a father. He doesn't have to care, but he is responsible for the outcome if it becomes a child.

"Nobody should be forced into parenthood and I applaud anyone who takes a stand against it and walks away shamelessly". What?

[iverglas]

36. we live in liberal democracies

In our traditions, rights are largely defined in negative terms -- the right not to be forced to do something / not to be punished for doing something.

The right to an abortion is a right not to be compelled to do something: carry a pregnancy to term and deliver the fetus; and the right not to be punished for any choice that is made regarding one's own pregnancy.

That right does not exist in men, for the simple reason that men do not get pregnant. Women don't have the right to get a vasectomy.

The reasons why individuals want to do things are generally irrelevant when it comes to whether their doing of them may legitimately be limited. If I want to publish a book about great white sharks, it may be because I want to get rich, but it could also be because I want to contribute to the literature on great white sharks even though I know I'll lose money by publishing the book; heck, it could be because I want to encourage people to kill great white sharks. My right of free speech means that I may not be prevented from publishing the book, or punished for doing it, absolutely regardless of my motivations.

The same is true of abortion. The right in issue is the right to life; no one may be compelled to do something that involves an assumption of a risk to their life or a risk of serious physical or mental injury. That is why women may not legitimately be compelled to continue a pregnancy / prevented from terminating a pregnancy / prohibited from terminating a pregnancy.

That right has absolutely nothing to do with the responsibility of either parent to provide for a child that has been born.

Some men may strike it lucky and be parties to pregnancies that women terminate, thus relieving them of any responsibilities to a child.

If I step off the curb in front of a bus, I may strike it lucky and happen on the bus being driven by the bestest driver in the fleet, who is able to stop before running me down. If that isn't the case and I get run down, I'm responsible for the harm to me, and to anyone on the bus or in the vicinity who suffers harm as a result of my actions. I don't get to say that if the bus driver had been super good and stopped the bus, no one would have got hurt.

When men who do not want to be fathers engage in sexual activity that could lead to pregnancy, they gamble. They bet that a pregnancy will not result. They bet that if a pregnancy results, the woman will terminate it.

Sometimes they bet the losing proposition. If they don't want to lose the bet, they should stay away from the table.

Men simply may not compel women either to continue or to terminate pregnancies, any more than any of us may compel anyone else to assume any risk to their lives or health.

Men know this. They know the rules of the game when they start out. They know that if they gamble on the losing propositions -- if a pregnancy occurs and a child is born -- they will be responsible for a portion of the child's support.

Those are the rules. Everybody knows them. Nobody gets to whine when they are applied.

The rules could indeed be changed. Once again: I favour a guaranteed decent minimum standard of living for children entirely independent of both parents' means. As long as that isn't the case, the child's interests are paramount.

The child didn't exist when the man gambled? True. Some of the people killed in the bridge that collapses didn't exist when the construction company built it 50 years ago, either. So is nobody liable? I don't think that's how it works.

And of course that isn't how the birth of a child works. Nothing else works like that. It's sui generis. But we all do know how it works. Really.

Interesting little diatribe going on in this thread, I must say. The lingo and the attitude and all.

[Azalea]

40. This

is more like an opt out post natal, like how a mother can give up a baby for adoption, why can't a man simply terminate his rights? I'm not talking aout someone who wants to see the child or be there without financial responsibility, I'm talking aout someone who would just as soon drop the kid off in prison than go to its birthday party. He shouldn't be punished because she chose not to have an abortion by bankrolling someone's existence.

I'd feel the same about someone coming after a woman for child support if she had the baby (because he objected to an abortion) and handed over custdy and rights and the courts mandated child support. That would make abolutely NO sense to me. Only parents pay child support and if biological connection makes one a parent then everyone who has a biological child needs to pay child support no matter if they have/want parental rights or not and those children ought to know all of their lives who their bio parents are.

[iverglas]

44. silly babble

He shouldn't be punished because she chose not to have an abortion by bankrolling someone's existence.

No one is being punished. Although the parallel with civil liability is not perfect, it is useful here: holding someone civilly liable for the consequences of their actions is NOT "punishing" them. Neither is holding a parent responsible for a child's support.

The parent is not liable "because" the other parent chose not to have an abortion. He is liable because a child was born. Those are two different things.

I'm not talking aout someone who wants to see the child or be there without financial responsibility, I'm talking aout someone who would just as soon drop the kid off in prison than go to its birthday party.

It's all as irrelevant in the case of a parent whose absence of concern starts before birth as it is in the case of a parent whose absence of concern starts after birth, or after the child's 10th birthday. Your description applies to a whole lot of the latter, equally.

