Freedom of billboard rights.

[Scooter]

How is it "easier... legally" unless there is a difference in legal rights?

It's easier for a woman to give up her parental rights because she is much more likely to have the baby in her custody for the first 72 hours.

In a situation in which a woman and man are not married and neither are interested in having a child and the woman is about to give birth, the woman has the advantage when it comes to immediate decisions regarding the baby.

She has no more legal rights than the father but she is far more likely to have the ability to act on a decision to give up her parental rights within the first 72 hours than the father would.

Ah, so it's easier from a circumstantial standpoint, not from a legal one. So then this:

A woman can give birth in California (and most other states) and "surrender" a baby within 72 hours without incurring any liability.

A man can't do that.

was incorrect.

[Joe Guy]

Wow, no. In the first 72 hours, there is no question she is the mother, while it can take weeks, to determine who is the father, should he come forward for testing.

Legal custody and biological lineage are two different things in most states.

Are you saying that means that a mother has more of a legal right to make a decision regarding the future of a child than the father does?

That is only applicable if the father is absent.

The truth is that the father in most of these situations is usually absent and not attempting to exercise his legal rights.

That's why it is easier for the woman to relinquish her parental rights.

It has nothing to do with laws being unequal for mothers vs fathers.

It has much more to do with who is present and making a decision rather than the idea of someone being absent and avoiding responsibility.

[loCAtek]

What makes you think the majority of male parents is trying to exercise his rights in these situations?

Not the same as saying the male parent has no rights, nor burdens.

[Lord Jim]

In the first 72 hours, there is no question she is the mother, while it can take weeks, to determine who is the father, should he come forward for testing.

I would assume that in a situation where a mother wanted to relinquish her parental rights to a newborn, and a man had come forward claiming to be the father who wanted custody, that the baby would be put in foster care until it could be determined if he was in fact the father. And that if it was found that he was, he would be entitled to custody of the child.

[Andrew D]

If the woman does not want the child, and the man does, she can have an abortion, and what he wants counts for nothing. If the woman wants the child, and the man does not, she can carry the fetus to term, and what he wants counts for nothing.

Is there anything about this that is difficult to comprehend?

The woman has the unilateral right to decide either way, and the man has no right to intervene. Is there something complicated about that?

The man should not have any right to compel the woman to have an abortion. I have said that repeatedly.

The man should not have any right to compel the woman to carry the fetus to term. I have also said that repeatedly.

But it does not follow that the man's future should be entirely at the whim of the woman. Both of them made the choices that resulted in the pregnancy: "He should have kept it in his pants, so too bad for him" is no more germane than is "She should have crossed her legs, so too bad for her."

We should do what we can to give both of them equal rights after conception. Again, the man should neither be able to compel the woman to have an abortion nor be able to compel her to carry the fetus to term.

But why should whether the man has to spend eighteen years paying for a child he does not want be entirely up to the woman? Why should the man not have some say in his own future?

Up to the moment of conception, both parties are treated equally. But after conception, the man just disappears from the calculus except when it comes to his bank account.

It does not have to be that way. So why should it be that way?

[Joe Guy]

Ah, so it's easier from a circumstantial standpoint, not from a legal one. So then this:

A woman can give birth in California (and most other states) and "surrender" a baby within 72 hours without incurring any liability.

A man can't do that.

was incorrect.

No... not incorrect.

I've never heard or read of any man having the ability to give birth in California and surrender a baby within 72 hours.

It's not a legal issue.

It's a matter of convenience, which gives the woman an advantage.

But not a legal advantage.

[loCAtek]

Negative, in a perfect world the man would be present in the child's life from conception and beyond. The reality is that men must be legally compelled to contribute at the bare minimum, financially to their children's welfare.

Otherwise there are for too many men, who would refrain from any obligation what so ever.

[Scooter]

You're gonna engage in silly word games now to avoid admitting you were wrong?

Carry on then. Not interested.

[Joe Guy]

You're gonna engage in silly word games now to avoid admitting you were wrong?

Carry on then. Not interested.

Typical.

Anyone who disagrees with you is always wrong.

I was hoping this conversation would be more productive and you wouldn't take things personally.

