Double Standard?

[Imran Siddiqui]

check out Wallis v Smith, 22 P.3d 682, a fairly similar case to the one you suggest, (and recent, 2001) where the couple agreed to use birth control, she stopped (without telling him) and became pregnant. He sued for fraud (attempting to avoid his support obligations) and the case was dismissed.

I would have to totally disagree then. That was fraud by her. Just because there are court cases, doesn't mean they are always right .

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by November Adam
So Imran.. do you think that the man should have the ability to over ride the womans choice to abort if HE will take care of the child?

While I would hope this would be the case, no court (I think) has ever forced a woman to term if the father wants the child. Indeed, generally most courts do not even require notification of the father.

The constitutional right of a woman to have an abortion without interference from the man who impregnated her precludes recognition of any constitutional right of the man to interfere.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The constitutional right of a woman to have an abortion without interference from the man who impregnated her precludes recognition of any constitutional right of the man to interfere.

I argue that this should mean the father gets to consent to the birth or not, and if he doesn't, he should be forced to pay child support.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

check out Wallis v Smith, 22 P.3d 682, a fairly similar case to the one you suggest, (and recent, 2001) where the couple agreed to use birth control, she stopped (without telling him) and became pregnant. He sued for fraud (attempting to avoid his support obligations) and the case was dismissed.

I would have to totally disagree then. That was fraud by her. Just because there are court cases, doesn't mean they are always right .

haha, well, of course not, that's how I (will in a year) get paid, disagreeing with esteemed justices. However, the rights of the child always outweigh the rights of the parents. So if the guy doesn't want the kid, too bad, still has to support him.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The constitutional right of a woman to have an abortion without interference from the man who impregnated her precludes recognition of any constitutional right of the man to interfere.

I argue that this should mean the father gets to consent to the birth or not, and if he doesn't, he should be forced to pay child support.

well, if the mother can have an abortion without notifying the father, doesn't it rationally follow that she can have the child without interference? Once the child is born, the duty of the father is not to her, but to the child.

[Imran Siddiqui]

However, the rights of the child always outweigh the rights of the parents. So if the guy doesn't want the kid, too bad, still has to support him.

I'm not arguing the precedent... I'm saying it is wrong is all .

Law school, eh? I'm going to Emory Law School in Atlanta in the fall myself. Maybe I'll be joining you in a few years .

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

However, the rights of the child always outweigh the rights of the parents. So if the guy doesn't want the kid, too bad, still has to support him.

I'm not arguing the precedent... I'm saying it is wrong is all .

Law school, eh? I'm going to Emory Law School in Atlanta in the fall myself. Maybe I'll be joining you in a few years .

Who are you to argue with Posner, eh!

Law School sucks balls. I am at the University of Missouri, and it is all its cracked up to be. Fun. a lot of fun (sarcasm denoted) pain. every second is pain. no, not really, but now, finals in two weeks, joy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh, I believe you... but Hell, it pays off in the end.

I mean, I don't like the argument that the duty of the father is to the child first. It doesn't sit well that the woman has the choice and the man doesn't.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Oh, I believe you... but Hell, it pays off in the end.

I mean, I don't like the argument that the duty of the father is to the child first. It doesn't sit well that the woman has the choice and the man doesn't.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but the system is set up to protect the children first, then the rights of the parents. (maybe I'm tainted b/c I've been working on a family law outline all night)

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by nationalist
The child is distinct from conception. It has a different genetic code than the mother, meaning it isn't a part of her body.

So are parasites. They tend to have different genetic codes than their hosts.

Originally posted by nationalist
If you don't agree with that, then you agree to this. A fetus will inevitably develop into a person. What right do we have to kill something that will be a person in 9 months?

A fetus does not necessary develop into a person. Besides, in theory, any cells of your body can develop into a person. So does it mean scratching yourself is not allowed?

[November Adam]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
A fetus does not necessary develop into a person. Besides, in theory, any cells of your body can develop into a person. So does it mean scratching yourself is not allowed?

In theory yes, but in practice a fetus will develope into an infant.

{THREADJACKING OWN THREAD}

What I want to get at has nothing to do with rights of people, or what the defintion of a "person".

KH, you said:
"November, is a tissue sample of a dead person an individual human being? No, despite it having a unique genetic code. It is not viable; it does not live or breathe on its own. Neither can a fetus, before a certain point. Functionally, it is part of the mother's body, and must remain so in order to grow. It gains its humanity when it gains viability."

You are adding your own views to "humanity", and what is required to have humanity. What I am saying is that an embryo is its own organism, which is dependent on it's mother. Dependency has nothing to do witht he biological definition of an organism. The fetus isn't the mothers organ, 1: it does have its own genetic code, 2: It is developing its own organs, 3: It is developing its own nervous system, 4: It is maturing so that it can live independently of the mother. Organs don't do this.

What nationalist was getting at, and which others seem to be intentionally ignoring, or twisting, is that a fetus will continue to develope if nothing is done. Regarding that it "may" continue to develope, is true, but only true in the same sense that any biological organism "may" continue to develope.

Most of us consider that an infant will devlope into an infant, barring any unfortuante circumstances. How can one look at an embryo differently?

[Sprayber]

Is This What We Are Comming To?

Sexual Consent From

Name_________
Sex__________
Number of Sexual Partners (Oral Sex included) _________

Female Section

Are you of sound mind and conscious of the fact that you are about to have sex?
Yes No

Do you Plan on using Birth Control
Yes No

If yes, Please state desired method___________

If no, do you swear to take full responsibility for possible resulting pregnancy if your partner whishes to practice safe sex?
Yes No

Are you willing to have an abortion if pregnancy results and both parties wish to terminate?
Yes No

Male Section

Are you of sound mind and conscious of the fact that you are about to have sex?
Yes No Drunk But OK

Do you Plan on using Birth Control
Yes No

If yes, Please state desired method___________

If no, do you swear to take full responsibility for possible resulting pregnancy if your partner whishes to practice safe sex?
Yes No

Are you willing to finance an abortion if pregnancy results and both parties wish to terminate?
Yes Some
Yes all
No

General legal Stuff

I (Print Name)______________________swear that all of the above question were filled out to the best of my ability and knowledge and I understand that my answers can be used in a court of law as proof to my intentions.

Sign Below


Witness’s Signature Below

[Akka]

My 2 cents...

I had a friend, some years ago, that was confronted with the problem. It was not going very well between he and her girlfriend. She wanted to keep him, so she omitted to take her pill without warning him. Her idea was to get a baby so he would be obliged to stay with her.
Considering what said half of the people here (including Nationalist), this guy was responsible of the pregnancy, and then had to "act as a man" and pay for this child ?



About the "human or not" threadjacking : Nationalist, your own seminal cells have a different genetic code than you. Does that means they are a different person than you ?
Twins has exactly the same genetic code. Does that means they are the same person ?

A person is a 'sentient being'. As long as the fetus does not have a nervous system, it's nothing more than a cell pack.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
*snip*A person is a 'sentient being'. As long as the fetus does not have a nervous system, it's nothing more than a cell pack.

to be pedantic the neural pathways have to develop to form the knowledge concept of self-awareness, so it doesn't happen at the first neurons development, or even the first million.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Man doesn't have a choice after intercourse... SHE does... that is unfair... and violates equal protection under the law.

That is utter bull.

Its her body, why shouldnt she be able to choose?