I'd feel the same about someone coming after a woman for child support if she had the baby (because he objected to an abortion) and handed over custdy and rights and the courts mandated child support.

Well, that's nice. The fact is that the child would be entitled to support in that case, equally.

Only parents pay child support and if biological connection makes one a parent ...

Why, uh, yes; it does.

... then everyone who has a biological child needs to pay child support ...

There's certainly an argument to be made for that -- that relinquishing a child for adoption or to be a ward of the state should not relieve a parent of the support obligation. However, the fact is that the parent-child relationship is terminated in those cases, precisely because a substitute relationship is created. The child is not left without parental support (or support from the state as in loco parentis).

... no matter if they have/want parental rights or not ...

The concept of "parental rights" is a bizarre and uniquely USAmerican one, I assure you. All the talk about the "parental rights" of whoever the parties to the existence of Michael Jackson's children might be is an example of the weirdness of it. In Canada, or the UK, or, I am sure, western Europe, the talk would be about the interests and welfare of the children.

Parental obligations are simply different and separate from parental "rights", as is the case with many sets of obligations and rights. I have an obligation to pay taxes to support the public school system; I don't have a right to attend grade five classes in that system, or to swim in its swimming pools or use its photocopy machines.

... and those children ought to know all of their lives who their bio parents are.

Your concern for children's welfare just oozes from your posts, doesn't it? That question is one on which there is indeed disagreement between people of goodwill, but your interest here just doesn't really seem to be the welfare of the children in question.

Where I live, the province of Ontario, Canada, adoption records were opened this year to all adopted children 18 and over and all birth parents who apply for access, unless the other party has formally opted out of having their info disclosed. Before adulthood, the decision, like many decisions about children's lives, is left to the parents, i.e. the adoptive parents, who do have the right to make many such decisions, always provided that they do not violate the children's rights in ways that harm the children. In most aspects of children's lives, the parents are free to decide; the line is only drawn if a parent seeks to deny a child an education or medical care, or uses abusive discipline methods, and so on.

Your assertion that children ought to know just doesn't seem to be based in concern for the children.

[uppityperson]

52. Thank you iverglas.

I very much appreciate the time you take to write such good replies.

[Scout]

23. "His penis isn't there solely for making single mothers out of babycrazed women."

and here's another real gem!

i hope you've had a vasectomy! i wouldn't want you falling victim to some babycrazed woman in a one-night stand! those evil bitches, out to steal your sperm, then your money!

:rofl:

ETA: nevermind

[Azalea]

25. vasectomy? I'd need testicles for that

1) I'm a married woman with children. 2) I'm pro-choice 3) Yeah I can recognize that there ARE women out there who give birth for no other reason than they want a child KNOWING the father wont be there. Most of the prison population are fatherless children so her not getting an abortion now may mean just another deathrow inmate later. But, its her choice and he shouldn't have to deal with it.

The right grows stronger with this debate because everyone goes back to if you dont want children, don't have sex or use birth control, whats good advice for men is good advice for women. How do you validate or justify killing something with a heartbeat to avoid parenthood but not being able to simply not contribute to it financially. Children are not wanted y defaulted which is precisely the grounds upon which abortions for all is built, Because even when abortion was illegal you could always get one to save your life or health or even in a red anti-choice state like Texas, if you were raped.

[uppityperson]

27. Good grief."How do you validate or justify killing something with a heartbeat to avoid parenthood"??

"Most of the prison population are fatherless children so her not getting an abortion now may mean just another deathrow inmate later."


If you don't want children, use birth control. That is good advice for men and for women.

"How do you validate or justify killing something with a heartbeat to avoid parenthood but not being able to simply not contribute to it financially."??? Well, we are getting into the nuts and bolts here now, aren't we.

Most abortions happen before the heartbeat. If you make a baby, you are financially responsible for it.

"Children are not wanted y defaulted which is precisely the grounds upon which abortions for all is built, Because even when abortion was illegal or even in a red anti-choice state like Texas, if you were raped."

What. The. Fuck? Perhaps you deleted a sentence in there?

No, you could not always get an abortion to save your life or health. Only if you were rich enough to travel to somewhere abortions were legal, or had enough money to pay a private private doctor for a private abortion.

You seriously believe that "you could always get one to save your life or health"?

[Azalea]

29. ..

Go read Roe v. Wade, she could have gotten an abortion had she a medical reason or her life was threatened she then tried to cry rape for sympathy and of course that didn't bode well when it was known not to be true. The big win in Roe v. Wade meant that abortions were legal for any reason in the first trimester everywhere in the country.

