CFM is not about telling women what to do with their bodies. CFM is about letting men have the same reproductive choices as women. It's about letting men walk away from parenthood, same as women, for education, career, financial, or emotional reasons.
Before you state your objections, consider this:
1. Parents need not be pregnant to terminate parental rights and responsibilities; see legal abandonment laws.
2. CFM will allow men to "play" and not pay. Women already have this choice.
3. Men should keep their pants zipped up. Same goes for women, who have choice, where men do not. (This is the same as item 2, worded differently for the comprehension-challenged.)
4. What about the child? If a woman can't afford to raise a child alone, the child should be put up for adoption. No citizen should be forced to be a parent when they are not ready. No male should be forced to pay for a woman's choice.

What this comes down to is personal responsibility. If women want CHOICE alone, they must be ready to assume the responsibility for that choice, alone.

See www.choiceformen.com

Let Liberty flourish, the chips fall where they may.

I am sorry but I disagree. A man can choose to not have sex. A woman in many cases is forced to have sex.

Men that don't want children can use birth control themselves if they don't trust a woman is not taking the steps herself. It is that simple. However, if you have sex with a woman unprotected, then you have to accept the consequences of your actions and accept what the woman's decision to have the child or not. After all, she is the one that will carry the child and nurture it.

If I were single and got pregnant, and the father of the child wanted me to abort, and I wanted to go ahead with the pregnancy, it should be my financially responsibility not his. As long as he signed papers saying that he had no paternal rights to the child.
I don't think women should be able to have it both ways. On the one hand you don't want to be forced into motherhood, but on the other hand you want to force men into fatherhood.

The fact is this, women get everything, they use rape as excuse to hold all men responsible.The man has no rights, he gets hung out to dry. Women that get pregnant do not assume all responsibility, but get all choice, its simply not fair, there should be a balancing either percentage wise on support or in choice. Say a very religious man, gets a wife pregnant, then she leaves him and gets abortion, he is devoutly Pro-Life, it is not fair that the women gets all say in that issue. The abortion causes this man an irreprable harm in many ways. Wheres his recourse? Maybe we ought to enact some legal rights to sue for damages too. I dunno, I just think this is to much on womens rights without any mans rights at all.

??

A woman can choose not to have sex too. Currently, if she is raped and gets pregnant she can choose not to have that child and I support that right. However, to say that since some men force/forced some women to have sex, we should hold all other men responsible for their actions?

Why should a woman get all the choice? Thats not equality. Also, the woman is the only one who will nurture the child? The father is only good for the dna donation and monetary support?

It's been established via Roe v Wade that a woman has the right to abort her baby. It's her body. I don't think anything short of an Amendment would change that.

The whloe idea is that government can't force someone to be a parent.

I understand where you're coming from Colum, but Roe v Wade rules out telling women they have to bear a man's child, at least for the time being.

The Democrats would have gotten my vote if they put TRUE gender equality in their platform. The feminists have ruined it for everyone.

Exactly! Parental choice for all.

I refuse to debate what happens before conception, as to the whys, hows, and wherefores. Both men and women have pre-conception choices that don't always work out.

I also refuse to debate as to who is good or bad. There's bad on both sides of the gender aisle, from men who are serial impregnators, to women who trap men into fatherhood. The welfare mom didn't vanish. They are now child-support moms.

CFM is about the inequality that exists in reproductive choice.

I totally support parental choice for all. If a guy doesn't want ot be a parent, signs papers to relinquish all rights..............it should be a done deal. However, there would have to be no legal way for teh woman to come after him years later for CS, nor should there be anyway for him to decide to come into the child's life later on and demand his "daddy" rights. Of course, if for some reason, he and Mom decide to hook up and get married, then, he would need to go through the formal adoption process to adopt this child as his.

In Georgia, the father could pay child support whether he gave up his rights or not....I have even seen cases where a sperm donor has had to pay child support.
It's a matter of "public" interest and the state would rather SOMEONE pay child support, father with rights or not, biological or not...as long as the state is not supporting the child, Georgia will make someone pay.

