Double Standard?

[Rex Little]

A couple, or a single parent if no other parent is involved, can get out of his/her/their parental obligations (and give up all parental rights) by putting a child up for adoption. I would argue that an unwilling father should be able to do the same, giving up all rights and obligations to the child. The mother could then decide whether she wants to raise the child herself or give it up for adoption.

This assumes the mother and father are not married. If they are, it could be argued that part of the marriage contract is an implied agreement to help each other raise any children they have, and that therefore the man must pay support in any case.

[Caligastia]

If you put your **** in the hole, she could get pregnant, so if you dont want that to happen, dont put your **** in her.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

I think she should... but the man should be able to choose as well.

A couple, or a single parent if no other parent is involved, can get out of his/her/their parental obligations (and give up all parental rights) by putting a child up for adoption. I would argue that an unwilling father should be able to do the same, giving up all rights and obligations to the child. The mother could then decide whether she wants to raise the child herself or give it up for adoption.

Exactly!!

Nice to have another person on our side, Rex .

This assumes the mother and father are not married. If they are, it could be argued that part of the marriage contract is an implied agreement to help each other raise any children they have, and that therefore the man must pay support in any case.

Yes, marriage is a different animal. In a marriage agreement is the implied agreement that any child will be raised by both. Sexual relations does not have that implied agreement that marriage does.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If you put your **** in the hole, she could get pregnant, so if you dont want that to happen, dont put your **** in her.

And if you spread your legs and let a man stick his **** in your hole, then you can get pregnant, so if you don't want that to happen, don't spread your legs.

But, I'm pro-choice, so I don't agree with that .

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

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

I think she should... but the man should be able to choose as well.

He chose when he decided to have sex with her. I really think you should talk to your girlfriend about this Imran, you need a woman's perspective.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Rex Little
A couple, or a single parent if no other parent is involved, can get out of his/her/their parental obligations (and give up all parental rights) by putting a child up for adoption. I would argue that an unwilling father should be able to do the same, giving up all rights and obligations to the child. The mother could then decide whether she wants to raise the child herself or give it up for adoption.

what about the child? The child is the whole point of this, not the mother or the father. The State will always protect the rights of the child over the rights of the parent, and one of those rights is to be supported by both parents. It doesn't matter that the father or the mother doesn't want the child. What matters to the State is the best interests of the child. And to that end, the state will hold biological parents responsible for their deeds.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

If you put your **** in the hole, she could get pregnant, so if you dont want that to happen, dont put your **** in her.

And if you spread your legs and let a man stick his **** in your hole, then you can get pregnant, so if you don't want that to happen, don't spread your legs.

But, I'm pro-choice, so I don't agree with that .

What? Why do you disagree with being resonsiible about sex because you are pro-choice? I don't see the connection.

[Imran Siddiqui]

He chose when he decided to have sex with her. I really think you should talk to your girlfriend about this Imran, you need a woman's perspective.

It's a FAIRNESS perspective. If women have the right to abortion (right to say yes or no to support), then males should have the right to say yes or no to support.

Woman gets to choose twice, once when having sex, and another when getting results that she is pregnant. Man gets to choose once: when having sex.

And I have talked to my g/f about this. She agrees with me. Though if I get her pregnant and she decides to keep it, I will support her, and marry her and support the child.

The view isn't moral, but sometimes what is right isn't moral.

what about the child? The child is the whole point of this, not the mother or the father. The State will always protect the rights of the child over the rights of the parent, and one of those rights is to be supported by both parents. It doesn't matter that the father or the mother doesn't want the child. What matters to the State is the best interests of the child. And to that end, the state will hold biological parents responsible for their deeds.

I don't see the US government saying giving the child up for adoption is illegal.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I don't see the US government saying giving the child up for adoption is illegal.

what does this have to do with anything? If the parents are found to be unfit, the state will take take the child. Everything comes down to the best interest of the child.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What? Why do you disagree with being resonsiible about sex because you are pro-choice? I don't see the connection.

Because if you are pro-choice then you say the woman doesn't have to be responsible for the results of sex.

[Imran Siddiqui]

what does this have to do with anything? If the parents are found to be unfit, the state will take take the child. Everything comes down to the best interest of the child.

Rex was talking about adoption.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

What? Why do you disagree with being resonsiible about sex because you are pro-choice? I don't see the connection.

Because if you are pro-choice then you say the woman doesn't have to be responsible for the results of sex.

I don't see where you're coming from... pro-choice or not people will ultimately have to be responsible for the results of having sex, and there is nothing that can change that.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

what does this have to do with anything? If the parents are found to be unfit, the state will take take the child. Everything comes down to the best interest of the child.

Rex was talking about adoption.

whoops, indeed he was.

to say that a man who doesn't want a child can just sever the legal relationship is quite ridiculous. The only way this would be allowed is if someone was adopting the child, ie. the stepfather of the child could adopt, severing the parental relationship. however, no court, ever, would allow a father to shirk his responsibilities like that. even the poorest, incarcerated fathers have to pay a dollar a month, if just to remind them they are fathers.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't see where you're coming from... pro-choice or not people will ultimately have to be responsible for the results of having sex, and there is nothing that can change that.

Pro-Choice WOMEN don't have to be responsible for having sex. Why? Because they can get an abortion, severing legal ties.

This isn't that hard to understand.

to say that a man who doesn't want a child can just sever the legal relationship is quite ridiculous. The only way this would be allowed is if someone was adopting the child, ie. the stepfather of the child could adopt, severing the parental relationship. however, no court, ever, would allow a father to shirk his responsibilities like that. even the poorest, incarcerated fathers have to pay a dollar a month, if just to remind them they are fathers.

asleep, you are looking at this WAAAAY too legally. We don't care what the courts would say. We are saying what is right and fair. Courts be damned.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I don't see where you're coming from... pro-choice or not people will ultimately have to be responsible for the results of having sex, and there is nothing that can change that.

Pro-Choice WOMEN don't have to be responsible for having sex. Why? Because they can get an abortion, severing legal ties.

This isn't that hard to understand.

LEGAL TIES? Is that all this is to you?


Abortion in and of itself is 'taking responsibility' and it most deffinately is not (and should not) be a light choice.