Who's right to choose, a womans right to choose.

[CDNBear]

What facts? That the courts don't support your position but you're rallying hard to change it? You're losing it man. Keep dreaming.

Who's dreaming?

You maybe.

All I did, was put forth the fact that the laws are out of balance.

You and the rest of the women, came running and screaming, because someone questioned your ablity to hold men accountable for their half of the equation. With nothing more then an emotional, opinion based platform, made solely of paper. Relying only on preasent laws to support your position. The very laws in question.

I'm not rallying to change anything, I merely put forth a question and supported the side I chose to. Regardless of my true beliefs.

You continue to personalise the debate, because you have nothing other then conjecture, emotion, opinion and the status quo to support a none existant platform.

Any reasonable individual, capable of removing the emotion, opinion, ethics and morals of the issue, can see that there is an imbalance. Because there is.

Is that imbalance wrong? In my OPINION, NO.

Does that mean that the imbalance does not exist? No.

See the difference?

I doubt it, you're to wrapped up in, "I'm right and you're wrong" emotions to the light. Or where I stand.

Stop making it personal, it really doesn't do you or the site any credit.

 

[Kreskin]

Who's dreaming?

You maybe.

All I did, was put forth the fact that the laws are out of balance.

You and the rest of the women, came running and screaming, because someone questioned your ablity to hold men accountable for their half of the equation. With nothing more then an emotional, opinion based platform, made solely of paper. Relying only on preasent laws to support your position. The very laws in question.

I'm not rallying to change anything, I merely put forth a question and supported the side I chose to. Regardless of my true beliefs.

You continue to personalise the debate, because you have nothing other then conjecture, emotion, opinion and the status quo to support a none existant platform.

Any reasonable individual, capable of removing the emotion, opinion, ethics and morals of the issue, can see that there is an imbalance. Because there is.

Is that imbalance wrong? In my OPINION, NO.

Does that mean that the imbalance does not exist? No.

See the difference?

I doubt it, you're to wrapped up in, "I'm right and you're wrong" emotions to the light. Or where I stand.

Stop making it personal, it really doesn't do you or the site any credit.

I see the difference Bear. You have an opinion that is not supported by the courts but you have become legally factual just because. Anytime you start losing the debate you declare everyone else using emotions and yourself the one and only fact provider. Hold the "personalized" song and dance. I'm telling you why the law won't support legislation based on duress. If you don't like that don't declare me of being emotional. It's the way it is. Sorry if you don't like it.

Can child support legislation be improved? Of course. Why not. Will it be tied to the negotiation of a woman's right to life liberty and security? Don't hold your breath.

 

[CDNBear]

I see the difference Bear. You have an opinion that is not supported by the courts but you have become legally factual just because. Anytime you start losing the debate you declare everyone else using emotions and yourself the one and only fact provider. Hold the "personalized" song and dance. I'm telling you why the law won't support legislation based on duress. If you don't like that don't declare me of being emotional. It's the way it is. Sorry if you don't like it.

Can child support legislation be improved? Of course. Why not. Will it be tied to the negotiation of a woman's right to life liberty and security? Don't hold your breath.

What a load of horse crap!! Again!!

Way to answer a question Kreskin.

And you think I'm on the losing end of this debate?

Good greif man, take a look at the thread.

I've posted at least two dozen unanswered questions. And still you personalize the issue. Red highlights.

Show me where I stated I didn't like it?

I only posted a question. You can not win, so you personalize, and make it about me, instead of answering any questions. Why? Because if you actually participate meaningfully in the debate, you know you will lose. Why? Because there is an imbalance. And again I will state for the umteenth time and for the record, loud and clear, follow along Kreskin. FOR ETHICAL AND MORAL REASONS THE LAWS ARE THE WAY THEY ARE, BUT REGARDLESS THERE IS AN IMBALANCE. DOES THAT NEGATE THE ETHICS AND MORALS? NO.

Did you get that?

Or do I need to post it in the countries other official language?

 

[Kreskin]

What a load of horse crap!! Again!!

Way to answer a question Kreskin.

And you think I'm on the losing end of this debate?

Good greif man, take a look at the thread.

I've posted at least two dozen unanswered questions. And still you personalize the issue. Red highlights.

Show me where I stated I didn't like it?