Fathers have always been able to surrender their rights, not the responsibility. The "greater public good" is never a reason to deny a citizen their rights. The Constitution was crafted by men who knew that government (The People) could be as tyrranical as any despot, therefore the bill of rights.

Women kill children 31 times more often than bio-dads. The percentage of fatherless children in a community is a better indicator to its crime rate than socio-economic factors. Please show me what greater public good that has been shown by the systematic separation of children from their dads.

I'm hot on that topic, also. This is another gender equality issue, clouded by the fuzzy logic of "best interests of the children".

I'll give you one simple REAL LIFE example.

My cousin was in a committed relationship with a guy. She got pregnant while in this relationship. She is deeply Catholic and doesn't believe in abortion, therefore she decided to carry out her pregnancy. Luckyly for her, the guy supported her.

Now let's look at the other side of the equation. The deadbeat that doesn't want to accept his responsibility. In your perspective, my cousin would have to rear the child on her own because the guy doesn't "feel" he should have to support any child or she would have to have an abortion because she can't afford to support a child by herself.

A woman is always left with the responsibility of contraception, along with the bearing of a child. Now, you are proposing to put further pressure on them by forcing them to have an abortion or rear a child on their own...

I am sorry, but Men who have no wombs and don't have to carry a child for 9 months shouldn't be telling me whether I can or can't have a child. While it is true that women have the choice of not having sex, it is also true that when they do they are the ones that carry the greatest risks.

I have no sympathy for your cause. I am sorry. Use a condom if you don't want children or consult with your girlfriend if she plans on having children so you can plan your future. Responsibility is the key.

I agree, responsibility is the key. I am pro prevention more than anything. I'll be glad when there is a viable male birth control pill on the market.

I don't recall telling you (women) whether you can or can't have a child. If your cousin hadn't been supported (she is Catholic but had sex before marriage....) and she was against having an abortion she still has options besides abortion to keep the child and raise it herself or adoption. Necessity tends to drive people to find answers to problems. Its all about responsiblity for one's actions.

To be honest, if you're cousin hadn't been supported I would not have much sympathy for her cause. It takes two to tango, she should have thought about that before she engaged in pre marital sexual relations in regards to her faith, moral beliefs, financial situation etc.. I'm not saying I particularly like that a man would give up responibility for a child he sired, to my line of thinking, thats his blood, his "issue" as it were and should take care of it and raise it to the best of his ability but I realize that just as some women aren't ready to be mothers, some men are not ready either whether it be because of financial, career, personal reasons etc..

However, if you're going to give women the right to abort (as I think they should have that right), you ought to allow equal rights to men with regards to a "paper abortion". I don't see how its fair to give all the choice to women but give only responsibility to men.

Exactly, you just made my point. Women don't get pregnant on their own. Your choice was to have sex with her or not. Her choice was to have sex with you or not. She gets pregnant both of you are responsible, but it is ultimately the woman's decision whether to carry that pregnancy to term or not.

What you are sponsoring is imposing more burdens on pregnant women. If you don't want children and then the law "decides" that you shouldn't have responsibility, then what choice does a woman have other than abort a baby she can't support on her own. So much for reduction of abortions.

One more thing. People like you who have no idea what that kind of decision entails, talk about "adoption" as if it was a great and cool thing to do. Now, a woman not only has to carry a pregnancy to term, but also after 9 long months of bearing a child in her womb, now she has to give her baby away...

MEN, IF YOU DON'T WANT CHILDREN, MAKE SURE YOU USE PROTECTION AND THAT YOU TALK TO YOUR GIRLFRIEND BEFORE YOU HAVE YOUR MOMENT OF PLEASURE!

Women do not have to have an abortion, or raise the child. They can adopt the child out, or in most states, drop the kid off at an emergency room with no questions asked. CFM will NOT allow a man to tell you when to have a child. It only says that the father can opt out of financial, as well as emotional responsibility

Responsibility is the key? Where is the responsibility of all women who have had an abortion?

