French Politics, a welcome diversion

[Gob]

I'd give her one.

[rubato]

But why should only one of the two people involved in the making of the child have total control over the consequences for both of them?

Biology is asymmetrical thus the law must be as well.

yrs,
rubato

[Andrew D]

Total post-conception control. (Hence "in the making of the child". If no child has been made, the issue does not arise.)

She doesn't want the kid; he does; he's fucked.

She wants the kid; he doesn't; he's fucked.

She has all the rights; he has nothing but the wallet.

Yes, the law needs to reflect the asymmetrical biology. But that does not necessitate throwing all fairness overboard.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I'd give her one.

. . . out of 10

[Lord Jim]

I'd give her one.

. . . out of 10

She's definitely got the cougar thing going on...

I'd give her 8 out of 10...

[Gob]

I'd give her one... up the wrong 'un.

[Sean]

I'd give her one... up the wrong 'un.

Just to be on the safe side...

[The Hen]

He doesn't need to be safe. He's been snipped.

I think he just likes bottoms.

[Gob]

[Lord Jim]

Well, some rum and buggery then...

Spare the lash...

[MajGenl.Meade]

I'd give her one.

. . . out of 10

She's definitely got the cougar thing going on...

I'd give her 8 out of 10...

Oh you probably think Angelina Jolie is attractive as well, I bet.

[Big RR]

Andrew--but again, the support is a right of the child, not the mother (or father for that matter), and the child had no say in the coneption, gestation, or birth. Fairness might dictate that one of the parents have rights against the other to recoup some of the support in the event of fraud, misrepresentation, etc., but I can't see how the decisions of either parent should affect the rights of the child after it is born.

Further, I have seen nothing here that suggests he had any expectation of what might happen if comeption occurred during what, presumably, vs unprotected sex. If he chose not to use any means of birth control to prevent conception and did nothing to make his views on any post conception "strategy" known to the woman, I see nothing inherently unfair in defering to the opinion of the person who has to carry the fetus.

[Guinevere]

Andrew, I've asked you this before -- what is your "fair" strategy for resolution?

[Andrew D]

I see nothing inherently unfair in defering to the opinion of the person who has to carry the fetus.

But she does not have to carry the fetus. She can have it removed. In which case there is no child whose interests need to be taken into account.

Which is rather the point. After conception, the woman has all of the rights -- including the right to decide that the "child's" interests will never be taken into account, because the "child" is going to end up in some clinic's disposal facility.

That is where we are. We are no longer at a point where once a woman gets pregnant -- or once a man impregnates a woman, or once the two of them cooperate in bringing about the pregnancy, however one wishes to phrase it -- nobody has any choice: Barring miscarriage or stillbirth, there is going to be a child.

We are at a point where once a woman gets pregnant (etc.), she has a choice. She can choose to give birth to a child. She can choose not to give birth to a child.

So shouldn't men -- who are, as many people are very fond of reminding us, coresponsible for the conception -- also have some say in what happens? Not that any woman should be forced to carry to term a fetus which she does not want. Not that any woman should be forced to have an abortion which she does not want. Just that who is going to be obligated to provide for the child, if there is one, should not be an entirely one-sided affair.

[oldr_n_wsr]

He doesn't need to be safe. He's been snipped.

I think he just likes bottoms.

Nothing wrong with that.
So have I and So do I.