I only posted a question. You can not win, so you personalize, and make it about me, instead of answering any questions. Why? Because if you actually participate meaningfully in the debate, you know you will lose. Why? Because there is an imbalance. And again I will state for the umteenth time and for the record, loud and clear, follow along Kreskin. FOR ETHICAL AND MORAL REASONS THE LAWS ARE THE WAY THEY ARE, BUT REGARDLESS THERE IS AN IMBALANCE. DOES THAT NEGATE THE ETHICS AND MORALS? NO.

Did you get that?

Or do I need to post it in the countries other official language?

What question would you like answered that you simply don't answer yourself right after asking?

 

[CDNBear]

What question would you like answered that you simply don't answer yourself right after asking?

Good thing to see, consistancy in bringing nothing to the table.

And you claim, I'm losing.

Wow, I'ld hate to see what winning looks like to you.

Go back and look.

 

[Kreskin]

Good thing to see, consistancy in bringing nothing to the table.

And you claim, I'm losing.

Wow, I'ld hate to see what winning looks like to you.

Go back and look.

Ask a question.

 

[Kreskin]

What a load of horse crap!! Again!!

Way to answer a question Kreskin.

And you think I'm on the losing end of this debate?

Good greif man, take a look at the thread.

I've posted at least two dozen unanswered questions. And still you personalize the issue. Red highlights.

Show me where I stated I didn't like it?

I only posted a question. You can not win, so you personalize, and make it about me, instead of answering any questions. Why? Because if you actually participate meaningfully in the debate, you know you will lose. Why? Because there is an imbalance. And again I will state for the umteenth time and for the record, loud and clear, follow along Kreskin. FOR ETHICAL AND MORAL REASONS THE LAWS ARE THE WAY THEY ARE, BUT REGARDLESS THERE IS AN IMBALANCE. DOES THAT NEGATE THE ETHICS AND MORALS? NO.

Did you get that?

Or do I need to post it in the countries other official language?

Good thing it's only me that personalizes these debates.

 

[talloola]

[But..since she is allowed an abortion, should he not have equal rights to decide whether or not HE wants to be a parent?

NO, he should not have that right, as he can't force her to carry a child if she doesn't want to, period.

Hell, she can put the child up for adoption without telling him she was ever pregnant, nor giving him the chance to raise his own child.

That's right, those are circumstances that will happen, but I put that in a catagorie that is not the norm,
we could all think up wierd times when someone makes unfair, or rash decision and that would be one
of those. The father probably would never know if that happened, and that's that, game over.
That situation couldn't even be solved by law, as noone would ever know, and I would never agree
with a law that prevents any doctor from giving her an abortion if the father to be doesn't know, this
is her body and her decision.

Because it doesn't work like that currently, if it did nothing would need changed. But you aren't looking at things the way they are. You are looking at one portion and ignoring all the hideous abuse that happens

My thought process doesn't include hideous abuse, that would probably come under criminal law, and I
don't think early abortion is in that catagorie, I believe if a woman becomes pregnant, and finds that
situation is far too traumatic for any number of reasons, she should be able to go ahead without anyone stopping her, if the father to be can't handle that, tough. He will just have to find a woman who wants to get pregnant with him.

We are suppose to be talking about "surprise" pregnancies here, so obviously they didn't want a
baby to begin with, so when pregnancy occurs, all of a sudden the father to be is very emotionally
traumatized if woman doesn't want to carry baby to term, he certainly did a 360deg., very
emotional decision.

The woman should have a slight advantage, as I have said before, because she carries the child, and that
is a huge difference, everyone seems to think that is such a detail, if men want same decisions there
should be a choice as to "who" carries the child.

A child begins growing in the womb, and the men want equal say as to the decision concerning carrying
to term, abortion, or adoption. Forget that. The only thing I would agree with is, if the woman decides to adopt or just doesn't want the baby, then of course the father, should have "next" right of refusal.

 

[Zzarchov]

A woman has the right to put a child she and a man both fostered equally, up for adoption, without telling him nor giving him the chance to raise his own child. At no point is she forced to tell her babies father that she has given him a child. She is forcing the Child to go without a Parent (and parental support) and depriving the Father of the chance to support his child and his right to help raise his child.

TELL ME THIS IS NOT IMBALANCED. PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THIS IS FAIR!

Or you can keep ignoring this because then you would have to admit your wrong, but I'm going to keep posting it till you answer and say yes "Their is an imbalance in the current laws" or explain how this does not favour one parent over the other on basis of gender.