Either way, the children's needs falls on the hands of the custodial parent. Men should be able to sign over all parental rights and have legal protection of their privacy that prohibits their nae form being placed on the birth certificate. Some progressive states have already made it so the only way a man's name appears on the birth certificate is if he signs the paperwork and consents to paternity himself. That should be a national rule of thumb.

[uppityperson]

30. Pre Roe v Wade "even when abortion was illegal " and no, you could not always get one

Before they were legal = Pre Roe v Wade = "even when abortion was illegal"

I have read the whole set of opinions. No, pre Roe v Wade you could not get an abortion in many places and if you truly think you could, you are wrong.

Roe v Wade made the option of getting an abortion available to ALL women irregardless of their wealth or power. That was not an option most places in the USA pre Roe v Wade.

[Azalea]

31. TO save the life of the mother

abortion was legal. http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/history_abortion.html

Abortion laws were nonexistant, though abortion DID exist until the 1820s and even then they only outlawed abortion after the fourth month.

MOST abortions were outlawed in the 1900s. Still today less than 5% of all abortions are done for to save the mother's life or physical health.

By 1965 all states banned abortion except to save the mother's life and in most cases her health, rape and incest or in even fewer instances when the fetus was deformed. Cosmetic abortions (as I will refer to abortions for non life or physical health threatening reasons) were outlawed and THAT is what Roe v. Wade was all about. A woman's life only became in danger when she wanted a cosmetic abortion and those were done in unsafe conditions. The abortion itself, not the pregnancy is where the harm to women came from. Safe and legal COSMETIC (SOCIAL) abortions is what being pro-choice is all about, the threat of pregnancy to women's lives became reality when a pro-life woman became pregnant and her unborn baby was a threat to her life. and she refused abortion as an option.

If you do a search for abortion laws against saving a woman's life you'll get results for OTHER countries and propoganda about how when a woman can't access a safe and legal abortion when she doesn't want to endure pregnancy she'll risk her life to get rid of the baby inside of her. That logic is used to cite abortion laws as taking the lives of women. You will not find a law in this country that said a woman can just die.

[uppityperson]

32. "cosmetic abortions"? What. The. Fuck? It depends on where you were

"By 1965 all states banned abortion except to save the mother's life and in most cases her health, rape and incest or in even fewer instances when the fetus was deformed." does NOT mean that a woman could get an abortion. It Depends On Where She Lived.

"A woman's life only became in danger when she wanted a cosmetic abortion and those were done in unsafe conditions." No, a woman's life became in danger as soon as she got pregnant because THINGS HAPPEN QUICKLY when you are pregnant.

"the threat of pregnancy to women's lives became reality when a pro-life woman became pregnant and her unborn baby was a threat to her life. and she refused abortion as an option." Wrong. You have a romantic view of pregnancy whereas I have a view obtained from years of working with pregnant women and seeing all the things that can happen to them.

To repeat the first bit though, where you continue to say that a woman could ALWAYS get an abortion if her life was in danger, you are wrong. I depends on where you lived and how much money you had.

Ed to add Roe v Wade was about the right to privacy and to equal the ability of women to obtain health services irregardless of wealth or power (equal rights). It is that simple.

[Azalea]

34. WTF

You MUST be male!!!!

I am a woman, a mother at that I have been pregnant ther eis nothing romantic about pregnancy, morning sickness, a sore and spreading pelvis, anxiesty, out of control hormones, bloating and constant fear that you baby is dead or you'll be a mom when you don't want to be!

I didn't say a woman CAN'T or SHOULDN'T get an abortion on the contrary I think she SHOULD when the SHE OR the sperm donor doesn't want to be a parent. If she decides unilaterally to keep the child she decides unilaterally to be a parent. That decision has nothing to do with him and thus the responsibility that slaps her across the face has nothing to do with him either.

Abortions shouldn't be free, things in life cost. People pay for food and they need that to live, water also why are cosmetic abortions free. Or are you sqaying the government should spend that money on abortions as opposed to say feeding the vast amount of homeless we have in the land of the free??? That's like someone saying they need breast implants to feel better about themselves and men who like women with big breast have to sponsor her boob job while some sick kid dies slow because they can't afford a LIFE SAVING medical procedure. It should only be a social responsibility when its a medical NECESSITY. You don't need to have sex to survive, you screw, you get knocked up, if you your sex partner is not your life partner well, chances are you're pretty much alone in what happens next. Women aren't insolent children that need the Big Daddy government to help them with every little thing.

