Is it really so bad if a man slips a woman an abortion pill?

Correct. The woman has the ability to avoid the financial consequences of carrying an accidental pregnancy to term.

1) She can have an abortion
2) She can give the child up for adoption. (A law that allows the woman to abandon responsibilities associated with a child that D. Lil keeps harping about)

What is an anathema to the Rule of Law is making one person responsible for the unilateral choices/decisions/actions of another.

 

It does happen, but only if the parent with complete custody can financially support the child and/or there are good reasons why it's in the best interest for the child to cut all ties with the absent parent.

Otherwise, what could happen is the absent parent then changes his or her mind and decides he or she wants contact with their child after all.

That the wishes of one parent is overriding the wishes of the other for no good reason.
More importantly, it ignores the needs of the child.

The bad parent has to prove he or she can take care of the child properly.

The bad parent often seems surprised and indignant when the courts decide not to award him or her residential custody.

This is usually the father, though not always.

 

Which is a method of birth control not available to men.

Not without the permission of the child's father.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/adoption-and-fathers-rights.html


A birth father has a Constitutional right to be notified that he might be the father of a child who is being put up for adoption. He also has the right to be heard in court if he believes the adoption should not go forward. One of the biggest parental rights is the right to consent or the right to object to the adoption of one’s child. Generally, both parents of a child must consent to an adoption only if both parents meet certain requirements that give them the parental right to block or consent to the adoption.

If the father is not known, or the whereabouts of the father is unknown, many states require that some sort of notice be published in the legal advertising section of the newspaper, informing all persons claiming to be the biological father of the pending adoption.

Both parents of the child chose to make the decision to have sex knowing a pregnancy could result.

Men know there is no further action they can take to prevent their child being born.

Women have more choices than men. That is nothing to do with any law.

 

I did not read beyond this post. Why would he do that if she's going to be giving the baby up, and he won't be on the hook for child support? Sounds a bit irrational.

 

Because you're treating her like an animal, with no free will or autonomy.

 

if a man could take a pill that killed his sperm prior to sex, he could, as he is in control of the sperm, it's in his body

the women can not slip him pill to kill his sperm without his knowledge

same is true of the women

 

Because you're giving it to her without her knowledge or permission.

 

Actually, that's not how the courts see it. My cousin tried to refuse child support, and the court said she didn't have the right to do so. Those monies are for the baby.

- - - Updated - - -

"Because the mother wants to stick it to the father?" Is that what you call keeping one's offspring fed, clothed, sheltered and otherwise provided for?

 

I'm afraid there are some very misogynistic whiney men in this world who seem to keep missing the point that child support is NOT all about them.

But since they think the world IS all about them it's hard for them to see the point....


I think it's one of the reasons they aren't granted custody as much as mothers are, judges know that with some men they come first and the kids come second.

 

Who said abortion was available to men ? This has zero to do with the question of responsibility for contraceptive choice ??

Your argument is that the man should be made responsible for the consequences a woman's contraceptive choice.
Since the man has no part in that choice (as you state), he is not responsible for the consequences of that choice.

We are talking about the case where the sperm donor did not want the child created in the first place.

If the man chooses to take the child OBVIOUSLY he has assumed financial responsibility. If the man has given consent to the creation of a child, prior to having sex, obviously he has assumed financial responsibility.

1)Pregnancy is not a child

2) In this case both parents "did not" make the decision prior having sex that a child was the desired result.

We can go further and look at the case where there was an explicit agreement between parties (as there is in many cases) that a child is not the desired result.

If the woman violates that agreement then the consequences for her actions are her's alone.

That Women have more choices is fact.

That responsibility for the consequences of one's choice has nothing to do with the principles of law is abject nonsense.

That the current law (in this specific case) rejects this principle of law (that one is responsible for the consequences of one's actions) is then an anathema to that principle of law.

 

But they were aware that their decision could result in a child. They decided to take the risk, knowing what could happen.

And what about those cases where the woman intentionally decided to get pregnant but then changed her mind later on?

 

Child support does effect them.. it effects women too

the reason bad parents now want the children is mainly do to child support

you can have more children if you receive child support, if you pay it, it's very hard to start another family

child support was originally created to make sure those with money took care of their children, it was never meant as a punishment for those living pay check to paycheck

there are just as many bad mothers as fathers.... it goes both ways.... equal rights has to apply here too, no gender discrimination


to prove my point, how many dead beat parents would give up their children to adoption if they had to pay child support for 18 years

how many women would volunteer their eggs if they had to pay child support for 18 years....

.

 

Not wanting to be forced to be responsible for the consequences of the actions of another has zero to do with misogyny. What a crock of phony baloney.

It is the woman who makes a unilateral decision to carry a pregnancy to term that thinks its all about them. They are the one's who want to force another person to be responsible for the consequences of their actions.

What a bunch of nonsensical name calling with no substance to back it up.

 

This was answered in the rest of the post out of which you cherry picked one sentence.

Sex can result in pregnancy. It does not have to result in a child.

What is the point of your statement.

Then she should be responsible for the consequences of her actions.

 

Thank you for proving my point : very misogynistic whiney men in this world who seem to keep missing the point that child support is NOT all about them.



And let's not forget all the horrible names you called women.....continuously....


And you forget that men's angst over their perceived inequality is a delight to my ears

 

Dood, you are one sick puppy. Wait, let me guess, you work for government, right?

 

seriously, you do not think it's relevant to the child if the custodial parent is good or bad?

.

 

It's irrelevant to the discussion....but you have no argument so you must resort to appearing really confused...

 

it was very relevant to the discussion, but seems you just want to play games and go on the attack for some reason, not sure why?

 

No, YOU are playing, the discussion is about men whining about supporting their own children NOT about whether parents are good or bad....YOU just have no good argument and need to segue off into something else...

 

and I was saying that child support can make bad parents want the children (as in the one getting the child support), that otherwise would not of wanted them, this is NOT a man only issue, I do not discriminate based on gender, this is the 21st century

.