Apparently you still don't understand what I'm talking about here. It has to do with the Constitution and gender equality. I hope you're not pro-choice, because that would really be two-faced. :o

So you'd rather minimize the burden put on women by maximizing the burden put on men, to the tune of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, extra overtime, deteriorated health, ruined social life, ad nauseum, so women can satisfy their maternal cravings?

Sounds kinda sociopathic to me. Isn't that when a person has no feeling for the way their actions make others feel, or the harm that may come to others? Or are you a bigot towards men?

Why should a man have to relieve some maternal-hormone junkie's self imposed burden ? Because he had sex? Kind of makes these women into legal prostitutes. "Catch the golden sperm and win eighteen years of cash for you and yours. Step right up folks, step on up!"
I can almost hear the circus theme playing in the background.

When you impose this burden on a man you
1. Deprive him of the choice of parenthood.
2. Minimize his chances of having a real family
3. Impute his income, including overtime, thereby ensuring he has to work overtime for eighteen years.
4. Deteriorate his health from the overtime.
5. Risk jailtime if arrearages ocurr.
6. Interrupt his education, career
7. Increase the likely hood of suicide
8. Ruin his credit rating
9. Make him have to deal with a draconian family court system that is reminiscent of a kangaroo court and fiefdom rolled into one.
10. I think the previous 9 reasons are enough to make any compassionate person wince.

Some people only scream Constitutional Rights! when it's their rights being violated. That's a shame. <_<

ITA!

EXACTLY!!!

Why should a woman carry all the responsibility - 'cause that is what you're advocating here?!!

If a MAN CHOOSES TO HAVE SEX, HE CHOOSES RESPONSIBILITY!!! You are AS RESPONSIBLE!!! you KNEW, SHE COULD GET PREGNANT AND HAD SEX ANYWAY!!!

GROW UP!!!

if you dont want to grow up and take responsibility - THEN DON'T HAVE SEX, TOO!

EITHER WAY, A WOMAN RISKS MUCH, MUCH MORE THAN A MAN EVER WILL.

if she chooses abortion, SHE MAY LOSE HER ABILITY TO EVER HAVE CHILDREN, NOT YOU!

if she chooses pregnancy, SHE WILL FACE THE RISKS AND LABOUR, NOT YOU!

QUIT WHINING!!!
YOU GOT THE EASIEST PART!!!

Equal rights is equal rights. You insist that women get sole and exclusive rights to decide about our children because women are women and me are not women. Many people do not support your completely sexist women-only view. Many others hold deep feelings about equality even if they don't articulate them.

The abortion wars won't ever be resolved until equality is restored. If women are willing to share power, if women continue to demand exclusive rights, those rights will be taken away and equality will be restored.

Bob

err...bob...
it will be a woman's right until science enables men to take the risks the woman has to take now.

please read my post - a woman takes more risks, not the least of them endangering her life on both occasions that may follow after pleasure (and even that not always mutual).

IT ISN'T EQUAL NOW!

A MAN DOESN'T HAVE TO FEAR INFECTION FOLLOWING ABORTION, CAUSE HE HAD SEX.

A MAN DOESN'T HAVE TO FEAR LIFETIME INFERTILITY FOLLOWING ABORTION.

A MAN DOESN'T HAVE TO FEAR BLEEDING TO DEATH WHEN GIVING BIRTH.

NOT SPEAKING ABOUT PAIN, SWELLING, NAUSEA, BACK-PAINS DURING PREGNANCY - ALSO REDUCED ATTRACTIVENESS MEN'LL FAULT HER.
------------------------

MILLIONS OF WOMEN DIE OR GET SERIOUS INJURIES EACH YEAR BEACAUSE OF PREGNANCY AND GIVING BIRTH, NOT MEN

THINGS ARE FAR FROM EQUAL!!!

GROW UP!
TAKE RESPONSIBILITY!!

NOBODY'S FORCING YOU TO HAVE SEX!!!

