Its Trust Women week!

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by OKgrannie, Jan 23, 2012.

  1. diamond lil

    diamond lil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    63

    He does have a say, but it's before he has sex.


    It could be for a man, unless he chooses to use a condom and spermicidal jelly.

    That's right.


    No he can't.

    There is no such agreement.

    Be warned.
     
  2. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am under no such illusions that there such an agreement would be respected in this country.

    I only speak of what should be.

    1)The laws on the books are based on a time when women were not thought to be capable of the responsibility of providing for the well-being of a child.

    2) The second reason is in part based upon religiosity .. that somehow sex is bad and a man engages in sex he should be punished and the woman was somehow the innocent victim of this bad mans advances.

    As for (2) .. it is against the Constitution to make laws based on Religious belief

    As for (1) we no longer live in a society where woman treated 2cnd class citizens and as such are the poor victims.

    If a woman wants a Child and knows that she does not have a contract with a man signifying that he wants one as well, then if she goes ahead and makes a unilateral decision to have a Child then she should be solely responsible for that child ...IMO.
     
  3. diamond lil

    diamond lil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    63
    That is not the case. You're thinking of the time when fathers automatically got total custody of their children.

    No. It's rather that children should be supported by their parents whenever possible.

    Well, let's just say you're getting there.

    But the child will have a father, whether the father likes it or not.
    Why should that child not be supported by its father?
    The child won't disappear because his father doesn't want it.
     
  4. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope .. The laws on the books now are much different than they were back then and they were made during a time when discrimination against women was rampant.

    As such it was recognized that a woman alone would have trouble earning enough money to support a child.

    If the woman is so irresponsible that she has a child without having the means to raise that child then Custody should be taken away from her if someone who does have the means is willing .. such as the Father.

    Religion had much to do with the current laws on the books .. especially the custody laws.


    Because the Father was not responsibile for the decision to bring the Child in to the world.

    The person who made the unilateral decision to bring the Child into this world should bear full responsibility for support of the Child.
     
  5. diamond lil

    diamond lil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    63
    There are no such laws.


    Both parents are awarded equal custody whenever possible.


    That's because it's not his responsibility. He can't make that decision.

    If the woman doesn't want to terminate her pregnancy and then goes on to give birth to a living child, he'll be a father whether he likes it or not.

    He can't be given the ability to make his child vanish off the face of the earth.


    It's impossible to make a unilateral decision except in the case of sperm donation, in which case the father has no responsibilities towards his child.
     
  6. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Now I know you are living in dreamland.. but it is getting better.

    Exactly

    Being the Father of a Child and being responsible for supporting that Child are two separate issues. You keep trying to combine them but they are separate.


    LOL ... how is does being the sperm doner somehow make the Father of the child .. not the Father of the child. Your argument has completely unraveled.

    The agreement with the sperm doner who does not make skin contact could be exactly the same as the one that does.

    As far as the child is concerned it makes no difference to "Fatherhood".
     
  7. seriouscat

    seriouscat New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2012
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Abortion is murder, period.
     
  8. diamond lil

    diamond lil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    63
    If you want to debate with me, then you had better know what you are talking about. I've already provided a link to show that parents are awarded joint custody whenever possible.
    If you believe that isn't the case then show me.



    Well then? Why do you persist in claiming he does?



    No they are not. Fathers only have to support their own children, not the children of other men.


    Sperm donors have no legal obligations to any children they father.

    Absolutely not.

    Yes it does.

    You obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about and I am fast losing patience with you.

    I suggest you do a little bit of research before making any more stupid claims that make a fool of you and waste my time.
     
  9. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The discussion between 'Giftdone' and 'diamond lil' is interesting in that it seems to show what happens in a society that has a shifting of its moral base. (not referring personally to either poster just the discussion)

    Without an agreed upon moral foundation, such matters as childbirth and child rearing that USED to be regarded as the result of a loving, committed relationship are now being parsed out into nuanced legalities subject to human interpretation.
     
  10. diamond lil

    diamond lil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    63
    If childbirth and childrearing was ever regarded as a result of a loving committed relationship and nothing else, then were living in la la land.
     
  11. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The subject is basically about morality which should hold human beings to a higher standard, something we used to teach your children to aspire to. Ideally sex within the framework of a loving committed relationship.

    That standard is all but gone now which leaves us to discuss the legal aspects of abortion and who is 'responsible' for the unwanted child...sad really.
     
  12. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Im already done. Your very disingenuous.

    A sperm doner is still the father and you have been arguing all along that it is "Fatherhood" that is the basis of responsibility for support.

    There is no reason why a contract similar to the sperm doner contract can not be signed by two consenting adults that want to have sex.

    Whether the sperm is injected by a penis or a doctors instrument makes zero difference to the resulting child.
     
  13. diamond lil

    diamond lil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    63

    About two-thirds of states have adopted the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA), which gives protections to sperm donors in cases where a mother has sued them for child support. The 1973 version of the UPA provides that any man that gives his sperm to a physician for purposes of artificially inseminating someone other than his wife is not the legal father of the child borne out of the insemination.
     
  14. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We are not discussing what the law is.
     
  15. diamond lil

    diamond lil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Yes we are. You are arguing that it should be legally possible for a man to repudiate any children he might have in the future.
     
  16. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Right .. I am, and have been, talking about what the law "Should be".

    I am aware what the laws are. My claim is that these laws do not do a proper assignment of responsibility.

    The debate here is not "what is the law" .. I know what the law is.

    The debate is whether or not the law is just.
     
  17. diamond lil

    diamond lil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Of course it's just. There is no moral reason why men should be able to repudiate their future children.


    The signatures would have to be witnessed and dated before the couple had sex.

    Every single time.
     
  18. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That would certainly create jobs in the Notary business...:roll:

    This is exactly the kind of ridiculous wrong-headed scenarios that are created when basic, traditional morals and values are minimized.
     
  19. diamond lil

    diamond lil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    63
    In the past it was easy for men to repudiate their children unless they were married to the mother. They simply did not need to acknowledge them unless they chose.

    DNA testing has scuppered that and the vast majority of men realise that.
     
  20. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are many moral reasons .. the moral obligation to uphold a contract is one of them.

    I agree that before a couple has sex they should sign a contract if one or both of the parties is not in favor of having a child.

    They only need to sign one contract and this would cover each instance of sex.
     
  21. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is nonsensical...What if the woman signs the contract but the man doesn't? Then they have procreational-type sex. What court would make her carry the baby to term and give it to the man? Beyond that, if one or both DON'T want a baby then why on earth would they have procreational type sex in the first place?
     
  22. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No one said only one has to sign the contract. Both do.

    Because it feels good.
     
  23. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well 'they're going to do it anyway' you know. :nana:

    So do a lot of things that can be very bad for you if done to excess. This used to be a basic value handed down. Apparently a lot of folks don't give a sh!t about the piles of crap they leave behind for everyone else to clean up after their personal good time.
     
  24. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure .. there are some sex maniacs out there but this has little to do with mature adults having sex on a regular basis without the intent to conceive.
     
  25. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, the best way NOT to conceive is to NOT put penis in vagina. Right?
     

Share This Page