Abortion clinics have NEVER been everywhere in this country because there are gynecologists who do NOT perform cosemtic abortions

You don't have to be abstinent to avoid pregnancy, properly using your birth control EVERY SINGLE TIME significantly reduces the chances a woman will ever find herself with an unwanted pregnancy. And if she screws some poor schmuck who doesn't want to be a father and lies about birth control she shouldn't be awarded with public funds or child support. SHe should have to work harder than other parents to take care of her child that she selfishly wanted-alone. It's called being an adult and being responsible for your own actions. WOmen aren't little girls who need to be saved by the wallets of men or men like you who think they know what woman need!

And my information came from prochoice.org, an abviously prochoice website and YES a gynecologist ANYWHERE would perform a life saving abortion and gynecologists were EVERYWHERE. You don't have a right to have a plastic surgeon live within convenience to you and you needn't be wealthy to get an abortion they are expensive, as with ANY other medical procedure a person wishes to have and thus cost money.

[musette_sf]

37. i thought YOU were a male

but you're just a forced-birth Freeper and a slut-shamer.

not to mention a supporter of forced pregnancy specifically as PUNISHMENT!

what a grab bag of Freeper crap!

"cosmetic abortions"
"knocked up"
"if your sex partner is not your life partner"
"saved by the wallets of men"
"Big Daddy government"

and my favorite
"lies about birth control"

actually, i think you ARE a male, and a nasty one at that.

[uppityperson]

43. It is pretty wild, isn't it.

Strikes me as some male who resents having to pay child support to a child he made. Probably resents having to "support the woman who wouldn't abort the baby". I agree with your assessment indeed.

I'd call this one not a Forced Pregnancy, but a Forced Abortionist instead.

[iverglas]

45. making no comment on this specific situation ...

There are many women in the ladies' auxiliary to the "men's rights" movement. They are often women who have partnered with men whom they regard as put-upon and exploited by the mothers of their existing children. In some cases, of course, they have valid grievances; some custodial former partners really are holy terrors. (But hey, who married them / had sex with them / had children with them, eh?) In others, well, there are always those who want or need identify with the more powerful class ...

[Scout]

49. Ding! Ding! Ding! "ladies auxiliary to the men's rights movement" n/t

[uppityperson]

41. A woman SHOULD get an abortion if the sperm contributor says to. Oh kay.

"why are cosmetic abortions free." What is "cosmetic abortion" and where can I get one for free?

An abortion = a breast implant or other plastic surgery. Wild.

"You don't need to have sex to survive, you screw, you get knocked up, if you your sex partner is not your life partner well, chances are you're pretty much alone in what happens next." And being married, you always have a partner who will support you in your decisions and help you? HAhahahahahahahaha.

"she screws some poor schmuck who doesn't want to be a father and lies about birth control". How about HE uses birth control. If HE doesn't want to risk impregnating someone, perhaps HE should also take some responsibility. It's called being an adult and being responsible for your own actions.

You say that a woman could ALWAYS get an abortion if her life was in danger, you are wrong. I depends on where you lived and how much money you had. No, they wouldn't. And no, gynecologists aren't "EVERYWHERE".

[iverglas]

46. "why are cosmetic abortions free"

I'd guess for the same reasons that "accessory" childbirth is. ;)

(Where I'm at, all services in connection with pregnancy are free, i.e. covered by the public health plan: pregnancy testing, termination, pre-natal care, delivery ... . They're services that are medically necessary in connection with a physical condition.)

[Azalea]

51. ick

I do not and will not understand how someone could bring a child into this world and expect not to pay a dime to contribute to their upbringing and the care needed to ensure a safe and healthy delivery. Neither will I understand the notion behind a free abortion or free birth control.

If you want to drive, it costs money to put gas in the car, maintenance, to buy a car, insurance. If you want to have sex it costs to use birth control, bear a child, get an abortion, get treatment for an STD or STI. Neither is reserved for the wealthy but both require a certain amount of money, count your blessings if its fre,e but demanding or forcing someone else to pay for it is shameful.

Eww, the entitlement is gross.

[uppityperson]

53. "Neither will I understand the notion behind ... free birth control."

Free contraception = entitlement?

"I do not and will not understand how someone could bring a child into this world and expect not to pay a dime to contribute to their upbringing and the care needed to ensure a safe and healthy delivery."

But it is fine to not contribute to their upbringing after they are delivered, unless the male decides they want to. Gotcha.

"free birth control" is not what is gross here

[uppityperson]

33. You are outing yourself with "cosmetic abortion" talk. "Cosmetic (social) abortions"?

Cosmetic Abortions? Rather than getting a haircut today, I think I'll go have an abortion!

