| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Roe v Wade; For men... | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 17 2006, 01:52 PM (611 Views) | |
| Jolly | Mar 17 2006, 01:52 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
http://cathyyoung.blogspot.com/2006/03/roe...de-for-men.html |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Steve Miller | Mar 17 2006, 06:10 PM Post #2 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Fascinating! |
|
Wag more Bark less | |
![]() |
|
| Bernard | Mar 17 2006, 06:30 PM Post #3 |
|
Senior Carp
|
It sounds like some heterosexuals need to start acting more responsibly. C-O-N-D-O-M-S One question I had when reading what happened was did the woman knowingly deceive Dubay? Or was she just as surprised to find herself pregnant? That's an important question. If she truly believed she couldn't get pregnant it seems to me they share the burden of the pregnancy. I don't think anyone should be allowed to force her to abort so IMO Dubay has to help support the child. I mean it didn't happen all by itself. OTOH, if she deceived him that complicates things. Still, the bottom line is: if you're a man and you don't want a child USE A CONDOM! |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Mar 18 2006, 07:32 AM Post #4 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
The man did act responsibly. If there was zero chance of getting pregnant (purported medical condition), and both couples are in a relationship, why wear a condom? She only became pregnant because she lied about her condition. That is fraud, pure and simple. Therefore, since it takes two to tango, and one of the parties was intentionally deceived, shouldn't he have some form of recourse? |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Bernard | Mar 20 2006, 10:34 PM Post #5 |
|
Senior Carp
|
That wasn't clear to me from the article you posted (I did not click on the links within that article).
Like I said, if he was deceived I think it is entirely a different story. But the bottom line is this: Accidents happen. Use condoms (or something) if you really don't want children. |
![]() |
|
| Nina | Mar 21 2006, 07:01 AM Post #6 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Damn, I wish this forum had a search engine. I seem to recall we discussed this already. At any rate, the line that I remember isn't mine, but I can't credit the original writer, because I can't find the other thread. So, regarding fraud: If a man says he'll withdraw in time, yet doesn't, can the woman sue him for fraud? I don't think it's fraud, for what it's worth. Accidents happen. If the man was so worried about becoming a father, he should have used a condom or gotten a vasectomy himself. |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Mar 21 2006, 07:04 AM Post #7 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Once again, with feeling: If the woman makes a mistake, or an accident happens, she has choices. If the man makes a mistake, or an accident happens, he's at her mercy. I don't care whether it's legal or constitutional, it ain't fair. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Nina | Mar 21 2006, 07:07 AM Post #8 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Ha! What's not fair is being the one who has to carry the little dude in your belly for 9 months, possibly die in childbirth, feel, um, really uncomfortable during labor, have ridiculous mood swings after you've given birth, lactating, and having PMS 3x as bad as before you had kids. Don't talk to me about fair, buster! :angry: (Oh and BTW, I'll be better tomorrow, just ride it out... ).
|
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Mar 21 2006, 07:11 AM Post #9 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
One minor, trivial little difference. Neither I, nor any other man, had anything to do with that. Take it up with someone responsible. The legal system, however, DOES control rights and responsibilities in the case of pregnancy. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Mar 21 2006, 07:20 AM Post #10 |
|
Finally
|
Hmmm.... |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| Nina | Mar 21 2006, 07:23 AM Post #11 |
|
Senior Carp
|
You didn't say responsible, Quirt. You said "fair." It's unreasonable to expect "fair." And I do think that the law has acknowledged the imbalance that biology (and society) has dictated. Women by nature bear a far greater responsibility for bearing and raising children. Giving women more legal rights in the matter is an attempt to make it more "fair." I don't think this lawsuit is going anywhere. Part of the reason why I don't think it will is because I'm getting the impression that it's driven not by this guy's desire to have the child, take responsibility for it, etc. It's simply out of spite--he wants to just screw her over. Again. |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Mar 21 2006, 07:51 AM Post #12 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
I never said women shouldn't have greater rights. They should have the ultimate right to make the decision. Given that, though, the man should be entitled to notice and a right to opt out. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Mar 21 2006, 08:32 AM Post #13 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Back to the original article.... The woman intentionally deceived the man, in order to bear his child. If that can be proven, should the man have to pay child support? |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Nina | Mar 21 2006, 08:47 AM Post #14 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Actually, nowhere in the article does it say she intentionally deceived the man. Perhaps she did, or maybe she was as surprised as he was when she did get pregnant. If there's no intention, then there's certainly no fraud, and I think the man should unquestionably pay child support. But for argument's sake, let's assume she did intentionally get pregnant, after lying and saying she wasn't able to conceive. Let's make it as evil as possible--she wanted to hook the man into marriage, best case, or at least get him to cough up child support so she could stay at home and not work, spending his hard-earned money on Doritos and beer. (Hey, it happens.) If that scenario were true, then I still think he needs to pay child support, but there needs to be some way that the support payments can be monitored to ensure that the money is going to the child. (Perhaps some sort of escrow account? Frankly, I don't have a clue how this could be done, but I'm just playing out a thought.) It stands to reason, moreover, that there should be some sort of civil penalty levied against the woman. Where I get stuck is thinking about the child's welfare. He or she is the innocent victim in this, and allowing the man to not pay child support kind of misses the point. The point is the child is (or will be) HERE, and the man is the father, regardless of the circumstances. Tough darts. Sorry, but to withhold child support is punishing the child, not the mom. |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Mar 21 2006, 09:12 AM Post #15 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
From the article:
