Lady Sidhe sure did know how to start a controversial thread.

He only has a say, with my suggestion, if he wants full custody of that child, no other time... and if he could carry the child (which they were looking at for a time) sure, I have no issue with it.
The revenge problem is a possibility, as is the preferential treatment of women by the courts today. But, he has a baby that is his and only his out of it.
I just don't see a male using this as something to harm someone because they end-up with more of the burden and problems than she does in the long run. But, this is a good point.
He wants the baby.
How is that different than the mother deciding she wants to keep the baby?
There is none, that is the point.
I do not accept the assumption that women are better parents.
The risks of the child being unwanted are the same with the female parent.
In-vitro DNA.
I agree with the first part, but we are talking about once it is too late.
No physical responsibility? It is half of him, physically. That is the point.
That is really OT for this, will but up to the courts to decide. She signed her rights away. I hope that he would retain primary custody as long as he is a good parent.
She wanted to kill the kid... not sure how I feel about that after the fact. But, people change... guess it would depend on the individual case.

If it's half him, it's half her, and can't ever be his and only his.
What if he changes his mind? What if decides to tell the kid who mom is for whatever reason? What if he dies?

No...it isn't. It is half him, half her. It is not half of him, he is half of it.

It is however, physically a part of her. It is physically contained within and joined to her body. He is not half of her, therefore he has no right to make decisions about her body. He has a right to half the decision making about the child...but only if he can exercise that right without also imposing his will onto another sentient human's body.

All of that is true of her as well.
I was talking about custody, nothing more. When a woman takes care of a child alone, it is only sole custody and all of those what ifs are still accurate.

Nope. You are not just talking about custody. Long before anybody takes custody there's the pesky matter of pregnancy and labour.

Can you explain that further because I do not see how I am being matriarchal?


Lets pretend we don't have any laws and are in a completely neutral society for a second. If a woman wants to have an abortion she can have one without a man's permission. That is about as natural as you can get. That means the woman has the natural say on the issue so right now we do not have a patriarchal or matriarchal society since neither gender is powering over another.

You are saying that a man should have a right to force a woman to go through pregnancy. That means you are saying the man should have an unnatural amount of say on the issue, making it patriarchal.

What's unnatural is pretending the only one person, the woman, is responsible for the pregnancy. "My body my choice" is just rhetoric from the pro-abortion side.

Stop changing what I am saying. It takes two people to get pregnant but only one has to deal with it.

And I see it as the man has as much right to the fetus as the womans as it is half his.
Your view is matriarchal because you feel the woman should have sole choice in the matter.
You are saying the woman should have the right to force the man to allow his child to be aborted with no say.
For you it is all for nothing, I am not saying that.
I am saying if the man states he is willing to accept full custody, and only then, he can take responsibility for the child.
Can a man force a woman to have an abortion if he does not want a child?
Why not? By your logic, if someone does not want a child they should not be FORCED to have it in the world.
Same thing.

But he can't. It's in her body. He can't take custody.I fixed the quote. Neither the man nor the woman should be forced to carry the fetus to term, if they don't want to.

The woman can force the man, even if not the biological father, but just the named one, to provide financial support up to the age of 18.

By your logic, no man should ever be forced to take any responsibility for their children in any way.
Edit:
Creepy wolf... same time.

I don't actually think men should be forced to take responsibility for their child.

I do, parents are parents.
Make a child, they are yours for life.
Men and women are equal.

That is a place where the law can, and should, be more gender-blind, though the chances of misidentifying the mother are considerably lower.

Yet, she has to feed and put up with it for nine months while you don't have to do anything, hardly equal.

She is not forcing her views on anyone though. If a woman wants to get an abortion she is not forcing any view on anyone else, if a man wants to stop an abortion he has to force his views on her. That is why your view is patriarchal and I am not matriarchal. You are forcing your views on other people while the woman is not forcing anything on the man. The system is naturally unequal.

How can you force a man to allow his child to be aborted? Once his sperm leaves his body he has no control over what happens to the baby so nothing can be forced upon him.