Social Abortions? I know what to do, like, get a bunch of, like, my friends together and like, we'll have an abortion party, you know?

Clueless and offensive and you think you are pro-choice. :eyes:

[Azalea]

35. Clueless ? How?

You are clueless and offensive. OUting myself how with what? DO you knwo how utterly offensive it would be to place the abortion an 8 year old who was brutally and mercilessly raped by her stepfather which lead to being pregnant with twins to one that a woman who had sex with 10 men and don't know who the father is????? SERIOUSLY??? One pregnancy could KILL the other would inconvenience and embarrass. That is a BIG difference. Of course, you're a male, so you don't know.


Cosmetic means its done for non-medical, rape/incest reasons, which abortions done for social reasons are. Finishing school, paternity, being single are all social and have nothing to do with life and death.

I could care less if she got a hysterectomy, some women shouldn't be mothers ever including those who don't want to be but my point is when they decide they fele like being one, and make that decision alone then they bear that responsibility alone.

[musette_sf]

38. Uppity is definitely a female

and YOU, sir, need to STFU.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

42. You are not making much sense. Your sentences run on and don't have a point. Try again.

"DO you knwo how utterly offensive it would be to place the abortion an 8 year old who was brutally and mercilessly raped by her stepfather which lead to being pregnant with twins to one that a woman who had sex with 10 men and don't know who the father is?"

Do you "knwo" how utterly offensive it is to pretend you are pro-choice but in reality you are only "pro-choice" if that "choice" is one you morally agree with?

Pro-choice my ass.

[Azalea]

47. ???????

I am pro-choice for all. Whether its medically necessary or simply because she doesn't want stretchmarks and everything inbetween. Its her body if she wants an abortion she should have at it.

But why is it that I am deemed NOT pro-choice for women simply because I think child support for unwanted children forced on the person who did not to be a parent is disgusting? I've helped a friend pay for an abortion, and she got it for strictly social reasons, neither her health or mortality were at risk, rape nor incest did not impregnante her. I think she made the BEST decision in getting that abortion by not forcing parenthood on someone who wanted no parts of it and by not choosing not to become a single parent and bear a fatherless child.

Morality is private and has no business in our laws.

[iverglas]

48. you need to listen better

But why is it that I am deemed NOT pro-choice for women simply because I think child support for unwanted children forced on the person who did not to be a parent is disgusting?

Your question is loaded with the false premise that this is WHY your pro-choice credentials are questioned.

As I remarked, it's the lingo and the attitude in your posts that raise questions. The lingo you use when you talk about women, and the attitude toward women that you display.

Yes, "pro-choice" can mean simply not caring what choices women make, and not supporting interference in those choices. That's cool enough. When it comes with the excess baggage you bring to the table, it's kind of a case of with friends like those ...

[Azalea]

50. Ok

I'll give you that one but this is an issue that really bothers me. As it stand right now, no man can voluntarily forfeit his parental rights without permission from the mother, but th emother can do so without ever telling the man he's even a father, protecting herself from child support and parenthood after birth. That is not equal.

The very grounds that many people defend child support on makes them stand elbow to elbow with pro-lifers sex=consent to parenthood and that is disgusting. The idea that women NEED the money of men to be good mothers and provide for their child goes back to the patriarchial thinking that women are not good enough to do anything without men. Some make it seme like if not for the man and the government her and the child would starve. The crutch of child support cripples the drive and ambition necessary to make it on your own. Not to mention that it only makes most men MORE resentful of the child they have to *pay* for and often times these children find that their fathers had other children and actually love them and voluntarily support them. I've clerked a family court numerous times and seen a father deny a child while that poor baby was in the courtroom eyes filled with tears as their fathers voiced resentment at being forced to be in the child's life. If child support came without the man having to let his identity be known, was more reasonable and he had a say in how much he paid it would be a tad more logical. But it isn't, you force a child to know the are unwanted and then throw that in their face when court ordered visitation comes around and the father doesn't show up or does and shower affection on his other children. He is NOT wrong for NOT being a good father to a child he never wanted. We've seen women KILL children they would have aborted if given the chance why force her or him to support one?

The best interest of any child is to have a loving parent(s) who want them and take care of them without resentment. Child support ensures resentment WILL be there and people who should never be parents are forced into it.

The msot recent child support case was one where a woman raped someone's underaged preteen boy and got pregnant by him, kept the child and when she got out of prison, she sued him and WON child support. What if that were your son? Would you force the rape on him all over again and force him to accept this child that he was forced to help conceive?