IF YOU WANT A SAFE WAY - YOU HAVE HANDS, RIGHT?
GET STERILIZED, IF YOU CAN'T HANDLE RESPONSIBILITY!!!
- who'd want a guy in denial, anyway? just the role model you want for your kids, right?

sounding like a certain triple-letter man in power? never responsible? always seeking a way to skip? 'my daddy went away one day and never came back'-type?

don't have sex if you're too immature to deal with consequences
nobody's forcing you

what is this with some men??? alway's looking for easy way out??? never had a decent role-model yourself???

If women are so much more responsbile than men, then why do women kill children 31 TIMES, not 31%, but 31 TIMES more often than bio-fathers do?

No, those numbers don't include abortions either. Personally, I support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, or not. But, when women start ranting about responsibility, or more specifically the lack thereof by men on issues about sex and birth they start to lose me and millions of others who feel the same way. That attitude of mocking men is why women are going to spend decades dealing with the new Supreme Court decisions.

Even when men support women's right to choose, apparently it's just not good enough for a lot of vocal women. I pitty the women who deserve the right to choose and understand that when children are brought into this world, BOTH parents ought to be meaningful parts of kids' lives.

I think we can have a decent discussion in here without screaming. Caps for a little emphasis is ok, but this is ridiculous. Screaming will not make this forum go away.

You want to discuss abortion, go to the reproductive rights forum. This forum is about CFM.

No one is telling women they have to abort or carry. THAT is THEIR choice. There are other alternatives.

You want an apology for what nature has endowed you with, go talk to nature, I will not apologize.

I have grown up, little girl. I have seen the misery on both sides of the equation. I raised my only son, alone. My father had a choice, never claimed me, never sent one penny of support, and I'm better off for it. He was able to make the choice to go on with his life and have the kind of family every person wants.

It seems to me that you are doing the whining. It's all about you. Your feelings, your choices, your body, your baby, your life. Your rant discusses things that MAY happen to a woman. If these risks are so high, why isn't the news full of stories about these problems? Because the risks are highly minimized by today's medical technology.

What CONSTITUTIONAL basis do you gleam your ranting from? What article or amendment can you quote to support your maternal rant? WHERE in OUR Constitution does it say that the genders are equal in everything, except reproductive and family law? It doesn't. It does say that all citizens will receive equal protection of the law.

Modern feminists have things so screwed up, that a man can be thrown in PRISON for failure to pay a debt, child support, in direct violation of the 13th amendment, which says the government CANNOT criminalize debt.

You need to grow up. Get your head out of the sand, and look around. Quit making men slaves to your maternal hormones. <_<

What is this responsibility you keep talking about? I can only assume you mean the responsibility you want to shove on men for the choice you make? Where is the responsibility of the millions of women who have abortions? They were able to avoid parental responsibility.

You keep talking abortion, we're talking choice. The choice to terminate parental rights and responsibilities. Abortion is one of several methods used to terminate parental rights and responsibilities.

You also want to shove feelings derived from maternal hormones down our throat. Your inability to overcome those hormones is akin to a randy young man that refuses to keep his hormones under control. Your desire to be a mommy has no Constitutional basis for dragging the father down with you.

LEGAL CHOICE is not about feelings, or hormones. It's about EQUALITY in the law.
If you can't get past your hormones, and discuss this rationally, we have nothing further to discuss.

"MEN, IF YOU DON'T WANT CHILDREN, MAKE SURE YOU USE PROTECTION AND THAT YOU TALK TO YOUR GIRLFRIEND BEFORE YOU HAVE YOUR MOMENT OF PLEASURE!"

"King" George is about to try and and change abortion law, removing choice from women as well. The above paragraph could very well read:

WOMEN, IF YOU DON'T WANT CHILDREN, MAKE SURE YOU USE PROTECTION AND THAT YOU TALK TO YOUR BOYFRIEND BEFORE YOU HAVE YOUR MOMENT OF PLEASURE!

