Freedom of billboard rights.

[loCAtek]

Cool, if your supposition is the case, then why in then OP did the male subject make his position so very public? It was bound to fail.

Other than to tarnish his own reputation as a viable partner.

[Andrew D]

What "supposition"? I stated facts that are dazzlingly obvious to any adult who bothers to look at the world around her or him.

And what do you mean by "bound to fail"? Fail at what?

The woman's pregnancy is over, and it was already over when the man put up his billboard. Maybe it was ended by abortion. Maybe it was ended by deliberately induced miscarriage (which is pretty much the same thing). Maybe it was ended by naturally occurring miscarriage. I don't know.

But unless one thinks that she carried the fetus to term, and he decided to put up a billboard claiming that she had not -- in which case you've probably bought the Brooklyn Bridge at least a dozen times by now -- there was nothing for him to fail at. He wanted the kid; she didn't; her choice prevailed; he doesn't have the kid he wanted; he's pissed.

So what did he fail at?

Why do you think so many posters have abandoned all hope of having rational conversations with you?

[@meric@nwom@n]

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.

Prior to conception men have equal rights. That is where they can best be effective. (Keep it zipped or suffer the ensuing consequences.) After conception the entire responsibility, with a risk of death, shifts entirely to the woman. The men have no immediate responsibility unless they magnanimously decide to accept it, and that is limited to emotional support and usually some financial support.

This is the way nature has set things up sadly not in favor with the male of the species.

Do astonish me with your idea of what would be the solution that would favor both genders equally.

I believe a solution does not presently exist nor can be explained, not one which would not unjustly bind a woman to give birth against her wishes.

Under these present circumstances the only thing a man can do is abstain or proceed with the consequences of his actions.

[Guinevere]

Well said @w.

[BoSoxGal]

Then there are these things called condoms which are 98% effective, so a man can take a very good chance at having sex and having no child support to worry about later.

Andrew D, your defense of poor hapless men who won't wear condoms is a bit of a stretch. Men have plenty of power regarding spreading their sperm; they simply choose in many cases not to exercise that power. When they choose thusly, they have no leg to stand on in arguing about the consequences later.

[rubato]

From a letter my grandfather wrote to my grandmother on their 30th anniversary:

"... Two times you have passed through the valley of the shadow for me, and motherhood, the choicest crown of womanhood has been yours and you have worn it well. ... "

The valley of the shadow.

Biology is asymmetrical and it is necessary that rights are too.

yrs,
rubato

[Joe Guy]

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?

You are trying to twist my words and the meaning of what I wrote by saying that I am wrong because a man CAN surrender a baby within 72 hours of its birth.

The truth is - in the real world - (with computer repairing quaddrivers that report directly to Timothy Geithner) - it is the birth mother who will be the one who surrenders the newborn baby in every case, even if it is the partner or another relative who actually drops the infant off at a hospital or fire station.

But that issue is just a diversion on your part. I am not arguing about who has "different rights."

I am saying that it is much easier LEGALLY AND CIRCUMSTANTIALLY for a woman to surrender a baby / relinquish her parental rights.

Do you disagree?

[loCAtek]

Speaking of Historical inequities, out of wedlock children were usually raised by the single mother, without ANY support from the father. Financial assistance is a pretty new wrinkle.

If a man wants any say in the child's growth from it's conception, he need only marry the mother.

This OP billboard writer, set himself up to fail, when he posted that the woman was only his girlfriend and not his wife.


...bet when he proposed she said, "Not only NO ...!"

[Scooter]

The truth is - in the real world - (with computer repairing quaddrivers that report directly to Timothy Geithner) - it is the birth mother who will be the one who surrenders the newborn baby in every case, even if it is the partner or another relative who actually drops the infant off at a hospital or fire station.

In EVERY case? Really? There has never been a case of say, a recently delivered mother who runs off abandoning her baby in the care of its father?

Granted, such cases are rare, but that is the problem with speaking in absolutes, even the rarest cases make them false.

I am saying that it is much easier LEGALLY AND CIRCUMSTANTIALLY for a woman to surrender a baby / relinquish her parental rights.

Do you disagree?

How can it possibly be easier "legally" if both parents have equal legal status?

[liberty]

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.