[uppityperson]

54. You continue to mix responsibility with punishment, now with some feminism bs

"The idea that women NEED the money of men to be good mothers and provide for their child goes back to the patriarchial thinking that women are not good enough to do anything without men."

"The crutch of child support cripples the drive and ambition necessary to make it on your own."

Child support is to provide for a child, not for a parent. If women were truly liberated, truly motivated they wouldn't need child support?

"I've clerked a family court numerous times and seen a father deny a child while that poor baby was in the courtroom eyes filled with tears as their fathers voiced resentment at being forced to be in the child's life. If child support came without the man having to let his identity be known, was more reasonable and he had a say in how much he paid it would be a tad more logical."

Fathers are not forced to be in a child's life, but are forced to be financially responsible for their actions. There are formulas in many states to determine how much child support is owed a child, do you seriously believe that it would be better for someone to be able to chose how much they paid?

"Child support ensures resentment WILL be there." You sound like someone who has personal issues with child support. What has happened in your past, what is your story or the story of someone you obviously care about? Serious question.

[Azalea]

55. No

My first encounter with child support was while I clerked. Things got very nasty very fast and yes sadly visitation is mandated but many times they end up right back in court with an angry mother who says a forced father didn't show up for visitation and he wants to terminate his rights and she says no. The showdown continues.

And yes in a truly liberated world, women wouldn't need child support because she could prpovideon her own everything necessary for the child. He has no *share* in teh responsibility because there is no responsibility to be a parent just because you consent to having sex. I wont buy that crap the pro-lifers spewed at women to criminalize abortion.

[uppityperson]

56. Strawman. Child support and visitation are 2 entirely different things.

If your first encounter with "child support" was a "visitation" court thing, good lord no wonder you are confused since they are 2 different things.

[Azalea]

59. ....

You know very little about court proceedings eh?

[uppityperson]

60. You don't know that child support and visitation are different things? omg

well, THAT explains a lot

[Azalea]

70. ..............

I do know that they are two different things however they both are determined through family court and typically when child support is enforced so is visitation because knowing the other parent is considered to be in the best interest of the child even if the other parent resents the child's very existence.

And yes, things like child support, custody, visitation, parental rights all happen to intersect in the same courtroom sometimes.

[uppityperson]

73. I am glad you know the difference as your post indicated you didn't and were confused

Your "first experience with child support was a court hearing about visitation" showed you were confusing them as they are 2 different things.

[Azalea]

85. In that case

My apologies for not offering clarity in that post.

[Scout]

57. i'd be willing to bet current hubby has kids from previous marriage...

some non-feminist unliberated bitch must have stolen his sperm from him while he was "unwittingly" fucking her ... now he has to pay for previous family, and current family doesn't like it...

i could be wrong :shrug: but it's a very common scenario

[uppityperson]

58. I've been thinking along that line also. Now "he has to support her"

rather than having a clue about the support being for the child(ren). Just because a man, or a woman, moves on does not exempt them from responsibility for their acts up to know. Rather like Sarah Palin is finding out also.

[Azalea]

62. Can you comprehend?

I've said repeatedly this only is in reference to unwanted children. If the child was wanted then yes even if they breakup even, even if the other parent wants to "renig" on the decision to be a parent child support is warranted and if need be ought to be forced.

HOWEVER when the child was unwanted, the child is owed nothing from no one except the person who wanted them in the first place.

[Azalea]

61. LMAOOO!!!

No, I wouldn't marry a man with children from a previous relationship as I have no desire to be a step-parent.

Nice try though, I actually just simply have an issue with any infringement on reproductive rights including the atrocity that is child support for unwanted children.

[uppityperson]

63. Of course you wouldn't honey, because then he would have to give money to that child rather than you

I mean, entitlement and all

[Azalea]

67. Oh Please

I make my own money. I'm just not interested in being a step parent.

[musette_sf]

65. if you're not really a man,

then i can advise you that your current BF, who is talking all this smack about his ex that you're currently believing, will someday turn the same abuse he heaped on his ex, on you.

if you're really a man, then you're a narcissist and you're hopeless.

[Azalea]

68. ???

Engaging in delusions are you?

I'm married and am not a step parent to anyone. Why do you think all women share a brain and think the way say we should? Are you a high school student? Society is not 12th grade, adults have differing opinions, thoughts and ideas alllll the time.

How sexist of you to insinuate I'm not a woman.

[musette_sf]

72. okay, so maybe you're Mrs. Tom Leykis.

that's about the only possibility left if you are really a female.

