Posted on 03/09/2006 5:51:30 AM PST by Abathar
The goal is to keep children from living in poverty.
"I guess I was always brought up to be a man and except responsibility for my actions. Besides that I would look at that child as part of me, a life I created that I would want to have the best life possible"
I want those very rights to what I consider My body...I am not "Giving" it away...there is a distinct Purpose involved in the case of having sex. I want my rights to one of the potential outcomes of said sex outside of having to buy breakfast the next morning.
"Men always have an opportunity to avoid fatherhood. it's called a zipper, and if they keep it closed it's 100% effective.
So lets flip this around.
B**ch: I got knocked up, I don't wanna be a momma, I wanna abort this thing.
Society: That's what you get FOR NOT KEEPING YOUR LEGS CLOSED B**CH! Now shut the **** up and pay for what you created!
In essence, this is what your attitude tells men all the time.
Now how would that play in Preoria?
Actually, this suit is excellent for highlighting that a woman can do the same thing---keep her legs together or stay home. The law now says a woman can be sexually reckless and not have to shoulder the full consequences (she can force the man to pay), but a man who is sexually reckless has to pony up to the consequences.
I think this actually highlights one of the many stupid things about Roe v. Wade.
"It's called "not banging her in the first place". Works every time it's tried,"
Better include oral sex with that. One man is paying child support because the woman saved his sperm. He thought he was being responsible. LOL!
It's called a "paper abortion." For as long as the mother has the right to teminate her pregnancy, the father has the right to sever financial responsibilities for the child.
The days of "heads I win, tails you lose" for women are coming to an end.
No it's not. The custodial parent doesn't have to provide one single receipt to show the support money is being spent on the child. The courts and DSS make damn sure the money is collected and sent, but their oversight ends once the money is delivered. How does that guarantee the child does not live in poverty?
Sounds like he needs a good lawyer. I have never known of a case where DNA proved a man is not the father, has never been married to the mother, has no involvement with the child, yet still was ordered to pay child support. Are you sure you have all the facts in this case?
Both parents are financially responsible for their child.
And if women had to take full responsibility for not keeping *their* zipper up---IOW, if there was not ready access to abortion and the possibility of forcing the man to pay---there might be a lot fewer "unintended" pregnancies.
One argument that has kept Roe alive all these years is that women "rely" on the availability of abortion. That is actually stated in the Supreme Court opinions! IOW, women should be allowed to be sexually reckless, so they should be allowed unlimited access to abortion.
By arguing that the law should allow men to be as equally sexually reckless, it points out how stupid it is to use the "right" to sexual recklessness as a justification for public policy / constitutional analysis.
Excellent idea, home they win the case.
Do you have any children (that you know about)?
Sounds like you are the one looking for excuses.
I agree with you, mlc. The only cases I have heard like this the man was married to the mother at the time she gave birth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.