3...2...1...
Every letter in this post is painstakingly typed knowing that it will fire off a debate between Cantankerous, Elliot and Dad29.
A 25-year-old computer programmer is ready to file suit to block a child support
order to pay for a daughter he does not want. The National Center for Men plans
to use the suit to establish that men, too, can choose whether they want to
become parents.
Read the rest of Abortion Rights for Men.
To add even more fuel to the fire, let me just say that legislation like this might make more sense if it's based on the father having the right to prevent the abortion as well. Y'know, kind of a recognition that it takes two to tango (consensually, at least).
Geez...this is kinda like the time I told that big kid that that little kid was making fun of his mother.
[h/t Instapundit]
posted by David Casper @ 12:32 PM
8 comments
8 Comments:
I'm too tired today.
Can I get all worked up about this tomorrow?
Interesting to see how this turns out. Granted, this guy's probably a dead-beat, a valid point can be made. Why can only a women kill a human while a man can't?
Interesting to see how this turns out. Granted, this guy's probably a dead-beat, a valid point can be made. Why can only a women kill a human while a man can't?
Off the top of my head, and I haven't even read Casper's post so I could be way off here, but to respond to neo-con tastic, a man can't force an abortion for the same reason a woman can: It's not his body.
What I find amazing is that most republicans/conservatives are against big government, as they should be, but when it comes down to invading a woman's body, they're all about it.
In a brief glancing of Casper's post, I think this is an economic argument, and not a literal case of forcing an abortion. I gotta run, and I'll check it out later...but that's my 2 cents for now.
It's funny, on a side note, because Dad29 ironically accused me of using rhetoric after he said that abortion was "the death penalty" for babies, and neo-con tastic says "why can only women kill a human?"
Who's really using the rhetoric??
Still tired, but I'll give it a shot.
The guy has NO right to kill his son or daughter.
And she shouldn't have the right either.
The second someone decides to have sex (man or woman), they are volunteering for parenthood.
(And child support, if that's the way it goes.)
The only other decision the father or mother should be able to make after they create a new life is whether they want to surrender their child for adoption.
Elliot - What happens if Dad wants to give baby up for adoption, but mom does not. Does that release dad from his child support responsibility?
We know what happens when mom wants an abortion, but dad does not, and vice versa.
This is an issue that has been decided by the courts for years, regardless of legislative action. Ask any father in Wisconsin who had tried to get custody of their child after a divorce. It is all about the 'best interest of the child.' If you want, I will email you my phone number and we can talk about my experiences doing it, because I will not spend the next week typing a post that will make Peter's biggest post look small microscopic.
As the man behind Elliot I have a 16-year-old son from a previous marriage.
I understand the frustrations.
But being a parent makes me even more certain that you have a responsibility to the people you conceive.
I think I'm going to write a longer post on From Where I Sit about my philosophy on this.
Why should we give Casper all this free traffic? ;)
Hi-Ho!!
Ummmnnnhhhh..the reason that the State requires child support is that the State's interests lie in the wellbeing of all its citizens. This is a principle of natural law.
Mis-applications of natural law abound--but insofar as "life" is one of the specific items ensrhined in the Preamble, it kinda gets preference.
Post a Comment
<< Home