If women want support for their cause, they need to support our cause. What goes around, comes around, as we men have seen.

[quote=tonysprout,Nov 12 2004, 02:41 PM]
I think we can have a decent discussion in here without screaming. Caps for a little emphasis is ok, but this is ridiculous. Screaming will not make this forum go away.
-------------------------
so sorry, of course everyone else who has feet-high letters in their post or signature has so much more right to do that than i do, in my case, i couldn't never have an actual point, all hormones....aww...

you happened, wisely, i believe, to choose one of the... few topics i have really strong feelings about. child porn is about the other one.
--------------------
You want to discuss abortion, go to the reproductive rights forum. This forum is about CFM.
-------------------
i posted in reply to posts. you - obviously - haven't noticed that being common practise here? a) people post in reply to topics; people post in reply to other posts, creating discussion..
--------------------
No one is telling women they have to abort or carry. THAT is THEIR choice. There are other alternatives.
-------------------
actually, you are trying to do just that - again, you probably just didn't notice...

if they get pregnant, these are the choices they face, or have you heard about some way to 'put the prbl on ice' for undefined time???

are you speaking about contraceptives? they may fail you.
AND THEN you're right back to the above.
i hope you're not also saying contraceptives are only women's issue...
----------------------
You want an apology for what nature has endowed you with, go talk to nature, I will not apologize.
-----------------------
I have asked no apology from you. daydreaming?
--------------
I have grown up, little girl. I have seen the misery on both sides of the equation. I raised my only son, alone. My father had a choice, never claimed me, never sent one penny of support, and I'm better off for it. He was able to make the choice to go on with his life and have the kind of family every person wants.
-----------------------
i'm so not getting your point here...
-------------
It seems to me that you are doing the whining. It's all about you. Your feelings, your choices, your body, your baby, your life. Your rant discusses things that MAY happen to a woman. If these risks are so high, why isn't the news full of stories about these problems? Because the risks are highly minimized by today's medical technology.
----------------------
DON*T LIKE THE FACTS???

the facts are, women risk so much more than men do. even if they use birth control, it may fail, they may get pregnant.

no risks... RIGHT!!

HOW COULD I BE SO NAIVE AND CONSIDER NON-AMERICAN, NON-EUROPEAN WOMEN AS HUMAN BEINGS AND INCLUDE THEM IN THE STATISTISC!!!

SHAME ON ME!!!

get full coverage in *every* case of flu?

------------------------
What CONSTITUTIONAL basis do you gleam your ranting from? What article or amendment can you quote to support your maternal rant? WHERE in OUR Constitution does it say that the genders are equal in everything, except reproductive and family law? It doesn't. It does say that all citizens will receive equal protection of the law.

Modern feminists have things so screwed up, that a man can be thrown in PRISON for failure to pay a debt, child support, in direct violation of the 13th amendment, which says the government CANNOT criminalize debt.
-----------------
'daddy' not paying is directly linked to the well-being of the child.

explain me, why there are so much more single moms than single dads?

now, if suddenly, far-far into the future, daddys startbringing up children, perhaps they'd get paid, too?

damn... they are... single dads getting alimonies... as we speak...
-------------------------------
You need to grow up. Get your head out of the sand, and look around. Quit making men slaves to your maternal hormones. <_<
----------------------
couldn't possibly be *more* offending?

unfortunately, my head IS out of the sand, and what i see, makes my heart bleed. no empathy required of you.

your choice of words makes it impossible for me to imagine you older than 15, 17 years tops.
-----------------
[quote=tonysprout,Nov 12 2004, 02:56 PM]
What is this responsibility you keep talking about? I can only assume you mean the responsibility you want to shove on men for the choice you make? Where is the responsibility of the millions of women who have abortions? They were able to avoid parental responsibility.
----------------------------
the responsibility for your actions. so hard to understand?

what choice??? shove how???

takes 2 to tango...

i'm trying to keep it simple for you.
this is kinda like EULA - 'accept terms before proceeding'.

when you have sex, you know there is possibility of pregnancy - AND YOU ACCEPT THIS POSSIBILITY.
nobody forcec you to accept the terms - you can walk away, 'abort' your action - just like with EULA.