Andrew you have stimulated my thinking. I started thinking what if a man decided that he was going to be stubborn. He disposes of his property and move to the Alaskan wilderness where he makes his living from subsistence hunting and fishing. What would the court do; would they send the police up there to drag him back or would they force him to pay his alimony or child support in bears skins and fresh salmon?

[Andrew D]

Obfuscation. Obfuscation. A relentless torrent of polemical obfuscation.

I have said time and time again that no woman should be forced to carry a fetus to term. I have said time and time again that no woman should be forced to have an abortion. So if we are going to discuss this honestly, we need to throw those horribles overboard. They are not relevant. They are juicy, and they make for great spin, but they are not relevant.

A pregnancy results from the choices of both people. Not just one; both.

We see a lot about men who choose not to use condoms. What about the women who choose not to use the various forms of contraception available to them? Why are their choices ignored?

(Speaking of condoms, female analogues (essentially, insertable condoms) have been produced. They have failed on the market. Why? Because they interfered with women's sexual satisfaction. Condoms interfere with men's sexual satisfaction -- as someone once put it, "I don't mean to be insensitive, but I don't want to be desensitized" -- but who cares? They're only men.)

Is anyone willing to address the issue rather than run away from it?

What would be wrong with a man's having the right to say:

"We both chose to have sex. Now you are pregnant. We are both on the hook for that, because both of us made the choices.

"You have the choice. If you choose to have an abortion, I am on the financial hook for that. I will pay my share, because I had a choice about whether to do what resulted in the pregnancy.

"You have the choice. If you choose to carry the fetus to term, I am on the financial hook for that. I will pay my share, because I had a choice about whether to do what resulted in the pregnancy.

"But because the choice is entirely yours, you have no right to put the burden of it on me. If you choose to have an abortion, even if I want to have a child instead, that is your right. And if you choose to carry the fetus to term, even if I want you to have an abortion, that is also your right.

"But you do not have the right to impose the consequences of your unilateral choice on me. You do not have the right to decide that because you want to carry the fetus to term -- even though you are perfectly free not to do so -- I must spend the next eighteen years paying child support for a child I do not want.

"The choice is yours. And no matter how much I might wish you to choose the other option, I have no say in the matter. Nature does that.

"But when you are thinking about whether to carry the fetus to term, keep this in mind: I want nothing to do with it. I will pay my share of whatever the pregnancy costs, because I made the choice to engage in the sex that resulted in the pregnancy.

"But I will not pay anything to support a child who exists because you chose -- without my having any say in the matter whatsoever -- to bring that child into existence.

"I am standing up ready to pay the costs of the choice that I made. But I will not pay the costs of the choice that you -- totally unilaterally -- made.

"And why should I?"

Does anyone care to address that question?

Or shall we just go on "debating" our way around it?

Or perhaps someone who supports the present arrangement will just come out and speak the truth:

"That's right. Whether you have to pay child support for eighteen years is entirely up to me. You have no say in the matter. I like it that way. You don't? Tough shit."

That honesty would be refreshing.

[Guinevere]

If I was being obtuse forgive me -- I believe that a woman has a unilateral right to make the decision about whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term. Without regard to the wishes of any other person, including the man.

Now, I don't think this is necessarily the best choice or the fairest choice (that would depend on the specific facts of each case) but I think the biological requirements of who is the one to carry the fetus make it the correct choice. Regardless of the short or long-term financial consequences for either party.

[@meric@nwom@n]

If I was being obtuse forgive me -- I believe that a woman has a unilateral right to make the decision about whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term. Without regard to the wishes of any other person, including the man.

Now, I don't think this is necessarily the best choice or the fairest choice (that would depend on the specific facts of each case) but I think the biological requirements of who is the one to carry the fetus make it the correct choice. Regardless of the short or long-term financial consequences for either party.

Oh Christ I am so pissed. I just typed out a long post which got sucked into the cyber vortex.

Fortunately it was just a variation of what Guin says above. I think women are foolish with some of the choices they make to carry a baby to term if a man is dead set against it.

But the kids who have no say, irrespective of how foolish the mother's choice is, have the right from the sperm contributor for financial support.

If said sperm contributor is pissed off about this he must stop listening to his inner voice that says, "Gottafuckgottafuckgottafuck NOW!" which leads him down the road of financial ruin. Or he can just date broads who have had hysterectomies.