 

[Kreskin]

A woman has the right to put a child she and a man both fostered equally, up for adoption, without telling him nor giving him the chance to raise his own child. At no point is she forced to tell her babies father that she has given him a child. She is forcing the Child to go without a Parent (and parental support) and depriving the Father of the chance to support his child and his right to help raise his child.

TELL ME THIS IS NOT IMBALANCED. PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THIS IS FAIR!

Or you can keep ignoring this because then you would have to admit your wrong, but I'm going to keep posting it till you answer and say yes "Their is an imbalance in the current laws" or explain how this does not favour one parent over the other on basis of gender.

Lets say it's imbalanced. The male doesn't have a uteris either. My question is, so what?

 

[Zzarchov]

If it is unbalanced it should be balanced, that is a guiding principle in our society.

Don't get confused by the issue and assume that means the father has to be able to abandon his child. That is only one way to balance it, you could do it just as easily the other way, making women more accountable.

Think of it this way. You have a scale with 10lbs on the right side and 5lbs on the left side. There are two ways to balance the scale...either take away 5lbs from the right side (more accountability of mothers to the fathers) or add 5lbs to the left side (Less accountability of fathers to mothers)

Which you think of as better is irrelevant as a first step, the first thing you must be willing to admit, is that 10lbs vs 5lbs is not a balanced scale.

From there you can decide which is a better way to balance. Perhaps you'll add two pounds to the right and take away three to the left, or some other combo. But until you admit their is an imbalance you are abeting an injustice.

 

[Kreskin]

If it is unbalanced it should be balanced, that is a guiding principle in our society.

Don't get confused by the issue and assume that means the father has to be able to abandon his child. That is only one way to balance it, you could do it just as easily the other way, making women more accountable.

Think of it this way. You have a scale with 10lbs on the right side and 5lbs on the left side. There are two ways to balance the scale...either take away 5lbs from the right side (more accountability of mothers to the fathers) or add 5lbs to the left side (Less accountability of fathers to mothers)

Which you think of as better is irrelevant as a first step, the first thing you must be willing to admit, is that 10lbs vs 5lbs is not a balanced scale.

From there you can decide which is a better way to balance. Perhaps you'll add two pounds to the right and take away three to the left, or some other combo. But until you admit their is an imbalance you are abeting an injustice.

It can't be balanced. One has the child inside her, the other doesn't. How could it possibly ever be balanced? Those who are arguing for balance are asking for children to take on an imbalance. A court won't represent the rights of a child and determine them based on whether Dad wanted him/her aborted or not, or Dad wanted to opt out because she could've aborted him/her if she wanted to. Call that an emotional statement, it's somewhat common sense when looking at the charter and seeing how our highest courts rule. Even historically, our society doesn't condone abortion for birth control. Our legislative bodies have made numerous attempts to outlaw it or place serious restrictions on it. It's a criminal offense to manipulate a woman to have an abortion. Why would the law then create a manipulative law that essentially encourages it? The entire premise would easily be ruled unconstitutional. Her rights to life liberty and security aren't up for negotiation. Understanding why she has the right in the first place is the first step in understanding why things are as they are. The right is not a choice for everyone and it isn't expected that it be considered when the paternal father wants to opt out. No one has to make a choice. I don't how to make that any clearer. Having a right is not making a choice. We all have a right to religious freedom. No one says we have to consider religion or lose other rights.

Can child support laws be improved or made more equitable? I'm sure there's a ton of room for improvement and more balance, but it won't be the result of the right to an abortion. There is no political will for it and the highest courts would likely nix any law or ruling brought before it that restricts a childs rights based on mom having an abortion right.

 

[talloola]

A woman has the right to put a child she and a man both fostered equally, up for adoption, without telling him nor giving him the chance to raise his own child. At no point is she forced to tell her babies father that she has given him a child. She is forcing the Child to go without a Parent (and parental support) and depriving the Father of the chance to support his child and his right to help raise his child.