BUT WHEN YOU DO ACCEPT THE TERMS, THEY BECOME BINDING, LEGALLY. you don't accept the terms - walk away; you stay - terms become binding.
it is that simple.

YOU ARE CLAIMING HERE WOMEN WHO ABORT HAVE A CHOICE. that's pure demagoguery. many of them don't.

many of them can't afford to raise children alone - guys wanting their 'choice' go awol; they only wanted a quick f****, anyway...

and in every case, they risk death, infertility. great choices... the guy got what he wanted - his 5min, and she has to choose between pregnancy (not always wanted...) that will mess up her life and dreams she had, if she had them, and possibility of never having children.

btw, you seem to have some grudge abt raising your son alone.... and preferring not to - have you, *ever*, done anything about the fact many doctors, hospitals are violently OPPOSED to giving them choice, in the first place? that a lot of women NEVER get to choose NOT HAVING the baby???
-------------------------
You keep talking abortion, we're talking choice. The choice to terminate parental rights and responsibilities. Abortion is one of several methods used to terminate parental rights and responsibilities.
-------------------
i'm talking about a lot of things you don't want to notice
-----------------------
You also want to shove feelings derived from maternal hormones down our throat. Your inability to overcome those hormones is akin to a randy young man that refuses to keep his hormones under control. Your desire to be a mommy has no Constitutional basis for dragging the father down with you.

LEGAL CHOICE is not about feelings, or hormones. It's about EQUALITY in the law.
If you can't get past your hormones, and discuss this rationally, we have nothing further to discuss.
---------------------
LEGAL... look 'EULA' above.

did you notice we're speaking different language?

while i talk about men who want to skip responsibility, you want to make every argument i make 'hormonal' issue...
that is derogatory towards women. i couldn't possibly say anything worth hearing, cause i'm high on hormones... that all you've got?! phew!

YOU REFUSE MY ARGUMENTS BASED ON MY HORMONES. while i attack your arguments, you attack my sex...
which one of us has 'issues'?

and the 'question': why the hell do you choose to have sex with somebody you'll never want to have family with?
deceiving her to get satisfaction? you are also responsible for birth control, should you choose not to have children. perhaps YOU should stop shoving all responsibility on women..

"YOU REFUSE MY ARGUMENTS BASED ON MY HORMONES. while i attack your arguments, you attack my sex...
which one of us has 'issues'?"

You have NEVER responded to my argument, which, again, is that the Constitution of the USA guarantees equal protection under the law, therefore, CFM.

Your responses are hormonal diatribes against what you consider sleazy.


"...and the 'question': why the hell do you choose to have sex with somebody you'll never want to have family with?"

Sex happens. Have you noticed?

"...while i talk about men who want to skip responsibility, you want to make every argument i make 'hormonal' issue...
that is derogatory towards women. i couldn't possibly say anything worth hearing, cause i'm high on hormones... that all you've got?! phew!"

It has to be hormones, because nothing you have said is a rational LEGAL argument against CFM.

"did you notice we're speaking different language?"

Yes. I'm speaking rationally.

"btw, you seem to have some grudge abt raising your son alone.... and preferring not to - have you, *ever*, done anything about the fact many doctors, hospitals are violently OPPOSED to giving them choice, in the first place? that a lot of women NEVER get to choose NOT HAVING the baby???"

I have NO grudge against the wonderful experience of raising my son.
We're not talking about what hospitals and doctors do; we're talking about what is legal or not. If a woman can't get an abortion, she should take it up with the courts.

"YOU ARE CLAIMING HERE WOMEN WHO ABORT HAVE A CHOICE. that's pure demagoguery. many of them don't."

