Roe vs. Wade... for men.

[NuclearFart]

That conservative's opinion is amusing to say the least. He builds a rhetoric entirely upon other peoples opinions taken out of context. It is faulty to assume the very opinions he builds upon are correct in the first place, let alone in his context. His argument about rights are also not applicable, as the discussion is about the rights between the father and mother, not the child. Classic legalese spin justified with faulty logic.

"Mr. Dubay most emphatically did not create a child nor had he anything to do with the creation of a child" -lolEven a 10 year old knows this statement is completely wrong, and even in his own context he has not supported this statement.

At the end of the day, it all "cums" down to the fact that the child would never have been born without the father. You cant get around this with any amount of contorted semantics.
________
Travel insurance advice

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

I disagree completely, as this is not a valid comparison. Simply put, AIDS will kill you, while paying child support will not. This is why you are charged with manslaughter when the person finally succumbs to AIDS.
You are comparing apples with oranges here.

Murder kills someone, theft does not. Should we then let all thieves go free?

The severity and outcome are far more significant, but the underlying argument is the same, imo.

Consent cannot be reasonably given when one partner deliberately misprepresents their health or intentions. It is the guy in this case is arguing that he would not have consented to sex if he knew her intentions. IMO, at best, she is guilty of fraud, at worst she is guilty of rape. Either way, she is guilty, and is trying to destroy his life in the process.

I agree with FireFly's perspective here. Why does she get to decide his future without his consent?

[ericschand]

"I agree with FireFly's perspective here. Why does she get to decide his future without his consent?"

And I put it to you that she did have his consent, the moment they had
sex and he ejaculated. He knew the risks, and he got his reward.
Now it's time for him to own up to the "risks".

ers

[ken0042]

So, the moment I have sex with a woman I lose any choice in how my life unfolds from that point forward?

I think you are missing the point. The point being this: once the child is born why is the woman the only one that has a choice? At this point it is no longer "her body:, and as some people have so elegantly put it the child has equal genetic material from both parents.

Yes, there is always a risk of pregnancy if a contraceptive is used. However if one person openly lies about use of such a method, then the does add mitigation to the issue. This isn't a case of an accidental pregnancy; which in such a case I agree 100% that the guy should be on the hook. However even in those cases, the guy should at least have a say. Then if the two parties are unable to agree, that's what family courts are for.

This case is about a woman calaiming a contraceptive method has been used, and lied.

If I have sex with a woman who says she had a hysterectomy and therefore a condom isn't needed, and then she gets pregnant because she lied about the hysterectomy, why am I having to pay for the rest of my life for a lie that she made?

[SeeGeeWhy]

Wasn't roe vs wade a case questioning the legal rights of a woman to have an abortion?

This is more interesting in terms of child support laws.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by ericschand

"I agree with FireFly's perspective here. Why does she get to decide his future without his consent?"

And I put it to you that she did have his consent, the moment they had
sex and he ejaculated. He knew the risks, and he got his reward.
Now it's time for him to own up to the "risks".

ers

He 'knew' there were no risks due to a medical condition that made her unable to conceive. Therefore, she did not have his consent. She told him there was zero chance of it happening. That was his consent.

[AFireInside]

I agree that if you have sex and a child is born you should have to support it, because that is one of the risks. In most cases people chance it, don't use protection, and a child is born, so you have to do the right thing, thats a chance you take.


HOWEVER, in this case, the man was misled, and told there was no risk of the woman getting pregnant. Now if she lied just so she could get pregnant, knowing that the man didn't want kids, then he should definetly have a say in the matter.. If its an accident, and they both took chances, well then you have to own up for being a bonehead and not using protection..

They should look at the amount they make some fathers/ex-husbands pay to the mothers/ex-wives as well. I know of some men who held good paying jobs, but had no money for themselves. I mean, raising a kid, (and apparently having an ex-wife) are expensive, but my parents didn't give up ALL their money to me growing up..

Meh, it'll be interesting to see how this one plays out.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by ericschand

"I agree with FireFly's perspective here. Why does she get to decide his future without his consent?"

And I put it to you that she did have his consent, the moment they had
sex and he ejaculated. He knew the risks, and he got his reward.
Now it's time for him to own up to the "risks".

ers

Actually, he did not know the risks. He was told that she was not able to concieve, which would obviously significantly reduce the odds of getting her pregnant. How can he accept a risk that he was told did not exist?

I go back to my AIDS argument. There is always a chance that you might contract an STD when you have sex. By this argument, there should be no legal ramification to not telling your partner you have AIDS or an STD, because they should have known the risks.

Speaking of "owning up", I would like to know why the women gets off so easily on this.

[SeeGeeWhy]

He should have just humped her bum.