i saw a story on this on oreily a while back and a guy was actually planning on taking this to supreme court. he has a great point

if a woman can decide she doesnt want to be a mother she can and just have an abortion even if the fatehr really wants to have the baby he can't stop the abortion.

theres a double standard in the current law

so why can't a father do basically the same and say "i dont want to be a father" and forfeit fatherhood before the baby is born. if the mother still wants to have the baby she can but it won't have a father. the "father" wont be responsible for any kind of child support or anything.

this guy is challenging rowe vs wade to make it equall rights for men just like women. if the woman can choose not to mother then the man should be able to choose not to father.

I AGREE

what are you guys thoughts? especiallly the females in hurr

8/7/2006 6:25:20 PM

i think that if a dude tells a chick he doesnt want to pay for child support then he should have not fucked that bitch and got a kid

8/7/2006 6:29:45 PM

^then the law should be the same for equall rights

you should think if a chick wants to have an abortion she shouldnt have fucked that dude and got a kid. it takes 2 to make a baby.

8/7/2006 6:32:06 PM

^^

Nice sentence. Your parents should have aborted you.

[Edited on August 7, 2006 at 6:32 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on August 7, 2006 at 6:32 PM. Reason : .]

8/7/2006 6:32:09 PM

my parents are dead you inconsiderate prick

8/7/2006 6:41:05 PM

I seem to remember this being discussed before and someone having a multiple post length response that was fairly well written.

8/7/2006 6:41:34 PM

was it a woman defending the double standard?

because god damn they complain about that shit all the time

8/7/2006 7:02:21 PM

[Edited on August 7, 2006 at 7:20 PM. Reason : .]

8/7/2006 7:06:48 PM

shaggy ftw

8/7/2006 9:12:46 PM

need some sort of link of this happening so it's not just something you said/thought

8/7/2006 9:13:46 PM

like it or not, it takes 2 to start a baby, but only one to raise it and more importantly carry it to term. rights are naturally skewed towards the woman, get over it.

8/7/2006 11:08:40 PM

8/7/2006 11:15:46 PM

The problem is fathers (like mothers) have a responsibility to take care of their offspring. It is true that the mother has more ability to avoid this responsibility and that is unfair. However, mothers are also much less likely to abandon their children than fathers are. Laws must address human nature. To allow fathers to simply choose not to support a child would be disasterous to society.

Allowing mothers to have abortions or give up children for adoption allows those that are unable or unfit to parent a way out. The nature of mothers and their children prevents this power from being abused. You cannot expect the same to be true of fathers.

[Edited on August 8, 2006 at 12:08 AM. Reason : ?]

8/7/2006 11:53:57 PM

http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=393035&page=1#8418126
every possible argument on this subject is in this thread

8/8/2006 12:02:45 AM

Quote :

"so why can't a father do basically the same and say "i dont want to be a father" and forfeit fatherhood before the baby is born"

His anatomy. A man's right to chose ends when his sperm leaves his body, because at that point, his body is no longer involved. It's a difference in anatomy. It's no more a double standard than having seperate public restrooms for men and women.

8/8/2006 12:06:24 AM

that is ridiculous

all of these arguments are in that thread, but that is dumb enough to directly respond

to compare going to the bathroom with a lifelong commitment is absurd

based on your analysis, women have no responsibility whatsoever. why should a women get 3 months to decide if she wants to get pregnant whereas the man has the hour up until he actually busts his nut?

8/8/2006 12:12:54 AM

Quote :

"to compare going to the bathroom with a lifelong commitment is absurd"

I'm saying they're both a result of a difference in physical anatomy.

Quote :

"women have no responsibility whatsoever"

Sure they do, they're left with the responsibility to decide what they wish to do in that situation.

Quote :

"why should a women get 3 months to decide if she wants to get pregnant whereas the man has the hour up until he actually busts his nut?"

Because the fetus resides in the mother's body for that long, and the semen is released that quickly.
Sorry if it's not fair, but that's the hand you were dealt when you were born with a penis. If you can't handle it, you can chop it off when ever you wish. Personally I think we have it fairly nice. We may have to give up the right to chose much sooner than women, but I think we still have a pretty sweet deal, it's a lot better than menstration or dealing with pubic fungus.

8/8/2006 12:24:45 AM

Quote :

"why should a women get 3 months to decide if she wants to get pregnant whereas the man has the hour up until he actually busts his nut?"

Because the woman is the one that would have to suffer through the 9 months of pregnancy, and all the other health affects that go along with that, and also the down time where she can't work or earn money and risk losing her job after the birth. Women generally have permanent physical side affects from having a baby, where as men have nothing. They do seem to have more rights in this situation, but the burden they bear is far more substantial as well.