Each and every American female of legal age has a LEGAL choice to terminate parental rights and responsibilities, or not to terminate. What you speak of is that not every woman has the financial or emotional wherewithal to terminate. There's a BIG difference, as in every American has a legal choice to own a gas guzzling SUV, but not everyone has the cash, or they may be opposed to SUVs.

"when you have sex, you know there is possibility of pregnancy - AND YOU ACCEPT THIS POSSIBILITY.
nobody forcec you to accept the terms - you can walk away, 'abort' your action - just like with EULA."

EULA protects both parties in that agreement. The EULA you speak of gives women control all of the rights to the "product", including destroying the "product" with no prior notice, or giving the "product" away.

You may also note that this EULA previously bound both parties to care for and support the "product". No EULA can be used to deprive a person of their rights under the Constitution, no matter how well written. The Supreme Court re-wrote this EULA in complete disregard of gender equality. I don't accept the terms of your EULA, and my Constitution says I don't have to.

"your choice of words makes it impossible for me to imagine you older than 15, 17 years tops."

I won't even go there. Personal insults will do you no good.

Again, please quote the article or amendment in the U.S. Constitution where it says that women have superior rights in reproductive and family law.
If you fail to respond this time, I will have no choice but to ignore you; and darn it, you're SO much fun.

Oh I have one little question here for those Men here who think they should be telling us women what to do with our bodies.

What if the pregnant girl was YOUR DAUGHTER? OR YOUR SISTER? What if the guy didn't want to take the responsibility of supporting the baby?

Would you still favor the MEN'S RIGHT TO DUCK RESPONSIBILITY? Or are rules different for your family?

Labor=Pain..............Pregnancy last nine months and changes one's body forever.

If men could have babies, there would be only one child per family.

Woman's body...........Woman's choice.

End of discussion as far as I am concerned.

If the world was full of bright rainbows and fuzzy soft clouds.....
If
If
If

You know I'm right. I may not be right in the moral sense, but neither is abortion. If you want Liberty for yourself to make things go right in your world, you have to give the same Liberty to others, even if your world falls apart.

Let Liberty flourish; the chips fall where they may.

Still no takers on the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause.

Answer my question... What if it was your daughter or sister?

I want a comment on the Constitutionality of CFM from you, first.
Can you come up with an Article, or an Amendment in the US Constitution that says men and women must be equal in everything, except reproductive and family law?
'Nuff said. <_<

'nuff said... You docked the question by asking a question... Clever. It is easy to scream and jump and say "WHERE ARE MY RIGHTS!" but then as soon as the tragedy hits close to you is another story...

Come on, be a hypocrite and tell me you would support the "choice" of the boy that got your daughter or sister pregnant over her well being... Let's see where your priorities are here.

How is being 31 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO KILL CHILDREN being more responsible than men? I already answered your question about a woman's right to choose (which incidentally is about to go away). Now, how about answering why women kill so many more kids than men do? If that is being more responsible, then we need more negligence.

Answer the question.

Let Liberty flourish; the chips fall where they may.

--------------------------------------------------------

This is about equal rights and options once the child is born. For someone representing the side of the argument which controls all the power, rights and political clout in this equation, your post seems both over emotional and irrational. I don't think asking for equal rights is whining as much as it is a duty. I'll do you the courtesy of omitting snappy insults and emoticons and represent my point of view with logic and reason.

Nature only discriminates on gender until the child is born, if you cannot reverse the rights the government currently awards based on gender and be happy with the result, then you have a clear violation of the spirit of the US constitution. After the baby is born, it's no longer a question of a woman's body, it's a question of who is going to raise this kid and who is going to pay for that.

Question: Would you be FOR forcing women who give their children up for adoption to pay support to the parents who raise it?

Question: Would you be FOR forcing unwed mothers to give the child to the father and then pay support to the father?

Question: Would you be FOR putting mothers in jail if they didn't pay?

All are viable role reversals and no more absurd than the current laws. The argument "if she didn't want that financial burden, she could have chosen to not have sex," is pale in this light. Clearly this is not about 'ducking responsibility' because women enjoy and exercise their right to duck it already.