If she decides "very" early in the pregnancy that she doesn't want to carry this child to term, it is her
decision to make other arrangements, I don't agree that she should never tell the father to be, but if
she makes that decision, then that's the end of his father to be role, "fair"? you could bounce that word
back and forth all over the place between both people, but she has first decision to make, as she is
carrying the child, it's so simple, many things in life aren't fair, but we have to suck it up and get on
with it. If she doesn't tell anyone, and has an abortion, it is a dissapointing decision, and I don't agree
with it, but, what would you do with her, what could you do with her, as noone would even know what
she did, so how could the father to be even react to it, he wouldn't know about it, and if he somehow found out, what would you do with her, throw her in jail, she would serve her time, and probably still be
glad she did what she did.

TELL ME THIS IS NOT IMBALANCED. PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THIS IS FAIR!
fair? many things in life aren't fair, but necessary, and the first "imbalance" is the fact that the woman
has to carry the child and noone can start pushing their agenda on her, period.


you can keep ignoring this because then you would have to admit your wrong, but I'm going to keep posting it till you answer and say yes
Post away, um "is this a proposal"?

"Their is an imbalance in the current laws" or explain how this does not favour one parent over the other on basis of gender.

As I said, the imbalance is that only one parent carries the child, "woman", so to balance the situation
the law "favours" the woman, which allows her to make the decision re: her pregnancy.

I agree with that.

 

[Zzarchov]

How does anything that happens when the baby is inside of her, relate to putting up a child NOT INSIDE HER, who is a living person, Up for adoption, without notifying the other parent?

What Taloolla does "deciding not to carry the child to term" have to do with the mother putting a baby, WHO IS NOT INSIDE OF HER, up for adoption without telling the other parent?

What does it have to do with not telling the father, that he even has a child nor telling the child who its father is AND DEPRIVING IT OF SUPPORT, just because her personal wish is not to involve the father in the childs life.

She is letting her wishes over ride the rights and best wishes of another adult and a child. How is that Balanced?

If the father could just scoop the child away from the mother and put it up for adoption without her consent there would be (and was) outrage and it would be changed.

You can't just scream "Womans Rights! Her Body Her Choice" and hope the discussion will go away anymore than Politicians can just scream "9/11" and hope people will continue to ignore what they are doing.

 

[CDNBear]

Good thing it's only me that personalizes these debates.

I have not personalized the debate, my posts are directed at the person that is answering the question, therefore directing the reply to that person is not what you are doing. You are putting words in my nouth, reading commentary that I have not typed, and casting me as someone I am not. Purely because you can not win. Just go back and look at the smear campain you started way on back. Very mature and unbecoming of a mod, I thinks. I am not emotionalizing the issue and accusing people of anything untoword, you are.

Lets say it's imbalanced. The male doesn't have a uteris either. My question is, so what?

Wow, you almost had an epiphany there, didn't you?

Is that really a question?

I'll wait until you go back and answer anything anyone of us has asked you, that you have just danced around before I indulge you.

 

[talloola]

How does anything that happens when the baby is inside of her, relate to putting up a child NOT INSIDE HER, who is a living person, Up for adoption, without notifying the other parent?

I am having trouble understanding above question, if you mean that decision to adopt baby out,
after baby is born, is done without notifying father, then I agree with you, that is not
right. My opinions are based on "embryo stage" only.

What Taloolla does "deciding not to carry the child to term" have to do with the mother putting a baby, WHO IS NOT INSIDE OF HER, up for adoption without telling the other parent?
nothing

What does it have to do with not telling the father, that he even has a child nor telling the child who its father is AND DEPRIVING IT OF SUPPORT, just because her personal wish is not to involve the father in the childs life.
Well, if she never tells him, each case would have to be dealt with on an indivudual basis, as in
some cases it might be the right thing to do, and in other cases, it wouldn't. The child should
always have the right to know who his/hers father is, at some point in life, "if they want that
information", now, "what if the child doesn't want to know that" do you think the child should
be forced to know, for the benefit of the father?

She is letting her wishes over ride the rights and best wishes of another adult and a child. How is that Balanced?
It isn't a child it is an embryo, and I wouldn't end the life of a child "ever", or an unborn "later" term pregnancy, and my answer is, "because it's her body" and she is in charge of it, noone else, it does
not bother me to terminate a pregnancy at this stage, and I would never want to see a law that
interfered with her "right to choose". But if the pregnancy continued on till it is no longer an embryo, then my opinion changes.
I don't know what else you really want from me, I am not a lawyer or a judge, I am a lay person
with my beliefs/opinions with directly pretain to your questions. You are obviously waiting for the
perfect answer, (in your opinion), and there isn't one, and just because people disagree with you
doesn't mean that they are over emotional or just daft. I must say that this discussion has allowed
me to really know where I stand on this issue, as I haven't talked in depth with anyone before, so
thank you for that.
Maybe you should be directing your questions to a lawyer or judge, as they would give you direct legal
explanations, and maybe their own interpretations of the law, and their own opinions in perfect legal
jargin.