8/8/2006 12:43:04 AM

I surely think it is a double standard in the law, but remember...being white and/or male will get you no sympathy from the federal government. In this case, your Y chromosome is getting you the shaft in Equal Rights treatment. It happens all the time, try to get a loan to start a small business...you'll pay more and have a harder time because you are male.

In this situation, a lot of the debate centers around the difficulty of determining paternity before the birth. Even though it can be done, they don't generally do it.

I know this though, if my girlfriend got pregnant and she aborted the child without my consent (and I would not consent, I'd rather raise the child 100% myself) I would be beyond pissed. I'd probably continuously sabotage her life by killing her dogs and icing her steps.

8/8/2006 7:57:39 AM

8/8/2006 10:31:02 AM

so basically people are for equality of the sexes

when it is convenient for females that is

8/8/2006 10:33:34 AM

The difference in the law is based on the fact that men and women are not similarly situated biologically to get the same protection under the law.

8/8/2006 10:50:20 AM

I'm going to catch some flack for what I'm about to say but hey it's my opinion.

I think a man should have the right to say "I don't want to be the dad" until abortion is no longer an option. Saying being, filing a legal motion that basically says it takes two to tango (NOT just one) and that after doing everything in my power to prevent an unwanted pregnancy the female was determined to have the child. I relinquish my rights as a father blah blah blah.

From my point of view, a man should NOT have rights on abortion. That's the womans choice. But he should have the choice about being a father up until that child is no longer abortable.

You CANNOT use the arguement "Well he shouldn't have put his dick in!"... because then it would be true that "Well she should have opened that hole up".

This is a heated debate that because of religious beliefs and difference of morals will never happen. I am PERFECTLY HAPPY with the current laws. I know full well the responsibilty I put on myself everytime I have sex. Even more so unprotected.

My personal opinion is that if I were to get a woman pregnant I would ask what SHE wanted to do. I would tell her if I thought it was a good time for a child or not and see what our options were. If she wanted to keep the child then that's how it would be. I wouldn't hate her for it, or have any less love for the child. I was raised in a really poor household as many of you may have. I didn't get new clothes a lot. The most expensive present I got was a Super Nintendo on christmas. I don't want a child to ever have to go through what I did. There was a TON of love in my family so it balanced out and I never needed anything... but I was jealous of other kids who picked on my clothes and laughed because I didn't have a new bike etc.

A lot of women think that having a kid is the answer to a bad relationship and it only makes it worse. It rarely if ever brings a couple closer simply because for the 3 months after birth tensions will be at an all time high from sheer lack of sleep not including the months leading up to birth.

8/8/2006 10:50:49 AM

Quote :

"risk losing her job after the birth"

and thats call descrimination, if they fire her for that, she can sue

8/8/2006 11:07:20 AM

Quote :

"The difference in the law is based on the fact that men and women are not similarly situated biologically to get the same protection under the law."

But the purpose of the law is to give equal protection under it. Biological differences shouldn't be taken into account when crafting laws that are supposed to give equal protection to all.

8/8/2006 11:07:39 AM

mexicans tuk ur jobs!!!!1

darkies got ur scholarships!!!!1

white man is an endangered species!!!!1

reverse discrimination!!!!1

welfare mothers!!!!1

life isnt fair!!!!1

8/8/2006 11:47:06 AM

I have the choice to not take care of it and She has the choice to abort.

If we both exercise our choices, everyone wins.

8/8/2006 11:48:49 AM

^ youre a retard, youve always been a retard, and youll always be a retard




[Edited on August 8, 2006 at 11:51 AM. Reason : ]

8/8/2006 11:49:26 AM

^^Only thing is you'll go to jail/have your wages garnished for exercising your choice, while she will go away free. Hardly fair and equal.

[Edited on August 8, 2006 at 11:50 AM. Reason : ..]

8/8/2006 11:49:52 AM

LETS ALL EDIT THEN

[Edited on August 8, 2006 at 11:51 AM. Reason : EDIT EDIT EDIT]

8/8/2006 11:50:20 AM

Quote :

"reverse discrimination"

doesnt exist

8/8/2006 11:50:44 AM

Hey here's a thought

Take the massive cucumber of righeousness out of your ass and learn2get humor.

8/8/2006 11:54:14 AM

i like my massive cucumber of righteousness just where it is.

