Let us Re-visit Abortion, Here Are Some Proposals

If intercourse was engaged in for physical desire, for fun, then I see it that if pregnancy ensues that the man has no right to make claims of ownership on any aspect of the woman's body, this includes anything that grows within her as part of her body. Likewise, if a woman becomes pregnant during 'fun' sex and becomes pregnant then she should have no recourse to claim the man as being responsible in any case.

This is interesting. I'd be curious to know what pro-abortion people think about it. If a woman has the right to decide whether she aborts her child, regardless of the fathers wishes, then a woman shouldn't be able to compel a man to take responsibility for the child if she decides to have it.

Again, just curious about what pro-abortion people think about that.

FIRST - - - before anything else (by law) - - - MANDATORY Paternal DNA testing. Mandatory child support or drivers license revoked, and subject to arrest (either parent).

Before anything else - - - guarantee a living child will be taken care of (by law)- - - by both Sperm Donor (father) and Host (mother).

As far as the Sperm Donor (father) having control over a pregnancy - - - YOU picked the woman.

As women have been told for eons when men abandon them - - - it's YOUR fault - - you picked the wrong man. (Oh, and YOU should have kept your legs closed).

There are women who have carried a child to term for the father. Those men picked the right woman.

Otherwise - - - woman's body, woman's choice.

a reply to: dawnstar
Ok I am starting to understand better the position you are trying to explain from. You are worried that the father will put the mother in harms way due to a medical problem that is exempt under section one, lines a and b. I see I will need to re-word section 2 better to clarify that any exemptions that apply in section one will void the requirement for parental consent. Although many of the exemptions in section 1 would automatically overrule section 2, I did not write it out clearly enough and apologize. I never expected a woman have to risk her life for the consent implicated in section two, and will amend accordingly. My bad!
a reply to: TrueBrit
Well then, its clear you would not be a vote I can sway in any direction. I may have to focus marketing the commercials a little bit more frequently, and in a more sympathetic tone in your voting district, assuming this legislation was being submitted in your jurisdiction. I appreciate your opinions, they do still help me gather information even when 100% against, so I appreciate that.
a reply to: Annee
I am not necessarily against the mandatory DNA testing, it may actually prove to vindicate a man in the doctors office, and confirm suspicions of infidelity as well. The cost would have to be bore by the father in this case, with a refund issues and then charged to the mother if she was guilt of adultery

Hehe, no we can work out the cost structure later on. Child support and such would have to be a matter for Family court.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
And there is a flag planted inside that womb that happens to originate from the father.The Sperm that fertilized that egg, the genetic code. Would be nothing growing inside her womb if part of the fathers body was not already in there. We will just have to agree to disagree on this matter.

Call it a gift .... for it was given freely? and as a gift it belongs to the receiver?

GIFT: something given willingly without payment: a present.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

I don't care if religious women want to let their children die from fevers, their business by law. But these same people want punitive restrictions on other women making decisions about her personal health.

a reply to: Annee

As far as the Sperm Donor (father) having control over a pregnancy - - - YOU picked the woman.

And YOU picked the man, No?

As women have been told for eons when men abandon them - - - it's YOUR fault - - you picked the wrong man. (Oh, and YOU should have kept your legs closed).

That has a vengeful quality to it.

Anyway

Here is an article by a Woman, a professor of philosophy and women's studies:

Link

She argues that men shouldn't be forced into paternity and "feminists should oppose policies that make fatherhood compulsory"

From the article:

The political philosopher Elizabeth Brake has argued that our policies should give men who accidentally impregnate a woman more options, and that feminists should oppose policies that make fatherhood compulsory. In a 2005 article in the Journal of Applied Philosophy she wrote, “if women’s partial responsibility for pregnancy does not obligate them to support a fetus, then men’s partial responsibility for pregnancy does not obligate them to support a resulting child.” At most, according to Brake, men should be responsible for helping with the medical expenses and other costs of a pregnancy for which they are partly responsible.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry

a reply to: Annee
I am not necessarily against the mandatory DNA testing, it may actually prove to vindicate a man in the doctors office, and confirm suspicions of infidelity as well.