[Azalea]

86. What??

[musette_sf]

93. you're so disingenuous

when you're caught red handed

[Azalea]

96. And you are

such the typical misogynist male. :)

[musette_sf]

97. you're pathetic

and you're a man

as proven by your disgusting website link.

i see you like young stuff. i'm way too old for you.

[musette_sf]

64. i read about this all the time on the verbal abuse support message board i frequent

* abused woman finally gets free of abusive POS guy.

* POS guy, of course being a narcissist, needs and finds new narc supply ASAP.

* POS guy tells his Poor Me pack of lies to new victim/narc supply.

* POS guy falsely paints ex as Witch of Endor.

* POS guy enlists new victim/narc supply into believing ex is Witch of Endor.

* new victim/narc supply will tell anyone who will listen about her new BF's ex being the Witch of Endor.

* ergo, new victim/narc supply now in unity with POS guy against the ex. or, shall i say, against the lying BS the POS guy told her about the ex.

i think our non-feminist poster here is either (a) a POS guy who resents supporting his children, or (b) the new GF/victim/narc supply who is believing the BS that the guy is telling her.

if it is (a), then there is nothing we can do for him since he is a narc.
if it is (b), then it's only a matter of time before the POS guy starts abusing her too.

[Azalea]

69. or c

A woman who happens to be an independent thinker and possess an unpopular opinion. I get it, I'm a rare breed. Women who are above the poverty line, educated, married, and have not born illegitmate children are rare nowadays. It makes sense why you find it all so hard to believe.

Its a shame it pisses you off so much to think there are really heterosexual women out there who don't have to depend on men yet still attract and maintain loving relationship with one.

[musette_sf]

71. "Women who are above the poverty line,

educated, married, and have not born illegitmate children are rare nowadays."

okay, you're DEFINITELY a man.

because ALL the women i know meet these qualifications, including myself.

only a man would say something so completely ignorant and fact-free about women.

[Azalea]

75. LMAO

WTH I've been tld I'm not a woman because I disagree with with a bunch of catty cliques, wouldn't bea step parent, believe that women don't need the wallets of men in order to take care of their children and then you say again that I must be a man.

LMAO!!!!!!!! Oh you are SO laughable. An educated woman actually saying something like "if you dont want to be a parent keep your legs closed", I don't think so.

[uppityperson]

77. Strawman. No one said "if you dont want to be a parent keep your legs closed"

It would probably go better if you quit telling others what they said, when they didn't say it.

[Azalea]

89. Are you kididng me?

[musette_sf]

82. only a man (or a really messed up woman) would EVER use the term

"keep your legs closed"

that's just disgusting, a little view into your disgusting mind.

and for you to attribute that phrase to me is even more disgusting.

[uppityperson]

74. bwahahahahahahaha! You had me taking you seriously until this, thanks for the laugh

I have no idea what type women you know, but considering yourself a "rare breed" for being above the poverty line, educated, married, and have not born illegitmate (sic) children" is too funny.

[Azalea]

76. Yeah

This was based on the stuff spouted here about how I MUST be a man because I have said repeatedly how women don't need a man's money. Sexism at its best. Th educated amongst you should try re-reading my username and then what it symbolism means.

Pathetic really, the best comeback I could be given is to call me a man.

[uppityperson]

78. Projection. You miss the point again and project your own desires and fears on us

pitiful

[Azalea]

84. I am only

giving my opinion on a forum like everybody else. This isn't about men this about ANYONE male or female who does not want to be a parent, NOBODY malke or female is a slave to their biology or anatomy. Being pregnant doesn't make you a mommy anymore than impregnating someone makes you a daddy. Taking responsibility and/or custody for/of a child makes you a parent. Reproduction rights are not limited to abortion it includes the right to NOT be a parent.

Best thing the courts ever did was ensure that once an embryo was created in vitro it took the consnt of BOTH intended parents to have implantation. THAT is reproductive justice for all. What you spout here is why so many children will be fatherless, and KNOW their fathers don't want them because they are forced to know through child support and the entire circus surrounding it.

Child support has gotten SO out of control that someone can rape your son and if he is old enough to shoot sperm make him a daddy and then his RAPIST can come after him for child support when she finishes her sentence.

http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberthirtysix.htm

[musette_sf]

91. how far we have come since the 70s

in the 70s it was "Summer of 42"

now it's men freaking out because some woman might RAPE his son. ?????

you like to throw the word "rape" around a lot too. i'm willing to bet you also really believe that most women who accuse men of rape are lying.

every post, you dig your hole deeper proving you're a man. plus i don't think you work in a court, either. so why don't you quit while you are, well, not ahead, but at least not TSd?