If the father could just scoop the child away from the mother
well he can't, so lets stick to realities. I don't consider the father as an equal partner when the
pregnancy is "new", at that point I agree that the mother is in charge, sure discussions should
take place if the situation requires, as individual situations differ.
and put it up for adoption without her consent there would be (and was) outrage and it would be changed.

When it is obvious that the baby will be born, or has been born, one parent shouldn't be able to put the baby up for adoption without the consent of the other, and when the mother has carried the baby to term, then adopted it out with telling the father, I totally disagree with that, unless there is unusual circumstances, whereas, the father shouldn't know because he is a really "bad" person, and I don't mean "just in the personal opinion of the mother", but because of his actions.


You can't just scream "Womans Rights! Her Body Her Choice" and hope the discussion will go away

Yes I can, in the embryonic stage, I will scream loud and clear, "IT IS HER BODY AND HER CHOICE, and if she continues on with the pregnancy my opinion will change with the circumstances.

anymore than Politicians can just scream "9/11" and hope people will continue to ignore what they are doing.

new subject, and we might agree on this one

 

[Zzarchov]

Im not saying there should be any interference inside a womans body, none at all, but you can't pretend the laws about children are balanced towards men, and you do agree with that. There are some things a mother can unilaterally do that are totally unfair to the father.

 

[Kreskin]

I have not personalized the debate, my posts are directed at the person that is answering the question, therefore directing the reply to that person is not what you are doing. You are putting words in my nouth, reading commentary that I have not typed, and casting me as someone I am not. Purely because you can not win. Just go back and look at the smear campain you started way on back. Very mature and unbecoming of a mod, I thinks. I am not emotionalizing the issue and accusing people of anything untoword, you are.

Wow, you almost had an epiphany there, didn't you?

Is that really a question?

I'll wait until you go back and answer anything anyone of us has asked you, that you have just danced around before I indulge you.

Well Bear, I won't waste my time looking through your old posts for irrelevant questions. If you wish to ask one please go ahead.

 

[talloola]

Im not saying there should be any interference inside a womans body, none at all, but you can't pretend the laws about children are balanced towards men, and you do agree with that. There are some things a mother can unilaterally do that are totally unfair to the father.

Yes, yes, yes, once the baby is born, or, even late in the pregnancy, the woman should have to

deal with the father to be, before she makes any decisions, as to the future of the baby after birth.

If a woman has the baby, never tells the father, then puts it up for adoption, that's criminal in my

mind, (unless it is obvious that the father isn't "worthy", ex. somekind of criminal etc.etc.), then

she is making "right" decision for the child.

But, there is no way the father should be able to "opt" out just because he wasn' planning to be a

father, too late for that, step up to the plate, be a responsible adult. He should support his child

whether he has it in his home, or it is in her home.

I'm getting fatigued from this thread, I'm going to end my contributions.

Somewhere way back, someone argued that the man should be able to opt out just because he

wasn't planning on being a father, and why should he be financially burdoned, when he didn't

want the child, and no one should be able to legally make him.

That point got lost along the way.

See ya, have a good one

 

[Kreskin]

Im not saying there should be any interference inside a womans body, none at all, but you can't pretend the laws about children are balanced towards men, and you do agree with that. There are some things a mother can unilaterally do that are totally unfair to the father.

The male can become a father without going through childbirth. I wouldn't say that's unfair, because that's the reality of reproduction, but it's bloody lucky. There's no way on earth that process can ever be made "fair". He can drink his socks off during pregnancy while the mother is on a strict diet. Is that "fair"? He can play rugby while his child is in development...etc etc. The guys responsibilities through pregnancy are basically nothing. Buying chips on the way home is about the extent of it. Trying to balance this stuff on a nice clean weigh scale is impossible. Just because she won't consider gutting herself and dispensing of a living being from her body is hardly "making a choice". Having a right to do something that one might feel is unethical, immoral, or emotionally impossible is not making a choice, and is certainly no legitimate reason for the father to opt out of helping his own child.