Why would you be against it at all? Yes it would work both ways. Not many catch that.

The cost would have to be bore by the father in this case, with a refund issues and then charged to the mother if she was guilt of adultery

IMO all DNA Paternal testing should be paid for by the state. That allows zero excuse not to. In the long run the state will save money by not having to support children abandoned by their sperm donor.

Child support and such would have to be a matter for Family court.

Certainly helps if they know who the Sperm Donor is.

a reply to: MOMof3

any reasons needing abortion related to medical health issues are covered under section 1 exemptions a and b. Also, a woman who really wants to reassess her life after having the permitted per annum serious life decision done will be contemplating their choices in life knowing the consequences of a repeat.

It is my firm belief any individual granted the privilege of termination of life is more likely to refocus their goals in life and drive more women into the fields of science, engineering, and mathematics where historically there are claims of under representation. Part of that is partying without consequences for irresponsible behavior, which also statistically increases the chances of spreading infectious diseases as well. I feel like men should also bear some responsibility for the burden, so I offer to introduce some penalties for the fathers as well for their role in these instances.

originally posted by: Annee
IMO all DNA Paternal testing should be paid for by the state. That allows zero excuse not to. In the long run the state will save money by not having to support children abandoned by their sperm donor.

Well, I can agree with your sentiment 75%, but I just don't feel the tax payer should write it off entirely. Say, pay for the procedure so it IS done no mater what, but still bill the elective party for the cost.

Its been a long day, and there are lots of ideas to work with. I clearly have determined that we need to add at least 3 more sections, clean up and consolidate the exemptions list a little more neatly, and clarify some matters not specifically addressed about . It will take me a few days to update this rough draft, but we have made lots of progress!

I also just want to say to everyone who participated seriously, that this was a wonderful demonstration of a true Democratic process and lesson in writing law. A good dozen or close to it of us came together, with strikingly differing opinions on the topic, voiced our concerns, received some positive and negative feedback and constructive criticism to work on a piece of law in progress. I also get a lesson on just how difficult it is to write a piece of law with the intent of satisfying all parties, and the reaffirmation that many times others will just refuse to compromise on an issue. And it is their right to voice such concerns, and we will receive it with respect. For this is merely a piece to be voted on in a series of votes, and is not a law that will simply be hammered down without debate. Keep that in mind!! Civics is fun.

originally posted by: imwilliam
a reply to: Annee

Here is an article by a Woman, a professor of philosophy and women's studies:

Link

She argues that men shouldn't be forced into paternity and "feminists should oppose policies that make fatherhood compulsory"

I have never known a man be forced to have unprotected sex with a

woman so as to become a father!!


It is a necessary economical policy.

The exorbitant cost of an infant to adulthood has to be borne by someone?

better the sperm donor than the tax payer?


Fatherhood is not and never has been compulsory, ( proved by the large amount

of absentee fathers) But the support of their progeny should be.

From the article:

The political philosopher Elizabeth Brake has argued that our policies should give men who accidentally impregnate a woman more options, and that feminists should oppose policies that make fatherhood compulsory. In a 2005 article in the Journal of Applied Philosophy she wrote, “if women’s partial responsibility for pregnancy does not obligate them to support a fetus, then men’s partial responsibility for pregnancy does not obligate them to support a resulting child.” At most, according to Brake, men should be responsible for *helping with the medical expenses and other costs of a pregnancy* for which they are partly responsible.

Now that paints a picture .... accidentally impregnate a woman like

he tripped over her vagina?


*Helping with medical expenses and other costs of pregnancy*

Its more than that ... Its economically equal to an 18 year mortgage

a reply to: eletheia

It's beyond an 18 year commitment.... Sometimes we push our little birds out of the nest, and they come back, sometimes... With little birdies of their own.

present day child support is the result of our gov't trying to reduce the need for welfare by trying to legally force fathers to at least partially support their children...
and it was those conservative, anti-socialist, welfare hating people who liked the idea the most..
the way the laws are now (temporary in nature), for them to even have a chance to succeed.... father's have to step up to the plate and pitch in!!

