lockedaway
Posts: 1720
Joined: 3/15/2007 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote:
ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote:
ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote:
ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Sorry if you can't face the reality of what abortion brings into the social equation. You're a lib, of course, and libs just ain't good with the unintended consequences of their good deeds. It's funny what gets revealed in those moments. So you're perfectly happy to strip one gender of reproductive rights, huh? I think males should have equal reproductive rights when they can carry a baby for nine months and give birth. Lets not kid ourselves here, when relationships fail it is usually the women left holding the baby. Why the hell any men thinks he has the "right" to direct a woman to have his child is beyond me. Im sorry... reproductive rights? I read some time ago an article about how men would have the same rights to reproduction as women when the womb is outside of the body. God help me, but I have to agree with Richie, and this is a first if anyone is keeping track. Women want to be able make the decision on their own, but once that kid pops out then it is the man's responsibility to support it. Or reverse that and say the man wants the baby and the woman doesn't. This is not a one-way street though you are trying to argue it is. JESUS! Could Rule be...right? No...no, no, no, no, no. Na-uh. Well...maybe just this once. If a man has no say in whether his child is aborted, the woman should have no right to have the child supported. That is not the law but that day may be coming. The law has changed, practically speaking, in almost all jurisdictions in the United States in that a woman who refuses to make the child available for parenting time will lose custody or lose support. I thank that is a premise that most rational people can agree with. Here is where the law is still very fucked up. A woman will get knocked up, have the kid, come back five years into the picture and request support. In those 5 years, the man did not know the child existed, the man has not seen the child once, hasn't imparted his mark on the child and for all intents and purposes, the child is not his. Still...parenting time must be insisted on by the man as well as "make-up time" for the years he has lost. What the law should be is that if a woman has a man's child without his knowledge and waits more than two years to seek support AND consent to his establishing parenting time, she should be time barred from seeking support. Sure...all sorts of ding-bats are now going to try to change the argument and talk about the father who is the psychotic crack head, etc. Please, let's not get off on a stupid tangent dealing with hypothetical handicaps to parent status. OH....and Rule, better watch yourself, sport. The argument you advanced for parenting rights for men is an extremely conservative viewpoint.
< Message edited by lockedaway -- 4/11/2011 2:47:22 PM >
|