In an ideal world I would love for that to happen, but as long as the woman gives birth it can not be equalized. If you can find a way where a woman doesn't have to give birth then your point is valid, until then it isn't.

Yes he can physically but that would be a man forcing his influence on a woman. As long as a woman gives birth she has an unequal say on the matter, and until you can find a way for woman not to give birth it will stay that way.

Because the man doesn't give birth to the child he can not be forced to have it. Once the sperm leaves his body, he does not have natural control on the matter.

Some may make it seem so, but extracting money is not actually a medical procedure.

So do you think all parents should be forced to look after their children for life, even if they are not suited to it and the child would be better off with someone else? Maybe we should ban adoption. We could allow it in extreme circumstances where the parents are killed, but other than that all parents should be forced to parent.

Sure, if he could carry the child. I am all for it. But since he can't, I ain't biting.
Yes, I will give you that mothers do get preferential treatment in custody cases, most of the time. That should change. Parents should be viewed as equal parties, but not until the child is born. Why? Because it isn't a child until it is born.

Also, it might be easy for a person to say "Oh yes, I am going to raise that child" (fill out the form, drop it off at the courthouse, etc.) but when it comes to raising the kid, what is to stop the guy from hauling the baby down to his nearest dropoff once it is born? Yes, I know, there is nothing stopping mothers from doing it, now, and there is nothing stopping teenagers from throwing their babies in dumpsters. Yes, it is a sad world. Let's try and minimize the damage.
No, women aren't necessarily better parents...but in this case, dad isn't able to parent, yet. The woman wants to not take the responsibility of carrying fetus, let alone caring for it after birth. The man may want to care for it after birth, but sadly enough, he isn't carrying it, so he doesn't get to decide. Men don't get to decide not to be able to carry a child, right now. Maybe technology will change that.
If dad isn't on the list, how do they make the comparison?
Yes, we are talking about once the woman DOES get pregnant by him. No, he has no physical responsibility to the fetus...meaning if he decides to fast for a week, that doesn't affect the fetus. Meaning if he decides to do coke, that doesn't affect the fetus. If he eats well, gets exercise...guess what? It does the fetus no good and no harm. When Mom's blood pressure spikes and she dies or needs a C-section, Dad is unaffected but the fetus is. If we are going to have legal abortion, it should be up to the woman. End of story. Hopefully, she has the decency to involve dad in the decision, but if dad isn't around, or doesn't seem to care, it's up to her.
If your law were reality, I would hope this would be the case, actually.
I haven't known a lot of women who had abortions, but those I have known, I can promise you, are not cold hearted killers. Those I know chose the option out of desperation and extreme guilt. I know pro-lifers out there balk at that, but I think it needs to be said that it hasn't been an easy decision for any of the women I have known who made that one.

For the record, I could not go through with an abortion. But I am not about to tell another woman she can't. I don't know her circumstances, her heart or her motivations.

http://www-scf.usc.edu/~badamson/2ba...pod_matrix.jpg

The Matrix would solve everything!

Protein, Magnessium and Potassium. Low Carbs, High GI.

I'd have to defer to the woman having the ultimate decision here - even though, as a man, I would like to have more say, it really isn't mine to have - it is her body.

[side]Clod, That was a very interesting read. I was on the complete opposite end of that situation. It seemed that she was referring to one situation of an asshole and painting every father with the same brush. As it stands today, I the father, have custody of all my kids and the mother is getting married to a guy she has known less than a year. None of the kids want to go to the wedding. I am strongly urging them all to do so.[track]

wow, her new guy must have a big cock.

Whatever it takes to get here stupid ass away from the kids so she doesn't fuck them up anymore than she already has. Thanks for the insight there LJ.

Lj, please reassure me that your real life occupation isnt as a therapist of any kind :P

Tough gig yesman, sounds like you got the better part of the bargain.

Up to viability, is the current US law.

I'm not sure what our law is.