Predictable, unfortunately.

[Scooter]

No, anyone who says that men can't surrender custody of their children within the first 72 hours is wrong because the LAW says otherwise, as I have proven by referencing it. My disagreement is completely irrelevant to that point.

Predictably, unfortunately, you can't admit you're wrong when shown that you are.

Carry on then.

[Scooter]

But why should whether the man has to spend eighteen years paying for a child he does not want be entirely up to the woman? Why should the man not have some say in his own future?

Let's go back to the days when men only acknowledged and supported their own children when it suited their purposes. That worked out really well for all concerned.

[Andrew D]

Let's not go back to anything. Let's move forward.

Let's move forward to a point where we recognize that no woman should be forced to have an abortion, that no woman should be forced to carry a fetus to term, and that men should have some post-conception rights.

Accomplishing all three of those things is not really very difficult. I have previously posted details of one way of doing that, but there are probably other ways as well.

What is the problem with that? Why does the idea that men should have some post-conception rights trigger such a backlash?

Oh, of course. $$$$$

[loCAtek]

Yea, $$$ men have had, and women haven't.

[Joe Guy]

No, anyone who says that men can't surrender custody of their children within the first 72 hours is wrong because the LAW says otherwise, as I have proven by referencing it. My disagreement is completely irrelevant to that point.

Your disagreement is completely irrelevant?

I agree.

You've decided to interpret what I wrote to mean something that I didn't write.

That happens much too often when we discuss things that we don't agree on.

It makes it no fun arguing with you.

I prefer to discuss issues without getting emotional.

Maybe that's a gay thing...

(oh boy.... am I in trouble now....or what? )

[Scooter]

You didn't mean to say that men can't surrender their children within 24 hours of birth, even though that is what you wrote?

Thanks for your admission of being wrong about that.

[Joe Guy]

You didn't mean to say that men can't surrender their children within 24 hours of birth, even though that is what you wrote?

I did?

I thought I wrote that men can't give birth and safely surrender a baby within 72 hours.

I guess there's a language problem between us.

Must be a Canadian thing.

[Andrew D]

Yea, $$$ men have had, and women haven't.

Historical inequities -- and current ones, although many claims of current inequities evaporate upon scrutiny; but some of them persist -- are not relevant. Under the current system, they do not matter.

If the man is the only breadwinner, what he wants, after conception, counts for nothing. And if the woman is a high-powered attorney in a prestigious law firm and is busting her ass to rake in huge bucks, and the man is busting his ass digging ditches for the minimum wage, what he wants, after conception, still counts for nothing.

The bottom-line fact of the matter is not rationally deniable: After conception, the woman has all the rights, and the man has none, so the woman can -- entirely unilaterally -- impose many years of burden on the man, whereas he is nothing but a penis with a wallet.

[loCAtek]

Well, I have to ask what your sources are, since that seems ludicrous.

[Scooter]

You didn't mean to say that men can't surrender their children within 24 hours of birth, even though that is what you wrote?

I did?

I thought I wrote that men can't give birth and safely surrender a baby within 72 hours.

I guess there's a language problem between us.

Must be a Canadian thing.

So the difference you are highlighting is that woman can give birth and men can't?

Took you a long time to figure that one out, did it?

[Andrew D]

For crying out loud, loCAtek, look at the world around you.

A pregnant woman can choose to have an abortion, right? Do you really need a source for that?

The man by whom she is pregnant cannot stop her from having an abortion, right? Do you really need a source for that?

A pregnant woman can choose to carry the fetus to term, right? Do you really need a source for that?

The man by whom she is pregnant cannot stop her from carrying the fetus to term, right? Do you really need a source for that?

So just add it up. If she wants an abortion, and he wants a child, she gets the abortion, and he is shit out of luck. If she wants a child, and he wants her to have an abortion, she has the child, and he is shit out of luck. And he is on the hook for eighteen years of child support. For a child he didn't want. For a child who exists because after conception, she had a choice -- abortion? or not abortion? -- and he did not.

Sometimes one must wonder -- and I am far from the only person who has wondered -- whether your obtuseness is feigned or actual. Thus far, at least, I can't tell.