Women have the 'right' to relinquish their responsibility through abortion, abandonment and adoption. No strings attached. Somehow this is OK, but when a man doesn't want to pay for someone elses post conception choice he's a deadbeat?

I've said numerous times that I believe a woman should have the right to choose whether she has an abortion, or not. How many more times do you want me to say it?

Now, how is that women being 31 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO KILL CHILDREN than biological fathers a show of more responsibility?

I'll answer it. I would support that VERY much.

Did my daughter or sister KNOW she could get pregnant when she had sex? YES
Did she have sex w/out the mutual intent of creating a child? YES

What are my daughter's or sister's options?

1- She can see if the guy is ready to be a father. (if no then...2)
2- She can choose to raise it on her own (if she can't afford it then...3)
3- She can have an abortion (if it's against her moral beliefs then...4)
4- She can give it up for adoption to two loving and financially capable parents. (and... 5)
5- Get on with her life with no strings attached.

What are your brother or son's options?
1- he can pay support. (if he can't afford it or doesn't want to....2)
2- he can lose his house, car, drivers license, professional licenses (then....3)
3- he can go to jail. (if he can't handle this....4)
4- he can die.

Let's see... What if your "daughter" or "sister" doesn't want to have an abortion but the guy is not cooperating... What would your reaction be? Let's see what kind of hypocrites we have here...

I'll tell you something if my brother (I do have one) got a girl pregnant, I would tell him to support her no matter what; it is his responsibility. My brother has been very responsible and has not gotten any girl pregnant, but he has told me that he would support the girl in her decision whatever that may be... I call that integrity.

I guess you stopped reading by the woman's option 4.

AND if your brother REALLY wanted to be a stand up guy and father figure and raise that child and have partial custody but the mom wanted him to have no part in it other than to pay the child support bill monthly? So much for his integrity eh?

You see, you're not only robbing your brother of equal rights, you are also robbing a child of the right to have equal access to two parents. I'd say your brother should have the right to say that the child deserves better if he is being forced to finance the choice.

I underlined that last line there for a reason. If the decision is ultimately the woman's to carry a pregnancy to term or not, and only hers then she should bear sole responsibilty for her actions. Equality means both have a choice. You or I may not agree with the choice that a woman or man makes but it is their choice to make it. What about the father who wants his child but the mother wishes to abort it? He has no recourse but to live with her decision but he has to pay for a child he doesn't want because the mother wants to keep the child?



As others have mentioned before, there is adoption or abandonment at a hospital etc..



I have no illusions as to how hard it would be to give up a child for adoption. I doubt I could do it unless I absolutely could not afford raise the child on my own etc.. Sadly, sometimes we humans put ourselves into difficult if not impossible situations and we have to make a tough hard choice.



You could say the same thing about women who have had abortions. As well, yes I would be ultimately tolerant with a man abandoning his child even if it were my daughter or sister who was pregnant. Now, I may not like it at all, I doubt I'd respect him, and I may be apt to get some guys together and talk some sense into him but that is his choice.

I answered your question. Now, you answer mine.

I have yet to see any anti-CFM people dispute my 14th amendment claim for CFM.
C'mon, give me something to work with here, people.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That's another misandrist bigoted way that women have enjoyed special benefits and rights. During the 20th century huge amunts of money have been spent on research for women's health and reproductive needs. The massive spending of governemnt and private funds has resulted in a wide variety of birth control options for women. Meanwhile, NO MONEY has been spent on research for men's reproductive needs. Men are still limited to crude 19th century devices. Bigotry, discrimination, and misandry is rampant and displayed in your argument.

Bob

So how does Roe v. Wade comply with Amendment XIV?

Oh, I forgot, men are not people under the current courts.

What if my sister or daughter was a member of NOW and demanded that the man be held responsible to support her and her child? Your misandrist rhetoric and the "what ifs" don't make a logical argument.



My family is the same as yours or anyone elses. My sons deserve EQUAL RIGHTS!!!

Bob