 |
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
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
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
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)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
November Adam
|
 |
Calgary, AB, Canada
Jul 2001
time: 22:19
|
|
quote:
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?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
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
|
|
quote:
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?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
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
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
Last edited by Imran Siddiqui on 27-04-2002 at 03:04
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
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
|
|
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-04-2002 09:57
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.
|