Therefore, women have the ultimate say over the control of their bodies. They can concieve, abort or deliver at will....but a man, even when a victim of fraud, must still pay for a child he did not want, was assured could not be concieved, and will cost him $108,000 (in this case, not counting interest). If it takes two to tango, should not the man have the right to teminate the woman's pregnancy? After all, the child is half his, and abortion should be on demand, right? Therefore, the best solution is also the cheapest for all concerned...slice 'em, dice 'em, and vacuum out the pieces. Unless.....if the woman is the Captain of Her Sexual Ship, the sole proprietor of her personal candy store, then surely she is responsible for her own birth control. And if she is responsible for her own birth control, and is responsible for the outcome of any products of conception, should she not also be wholly responsible for whatever offspring she delivers? Or should she do whatever she likes, and expect somebody else to pay for it? |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Nina | Mar 21 2006, 09:57 AM Post #16 |
|
Senior Carp
|
But the flip side of that argument should hold water, and in my mind it doesn't. If a woman decides she doesn't want a baby (let's say the man lied and said he'd had a vasectomy, but didn't and knowingly impregnated her), does the man have the right to insist she carry the child to term? Leaving aside any religious or moral issues with abortion for the sake of argument. There are medical and psychological issues involved with abortion and with childbirth. I don't think a man's view should prevail. I also don't think a man has zero say in the matter, although I recognize that right now that's the way the law stands. I just don't think it's an issue or fraud, and that he has a right to tell her to terminate or he will not pay child support. If these questions were easy, we'd have solved them years ago. |
![]() |
|
| Phlebas | Mar 21 2006, 10:17 AM Post #17 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Wasn't that W's plan for Hurricane Katrina? (Sorry - old joke.) It sounds like the guy was deceived. In that case, maybe he should not have to pay child support. On the other hand, it's not the kid's - who will benefit from the child support - fault that the father was deceived. |
|
Random FML: Today, I was fired by my boss in front of my coworkers. It would have been nice if I could have left the building before they started celebrating. FML The founding of the bulk of the world's nation states post 1914 is based on self-defined nationalisms. The bulk of those national movements involve territory that was ethnically mixed. The foundation of many of those nation states involved population movements in the aftermath. When the only one that is repeatedly held up as unjust and unjustifiable is the Zionist project, the term anti-semitism may very well be appropriate. - P*D | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Mar 21 2006, 11:10 AM Post #18 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
So we punish a particular man who was lied to, and had no intention of creating a child ... in the name of the child. And don't deceive yourself, 18 years of child support is punishment. If the genetic father dies, why not just pick a man at random off the street and make him pay the child support? It's in the interests of the child to be supported, and we obviously don't care about fairness. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Nina | Mar 21 2006, 01:25 PM Post #19 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Show me where the man was deliberately lied to. There are accidental pregnancies all the time. There are women who are told they can't get pregnant and do. I don't mean to imply that there aren't situations of real entrapment, but that door swings both ways, and in both cases it's immoral and wrong. I just don't know if that's what's going on here. And neither do you. As for what's "fair," no, it wasn't fair for the two of them to have a child. But standing around and whining "it's not fair" is what toddlers do. Grown men and women take responsibility for the consequences of their actions, intended or not. Fair isn't a decent argument. Since when is life "fair"? What's to prevent any man from saying, at any point, "she told me she couldn't get pregnant?" |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Mar 21 2006, 01:53 PM Post #20 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Grown women do not impose the consequences of their choices on unwilling participants. You want the choice, live with the consequences of the choice. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Nina | Mar 21 2006, 04:37 PM Post #21 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Why do you assume that the woman chose to get pregnant? I'm fairly sure, however, that the man chose to sleep with her, as she did him. Sounds pretty mutual to me. |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Mar 21 2006, 04:40 PM Post #22 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
I make no such assumption. I assume she made a conscious choice whether to keep the child, or to have an abortion. Her choice. His consequence. They both chose to have sex. It was mutual. Something unintended happened. One of them still has a choice, afterwards. One doesn't. And the one who doesn't not only doesn't have a choice, but can have a consequence imposed on him by the other person's choice. Patently unfair. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Nina | Mar 21 2006, 07:48 PM Post #23 |
|
Senior Carp
|
So you don't think the guy bears any responsibility? She told him she couldn't get pregnant, so he just punted? News flash for men: THERE IS NO 100% FOOLPROOF BIRTH CONTROL SHORT OF ABSTINENCE. Wear a condom or take the risk. |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Mar 21 2006, 08:11 PM Post #24 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
You continue to ignore the point. They both chose to have sex. They both took the risk. Something unexpected happened. If it makes it easier for you to understand, assume that they used a condom, and the condom failed. So they both participated, mutually, Yet, after the sex act is completed, she still has choices. He does not. Moreover, she gets to impose the consequences of her choice on him. Unless you approach the issue with a predisposition, it isn't hard to see that that's unfair. Allowing one person to make a choice ... and requiring the other person to absorb consequences associated with that choice, without any input into the choice ... is simply patently unfair. But, if you still can't see that, imagine for a moment that the MAN was given control of the choice. And the woman had to live with the consequences of that choice, whatever he decided. Her life gets thrown into turmoil because HE decides to force her to become a mother. Doesn't sound so fair, does it? You can argue that it's her body ... but the fact is, 18 years of child support is a substantial burden on a man's life. It's a greater burden on her, no doubt, but that doesn't mean it isn't a burden the other way, too. And if it would be unfair to let the man make the choice, and impose it on the woman, then the reverse ought to be true as well. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| LWpianistin | Mar 21 2006, 09:42 PM Post #25 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
i don't think he should have to, but if i were a guy and i had a kid, i can't imagine just walking away.... |
| And how are you today? | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2







).

11:30 AM Jul 11