I'm still shocked this is even up for debate. Incredible. Paternal laws can go to hell. That's how they made sure women didn't legally get to own anything, I guess we are still not deemed as human...like we are still just a bunch of baby-bags. Hey let's just go right back there....after all this. Awesome. I'm going to throw something, or someone......how irritating. Those of you that agree to these barbaric policies................shame on you!

Then what are you going to do? Sue us for having a sugar cream filled donut while we are forced to incubate your child? Fuck off. And no- I'm not going to edit.

I gave all my money and then some to her or lawyers - I ended up with the kids and a heavily mortgaged house - In my opinion, I got the better end by far. tx

I feel the same way.
Guess we just disagree.

*sigh*
So much for civilization and society. So much sophistication resides on the outside and very little on the inside. I'm starting to think that some men only think they have a true understanding of mature subjects, and really prefer to remain ignorant.

I still wonder who gets to sue if something happens during the incubation process and a miscarriage happens?
What happens then, in the case of premature births?

There are too many variables that include burning a witch here. One thing leads to the other- we are talking about men's choice over women's bodies which can and does go very wrong...tons of possibilities there for a "grave" outcome. Especially when historically and recurrently these kinds of social and legal processes have killed women and deprived them of their natural and lawful rights.

I see your disagreement RK and raise you a-there is no "just" about the subject so far. But I will offer a - I wish RK would "just" pull his head out of his butt, c'mon you're smarter than that.

It's funny. Throughout history, the one thing men haven't been able to exercise total control over has been the in utero development of babies. But fuck me, if they don't keep trying.

I like to think of "the consolation of philosophy" at times like this.
Men pull a scrap of knowledge from philosophy's hand-made dress, and then think they own the whole damn thing. They seem more like idiots. (If you are seeing from the perspective of women's health issues...... ALL of them)
There's enough evidence here that shows- sometimes people don't deserve the sex you give them. (depending on who they are) Because they can't handle it. Never could. Never will.

Ladies, just say no........I think they've become too spoiled. :)

I wish Dana would quit talking about icky girl stuff.
;)

You know, that was one of the texts that got translated into Old English, during King Alfred's reign. In fact, the preface to the English edition is alleged to be Alfred's own. The translator did make some minor alterations....to soften its pagan edges. Alfred himself apparently found great solace in it, when he was at his lowest ebb in the marshes, and the Vikings overunning Wessex itself.

If men can't have a say on the child when it's in the womb, why are they expected to pay when it's out? Nobody has answered that one yet, have they?

The same reason abortions are legal, and infanticide isn't.

I think men should have a say on a child while it is still in the womb, in fact, I think such decisions should be made jointly, if at all possible. What I disagree with, is giving the man the LEGAL right to override the woman's decision if they cannot reach an agreement. Such a legal right would eliminate the woman's control over her own body and health. Because the fetus is still a part of the woman's body until she gives birth, any external control over it equates to control over the woman. Once the fetus becomes a newborn, it is no longer supported entirely by its mother's body, requiring monetary aid such as diapers and food, for which the father should be partially responsible.

I have to like it as- is because I know it's been mutilated but I'm not going to take the time to translate it myself from it's original text. I don't trust English translations at all (especially coming out of the middle ages) but I can't be forced to translate half the stuff I love-because I don't have that much time.......The mis-translations are intentional because even back then there were agendas as there are today........We can't have the greatest minds in the history of the world enjoying man-boy love orgies and writing about it openly......didn't happen. Or women boffing each other at 9 day pagan parties in worship of "bona". Nope.
There's your english translations- wrap it around a metaphor and strip it of "immorality" then layer it in modern poetic literature to cover the narritive holes....... Something even the Catholics can respect. Defy raw data. Apply agenda.

So you're one of the use sex as the carrot and the stick school. Do you belong to the, use the children as the reward and punishment school, also?

Whatever Bruce. Don't use a joke to sway an arguement. It's going to take a lot more than that to sway me from my arguement. Try another door on a different block. Teases are around the corner.

oh...that was wrong of me to say.

my apologies.