This history appears at first to have been similar to early English history of child support. In the latter case, communities (parishes) rescued destitute people, including lone mothers and children, often by putting them to work, and then attempted to recoup their costs from relatives such as fathers. The money was limited to amounts needed to avoid destitution, and was claimed by the community, not by individuals such as the lone mother or personal helpers of the lone mother.

Later, the systems diverged. The English (then the UK) child support approaches became an addition to "the welfare state". The National Assistance Act 1948 saw the state implicitly taking on some of the responsibilities that would once have been between local communities and relatives.The state (taxpayers!) eventually provided universal family allowances (called "Child Benefit" for the last decades). Most other "Western" countries had something similar. Nations with somewhat socialist tendencies such as Denmark were able to have much milder child support systems. Such universal benefits lessened or delayed the need for aggressive child support, such as enacting criminal offences.

In contrast, the USA developed more aggressive child support obligations during the 19th Century, with criminal law being enacted for the "affront" of fathers causing mothers and their children to become a burden on the community. That perhaps reduced the motivation for such universal family allowances. While there were federal initiatives such as AFDC for poorer children, there was little for better off lone parents and their children. In the late 20th Century, AFDC was replaced with TANF (T = temporary), and this will make timely child support even more imperative in the USA. Child support is typically an anti-socialist measure, aimed at reducing welfare spending, and the USA has looked to it to assist with its anti-socialist / anti-welfare policies such as TANF. However, it is probably not (yet?) effective enough for the purpose. GAO.

www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk...

you can be against these welfare programs and be against child support, unless you have no problem with children living in a kind of proverty we haven't seen in this country in a long time. and, if you happen to be a father just not wanting to have to support your kid, well, ask yourself if you really would life to see that kid out on the street dumpster diving for their food clothes in rags.

originally posted by: daryllyn
a reply to: eletheia

It's beyond an 18 year commitment.... Sometimes we push our little birds out of the nest, and they come back, sometimes... With little birdies of their own.

OMG - - your kid is forever your kid.

They never go away

originally posted by: eletheia

Now that paints a picture .... accidentally impregnate a woman like

he tripped over her vagina?

But, of course, its still her fault.

She dropped the aspirin.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
gree with your sentiment 75%, but I just don't feel the tax payer should write it off entirely. Say, pay for the procedure so it IS done no mater what, but still bill the elective party for the cost.

Not only do I support all Mandatory Paternity DNA tests should be free (paid for by government).

I support free abortions and all forms of birth control.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: daryllyn
a reply to: eletheia

It's beyond an 18 year commitment.... Sometimes we push our little birds out of the nest, and they come back, sometimes... With little birdies of their own.

OMG - - your kid is forever your kid.

They never go away

People act as if the responsibility for the child ends at age 18, when it doesn't.

Maybe their legally mandated financial support ends at age 18, but there is a hell of a lot more to it than that.

They still need various types of support well into adulthood.

originally posted by: daryllyn

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: daryllyn
a reply to: eletheia

It's beyond an 18 year commitment.... Sometimes we push our little birds out of the nest, and they come back, sometimes... With little birdies of their own.

OMG - - your kid is forever your kid.

They never go away

People act as if the responsibility for the child ends at age 18, when it doesn't.

Maybe their legally mandated financial support ends at age 18, but there is a hell of a lot more to it than that.

They still need various types of support well into adulthood.

I'm living with one of mine now,

Raising my 8 year old grandson. His father died.

Well, thanks for the responses, they're what I expected.

But I think Ms. Brake's arguments are more logical, if you start from the premise that woman have a right to abort their child or not, regardless of what the father wants.

Seems to me like arguments contrary to Ms. Brake position, among those that believe in a woman's right to abort her child, lack integrity, structural integrity that is. They involve a double standard at the least.

For my part, I don't believe abortions should be allowed accept in very limited circumstances and I do believe that Father's should support their children, financially and otherwise, so the cognitive dissonance created by holding the notion that a woman can choose whether or not to accept her responsibilities or not, while a man has no choice in the matter, is not mine to resolve.

There's a lot of schizophrenia in our corpus of law. Seems to me that a discussion about a new abortion law that doesn't take into account a father's role, just adds to it.

Anyway, again thanks for the responses.