[Andrew D]

If I was being obtuse forgive me -- I believe that a woman has a unilateral right to make the decision about whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term. Without regard to the wishes of any other person, including the man.

I agree.

So shall we discuss the point at issue?

[Guinevere]

As i said above, regardless of the short or long-term financial consequences to each.

And @W reminded me of another point I wanted to make -- the financial piece isn't for the benefit of the parent, its for the benefit of the child, which is the innocent product of the choice of the others. So I'm fine with the state mandating financial support for that child regardless of whether one parent or both wanted the child to be born. Hell, the state mandates I pay property taxes to pay for schools for the benefit of children I don't even know, and have no relationship with. What's the difference?

Is that good enough, or are you looking for something else?

[Andrew D]

As i said above, regardless of the short or long-term financial consequences to each.

But consequences of what?

Consequences of each person's choice? I'm right with you.

But consequences of someone else's choice over which you have no control? In which you have no say?

And @W reminded me of another point I wanted to make -- the financial piece isn't for the benefit of the parent, its for the benefit of the child, which is the innocent product of the choice of the others.

No, not "the choice of others". The choice of one other -- the unilateral choice of the only person who has a choice.

"The benefit of the child"? The woman is free to choose abortion. Where is "the benefit of the child" in that?

I presume that this is not a newsflash, but I'll point it out anyway: If there's an abortion, there ain't no child.

Hell, the state mandates I pay property taxes to pay for schools for the benefit of children I don't even know, and have no relationship with. What's the difference?

You want to spread the costs around the way we do with tax policy? You think that people who never had anything to do with the pregnancy should have to pay to support the child? You go, girl.

But on the way to that objective, when you're taking a break from that arduous political endeavor, you might ask yourself a question: What does tax policy spread over masses have to do with the individual responsibilities of men who have to pay child support because of the totally one-sided choices made by women?

[a] Is that good enough, or are you looking for something else?

(a) Self-evidently not, and you know it as well as I do;

(b) There was a time when I was looking for rational approaches that would take into account the interests of both parties. That is evidently beyond hope. The people who have the advantages like it that way (no surprise there), and rationality is not a relevant consideration. The likelihood of my wife's and my having a child are about the same as -- actually, probably somewhat less than -- the likelihood that I will enter the priesthood. Or that she will become a nun.

So don't trouble yourself with what I have to say. Go on imposing your we-women-have-all-the-rights-and-we-like-it-that-way-so-shut-the-fuck-up-you-penis-with-a-wallet-that-I-am-going-to-empty ideology on the whole system.

Rock on. I'm sure that it will work out well for you. At least until skeletized remains start turning up in the desert.

Why should I care? This is a problem for breeders. Work it out for yourselves.

[Jarlaxle]

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.

All the woman has to do is simply surrender the child (hospital, fire station, I think police station)...she can do so, at least here, without even giving her NAME. (They'll almost certainly ask, but she is perfectly free to say "Hillary Clinton" or "Jane Smith".) Dad might well not even realize she has given birth until the kid is gone...and even if he does, all she has to say is, "I miscarried."

[loCAtek]

For millennium, women did not have all the rights; they had little to no rights at all, and their children out of wedlock were ostracized as 'bastards', an insult used to this day.

That a man, tries to impose himself on his illegitimate child without acknowledging his relationship to his baby's mama; then there isn't much more than the same kind of insult:
the woman isn't significant enough to marry.

Humans do not thrive in broken homes; they do best in families. What kind of family is a selfish male who disrespects his child's mother going to provide?
The mother is better off without him.

[Scooter]

Dad might well not even realize she has given birth until the kid is gone...and even if he does, all she has to say is, "I miscarried."

If he hasn't been paying enough attention to know when she was due and offer to be there for her, then chances are he's not giving much of a shit about the kid either.

[Jarlaxle]

It's anything but an exact science...a "due date" is anything but, it's a wild-ass guess. I was "due" in mid-January. I was born December 21st. My sister was "due" around June 1st. She was born June 17th.

Keep Dad in the dark about her exact "due date" (not hard, it's not like a sign saying "PREGNANT!" pops up upon conception), and just dump the kid when he/she is born.

That assumes, of course, she isn't a crazy bitch from the start doing everything she can to hurt Dad. My nephew's mother falls squarely into that category. (Along with "worthless waste of air", "welfare twat", and "posted child for mandatory sterilization", but that's another rant.)