[musette_sf]

92. okay, you're busted now

- snapshot above of the site this man (pretending to be a female) linked to in his post -

is THIS a site that a "feminist" would link to?

"Viagra" graphic at the top, next to a link for "cool teen sites"???

the site itself is a reference site for those who want to know, based on jurisdiction, if they're playing with fire or not.

i'll bet Rush checks this site before his little Dominican Republic jaunts where he needs Viagra.

[musette_sf]

88. + 1

[musette_sf]

83. no one is disagreeing that a WOMAN doesn't need a man's money.

where you are effed up in the head is that you think that a CHILD doesn't need its FATHER's money/support.

i've never needed or wanted one thin dime from a man.

but if i had his kid and he split the scene, you can be damn sure that guy would be paying child support, or paying the penalty for being a deadbeat.

[Azalea]

87. How is he a deadbeat

because you didn't have an abortion? Having sex doesn't mean consent to being pregnant, a mother or being a father. That's why abortion and adoption are options. Voluntary termination of rights should exist for every man everywhere in this country. DNA doesn't make a daddy, accepting parental responsibility does.

[musette_sf]

90. "Having sex doesn't mean consent to being pregnant"

actually, having sex always invites that possibility, unless both partners are sterile.

the man gave up his rights when he had unprotected sex with a woman with whom he did not want to make babies.

the man needs to take responsibility when he wants sex.

got it, sir?

ps, i've noticed that when you get a response that challenges you, all you do is throw out another red herring, you don't address the challenge. you're tedious and i'm no longer amused.

so i'll do like your idol, Tom Leykis, and just blow you up. all his callers love that so you should too. :nuke:

[Azalea]

94. What?

Mr. musette_sf

No sir, I do not get it. Maybe your testicles are all in a knot because I don't think women need to hang off the scrotum of men or that having sex makes someone a parent.

It amuses me that you think you know me thats SOOOO patriarchal of you!

[musette_sf]

95. your projection is complete

i'm a woman

you're a man

and an MRA to boot

game over a-hole.

[uppityperson]

98. Tata asshole troll.

[musette_sf]

99. FINALLY

how many times do you have to alert on an a-hole like this guy?

and HE disrupted very, very poorly.

[uppityperson]

100. You are just envious because he was more of a feminist than you

We are having a party over here, want to join us, we'd love to have you also
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=217&topic_id=7204&mesg_id=7399

[iverglas]

101. let me just quibble

Now that the air is clearer.


the man gave up his rights when he had unprotected sex with a woman with whom he did not want to make babies.

Actually, he didn't.

That's because there are no rights of his in issue.

There is no right not to be a parent, which seems to have been the right asserted.

The only right of the father that's in issue is the right to hang onto what's in his wallet. That's a real right, but it's subject to all kinds of interferences, starting with, oh, taxes. Rules about what an employer has to pay an employee, and what working conditions must be provided. Every charge for every government/public service ever provided.

The woman does have a right in issue, once she is pregnant: the right to life. Because her life is a stake in the game, she is the one who has sole authority to decide what the course of her pregnancy will be.

It simply makes no sense to talk about a right not to be a parent, the "right" our late unlamented colleague seems to have asserted. It's like saying you have a right not to get wet when it rains.

[Scout]

79. ok, i still think you are a waste of time, but this just makes me laugh

"I'm a rare breed. Women who are above the poverty line, educated, married, and have not born illegitmate children are rare nowadays."

:rofl:

you are not rare, but you are very arrogant. i fit that description, and i've one-upped you ... i haven't had ANY children nor have i had an abortion. unlike you, i don't think that makes me better than other women.

[iverglas]

80. that's really it, isn't it?

unlike you, i don't think that makes me better than other women.


My grade 12 French teacher gave me Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex to read in 1968.

De Beauvoir's most important line, to me, was: Je suis une femme comme les autres.

(Well, I thought that was de Beauvoir, but I can't find a citation.)


It isn't easy to translate / render the meaning in English. "I'm a woman like other women" doesn't really do it.

I am a woman, as we are all women.


It can mean many things in many aspects of life, and I have very often thought it to myself and said it to others, about myself, when the occasion arose. It could be humbling, but I think it's kind of, I dunno, inspiring.

[uppityperson]

81. Thank you for that quote, it is a good one

I am a woman, like the other women.

Je suis uppity, comme les autres. Doesn't make me any better or any worse than other women though, just different.

[musette_sf]

66. + 1

[musette_sf]

28. + 1