8/8/2006 12:20:58 PM

i agree he should have the option not to be the father

should help take care of the women who will agree to have abortion if by some insane chance they become pregnant while on the pill/condom, and then decide they want to have it

8/8/2006 12:48:23 PM

in my not so humble opinion, this is just something that a guy has no control over

first of all as a scientist i truly 'believe' that something with a heartbeat, brainwaves, and onset of such vital signs is more than just a fetus; its a person. this viewpoint of mine does not come from an ethos other than a scientific one.

at the point that its a person--and yes, as civilised humans we will have to define that point--at that point, that person should not be killed (this obviously comes from my morality, and not just a scientific ethos). so neither the man nor the woman should be able to perform abortions after that point.

previous to the point of fetus-to-life transformation, the fetus is a part of the woman's body, and its the woman's choice what do do with it.

and yes, if she decides to keep it, the man should pay child support

8/8/2006 1:01:39 PM

Basically a man has no choices after a female get pregnant...but why?

8/8/2006 2:07:17 PM

Because the semen physically leaves the man's body. The fetus doesn't leave the woman's body untill birth.

8/8/2006 4:05:58 PM

so if the baby is not the man's in any way while it is in the woman, how does shoving it out of her body make it his?

8/8/2006 4:37:31 PM

^

A-HA!

8/8/2006 4:43:51 PM

Quote :

"so if the baby is not the man's in any way while it is in the woman, how does shoving it out of her body make it his?"

He gave up his right to choose when he turned ownership of the sperm over to the woman. The sperm was then in the woman's body, so whatever happens to it is up to the woman.

8/8/2006 5:10:00 PM

right, so has no ownership over the sperm anymore

so what part of the baby does he "own"?

8/8/2006 5:12:10 PM

none pre-birth
post-birth, it's up to the courts

8/8/2006 5:17:45 PM

Basically

Its not equal at all.

Nor is it logical.

8/8/2006 5:21:12 PM

interesting topic we have here

8/8/2006 5:31:45 PM

Quote :

"so what part of the baby does he "own"?"

none you slave owning cracker...

8/8/2006 5:53:19 PM

Quote :

"But the purpose of the law is to give equal protection under it. Biological differences shouldn't be taken into account when crafting laws that are supposed to give equal protection to all."

equal protection is only guaranteed for similarly situated people. Men and Women are not similarly situated when it comes to child birth/biological reasons. Its the same reason women are exempted from the front lines and the draft. There is no constitutional violation in treating the sexes differently as long as there is a substantial government reason and narrow means used to accomplish that reason.

Medicaid roles would double if men could opt out of financially responsibilty for a child. Who should bare the burden financially for a child, the father or the taxpayers?

[Edited on August 8, 2006 at 7:18 PM. Reason : k]

8/8/2006 7:14:44 PM

Quote :

"first of all as a scientist i truly 'believe' that something with a heartbeat, brainwaves, and onset of such vital signs is more than just a fetus; its a person."

you aren't much of a scientist

a scientist would view this as a human being, not a person, and yes there is a difference. human beings are just another animal on the planet. a person is a label we as conscious beings give to ourselves

Quote :

"at the point that its a person--and yes, as civilised humans we will have to define that point--at that point, that person should not be killed (this obviously comes from my morality"

if that's your moral standpoint, then you must oppose all killing, including so-called "justified" killing as in the case of the death penalty

[Edited on August 8, 2006 at 7:24 PM. Reason : hypocrites suck]

8/8/2006 7:22:58 PM

Quote :

"Its not equal at all."

You're right, it's not equal, just like it's not equal that men can't give childbirth or that women have to menstruate, or that I can't play football as good as Steve Smith. Unfortunately, the government doesn't deal much in adjusting for biological differences.

8/8/2006 7:36:44 PM

Quote :

"equal protection is only guaranteed for similarly situated people. Men and Women are not similarly situated when it comes to child birth/biological reasons. Its the same reason women are exempted from the front lines and the draft. There is no constitutional violation in treating the sexes differently as long as there is a substantial government reason and narrow means used to accomplish that reason. Medicaid roles would double if men could opt out of financially responsibilty for a child. Who should bare the burden financially for a child, the father or the taxpayers?"

Please. You're only saying that because it falls in your favor. I gurantee you if there was a law on the books prohibting women from doing something they wanted to do, there would be an outrage. But if it benefits women, then its okay even if its not equal. Biological differences are irrelevant. The Constitution gives equal protection under law. It doesn't give any subclauses that say "except for these special circumstances". You want equality when it benefits you only. If you want equality to men, then accept ALL the rights along with the not so pleasant ones. Quit hiding behind your vagina when it suits you.

BTW, I fully support forcing women to register for SS as well.

8/8/2006 7:51:03 PM

Quote :

"Who should bare the burden financially for a child, the father or the taxpayers?""

Neither. The woman has an opportunity to abort or give the kid up for adoption. Choose one of those two choices, or STFU and take care of the kid yourself.

8/8/2006 7:52:23 PM