Women that use sex and children as weapons are far from a fucking joke.

Once again- let me explain this to you. I was making a joke. I don't care wether you think it's funny or not.

...accepted without prejudice.

Sorry about the misspellings and repeated lines everybody- I'm trying to toggle between work stuff and responses here every couple of lines. These things deserve more time...I know.

Bruce- don't personally attack me because you don't like my opinion or bad jokes. Just isn't right........if you have an opinion about the topic, I'd prefer to hear that....

You heard my opinion.

I need this explained. What does that have to do with the topic? Do you think people hold kids hostage because they are inside their womb? Not sure......I'm just trying to connect that statement to the topic at hand.

I am talking about a man's choice for his child. Nothing more.
"Witch burnings" lol... cute.
I will no longer comment in here until I see something intelligent and new.

"Nothing more" is right- you still haven't said how it would work without women needing a permission slip from a man to get an abortion.

Then you have not read.

mmmmmm? mmmmmmm?
http://content.answers.com/main/cont...-Tedbaxter.jpg

No, I've read. If I missed it, please point it out. All I see is that you say that if the man wants full custody the woman should not be able to get an abortion. But how would that work without the permission slip requirement? First, how would it be legally determined that a particular man had a claim? Second, he would have to know about the pregnancy, and under this rule it would be against the best interest of the woman to tell him. Third, the doctor would have to know about his custody claim, and it would be against the best interest of the woman to tell him (or her). Would the doctor have to check a national registry of women who are not allowed abortions for the next nine months? Fourth, what sort of deterrant would there be? Prison time? A fine?

Yes, it would be ideal for the woman and the man to make the decision together, but if you want to encode that as a law you need to figure these things out.

No RK...you are talking about controlling a woman's womb......Man's choice for his child isn't gone about by controlling a woman's womb..(and all pretense thereof) It's about participating in their life.

I like the "Man's choice" spin though. I think it's clever. Nauseateing, but clever.


Ha! Haa! I want to see the look on a woman's face when they tell her that she has lost custody of her fetus. (especially a pregnant one)
Watch out!!! Bang! Crash! Boom!

If she wants to share custody, GREAT... that would be the best scenario possible.

"Waaaahhhh!" "Waaaahhh" " The world's so unfair to men." "Waaaah!" " It's a woman's world!" "Waaaah"

For one thing, because the child might not make it 'out'. For another thing, who is it that has to pay all the in utero expenses anyway? For another, of course you're aware of how many men completely ignore the fact they have a child right?

So...assuming this legislation went ahead, *waves magic wand*: a woman gets pregnant, accidentally and tries to get an abortion. She's told to get a signature from the man who got her pregnant, before she can have an abortion...or, in rk's revised edition, she seeks an abortion and the man who got her pregnant finds out, objects and she is unable to get an abortion.

If such a law existed, how many 'under the counter' abortionists do you think would spring up?

The woman, who got pregnant by accident, really doesn't want to have a baby. wasn't part of her plan. She is horrified by the prospect of going through this. She is also subject to hormonal flux, just like any other pregnant woman, so is emotionally fragile. She is being denied the abortion through the normal channels.

How many women do you think, in that situation, would seek an abortion from less reputable outfits?

What if she doesn't, or cannot get an abortion. What if she is forced, or if you wish me to use a less loaded term, coerced into carrying baby to term and giving birth. What guarantees can the people refusing to allow her to end the pregnancy early, give this woman that the pregnancy or labour won't kill her? Not every woman wants to take the risks of childbirth, even with our wonderful medical science, it's still risky. It's also something a lot of women find frightening. Being forced to do something that frightens you can be deeply traumatic. All of these things you would potentially force on women, and thats in the 'best case' scenario, where they don't put their lives in the hands of quacks and conmen, or well meaning, untrained women.

And again, what if because she tried to carry the child to term because she was forced to, and she then dies while giving birth? Does her family have a right to sue? And if so, who?

If they feel that strongly about the horrors of childbirth, they should get their tubes tied or practice abstinence.