"much like 'pro-life' is hardly an accurate characterization. those who are opposed to abortion are not that respectful or concerned for the sanctity of post-partum life. if they were, they wouldnt be the ones standing in the way of providing desperately poor women third world countries with a sterile cloth on which to give birth so as to minimize the chances of them contracting deadly infections.

Thanks Kingbee, you never cease to bore me with your innane generalities.

you never cease to bore me with your innane generalities

never let it be said i dont pander to my fans. you'll find some inane details here:

Link

Even if they were, so what? Don't they have a say in who is also their child when it comes to money?

i'd respond to this if i had the slightest idea what the hell youre tryin to say.

Great article Gideon. Maybe I'm getting old but I think we need to challenge the status quo and many of the 'conventional wisdom' assumptions that are built in to our current system.

-End mandatory child support.
-End welfare for single moms.
-Outlaw alimony/palimony.
-Outlaw abortion. With two million abortions a year in the USA the odds are pretty good that the 30 year old you met at the club last weekend has had at least one abortion, and that can't be good for her mental health - or for any prospective relationship.
-Make adultery a felony.
-Give custody to whichever parent earns more cash and can actually support the child.
-If a marriage ends in divorce the children become wards of the state, and the failed parents are forbidden from contacting their children.

I don't necessarily agree with the above suggestions but someone has to get the ball rolling. I believe the greatest challenge facing our society today (I'm speaking in Canadian terms but I think this holds true among most societies) is the breakdown of the family. We spend too much time dicking around with relatively peripheral stuff like gay marriage and it's time we bring the conversation around to what's really important.

David St. Hubbins

you never cease to bore me with your innane generalitiesnever let it be said i dont pander to my fans. you'll find some inane details here:

Sorry about that reply Kingbee, I was tired and felt like crap last night. The truly ironic part of my whole posting was how innane a generilazation it was in itself.

"Pro choice" is either about "choice" or it's just another meaningless rhetorical buzzword. (much like "Pro-Life")"much like 'pro-life' is hardly an accurate characterization. those who are opposed to abortion are not that respectful or concerned for the sanctity of post-partum life. if they were, they wouldnt be the ones standing in the way of providing desperately poor women third world countries with a sterile cloth on which to give birth so as to minimize the chances of them contracting deadly infections.

If I may, here's what I really have to say about your posting here.

Pro-life and Pro-choice can be accurately characterized as politically opposite buzzwords. Both are meant to solicite a reaction either for or against legal abortion on demand, but like all buzzwords, they fail under scrutiny. People who claim to be "pro-life" (as you point out) don't always respect life as much as the buzzword would suggest, but then again (as Gideon points out) "choice" isn't very often an accurate characterization of the "pro choice" side either. People should just say what they mean, instead of relying on cliche'd buzzwords.

I have a funny feeling the entire conversation would be different if men could have babies!

Not from my angle it wouldn't. I believe marriage is a commitment that should last a lifetime and that a father should be a father in every sense of the word, providing his children with physical, emotional and material needs. IDEALLY, it would be so. BUT, federal courts have consistently ruled that a father has NO say in whether a woman gets an abortion (even if they ARE married), and thus, from the standpoint of the federal courts, the father is persona non grata as far as making decisions as to the life or the death of the baby, yet they want a double standard that holds him financially accountable regardless.

Funny thing, though--I've never heard of a case where a man contested an abortion a woman had.

I've known of DIVORCES that have occured because the woman exercised her "right to choose" in order to spite the husband.

you alluded to the possibility of a woman discovering she was pregnant and then filing a rape charge. in the thread for that same blog, you mentioned women who seem to aggresively leap on any erect penis available in hopes of knocking themselves up(i dont recall the exact wording unfortunately).

Actually, the first instance was an illustration of why the rape/incest exception the conservatives demand wouldn't work as far as outlawing abortion; I further stated that there were a FEW unscrupulous women who would manipulate the system if that were the only reason for obtaining an abortion (and is one reason, despite my virulent opposition to abortion, I remain prochoice). The second was an obviously sarcastic remark to deflect the insinuation that the woman was somehow an innocent "victim" of impregnation by a man. If you recall, the article was about the double standard of forcing a married man to get his wife's permission for a vasectomy, while not requiring a wife's permission from her husband for an abortion.

Yup, this article pretty much disgusts me. Let's let dead beat dads off the hook. Sounds great.

Myrrander,

You're missing the point. It's about changing the legal double standard.

And as the child of an alleged "deadbeat dad" (my mother was instrumental in lobbying the Utah legislature to change their laws regarding deadbeat dads), I can tell you with absolute certainty that her case, at least, was completely fraudulent and came out of her desire to seek publicity (How do I KNOW it was fraudulent? My father paid through the County Clerk's office in his home county of Garfield County, Oklahoma...and he saved receipts. He allowed each one of us children to examine the receipts).

The point is, the dad isn't legally a dad when the fetus is in the woman's body. He has no say in medical care, etc (with our first child, I even had a doctor REFUSE to allow me to go back into the emergency room with my wife, who WANTED me in there with her), and yet, when the child arrives, he is expected to provide full and complete support until the child is 18. It is a double standard, plain and simple.

My suggestion revolves primarily around ending the double standard (although the argument, not initially mine, of indentured servanthood laws applying in this area is a compelling one to say the least). Personally, I think it would be best if each child were raised in the home of committed if not legally married parents, but the sad fact is, that isn't practical or even possible in many cases. There are a MINORITY (before this comes up wrongly as a stereotype, please read the definition of the word "minority") of women who have no problem with deliberately getting pregnant and using the child as a way to financially obligate the father.

Let me clarify one thing: If a child support settlement is reached in a divorce decision either argued before a judge or agreed upon by the father of the children, that settlement should be binding. It is a contract, and, in the case of a judgement, the father DOES have appeal rights. But in the way it is practiced currently, the LEGISLATURE has essentially made the decision absent a judge or a divorce agreement (example: my father in law, who shared custody of my sister in law, was required by law to pay child support, even though my sister in law spent half her time with him. Now, he was responsible and paid well over his share of her upkeep, but only because her mother agreed to take care of certain expenses to equal the child support she had been granted by the state...not all women are so generous in their application of child support).

People should just say what they mean, instead of relying on cliche'd buzzwords.

absolutely.

(i wish there was a rating beyond insightful like 'writer just earned a great deal of respect from me'...but since there isn't, i hope you'll take the 'insightful' you're getting from me to mean just that.)

The second was an obviously sarcastic remark to deflect the insinuation that the woman was somehow an innocent "victim" of impregnation by a man

i'm usually fairly well-attuned to sarcasm, but in this instance it escaped me. thanks for the clarification.

If a child support settlement is reached in a divorce decision either argued before a judge or agreed upon by the father of the children, that settlement should be binding. It is a contract, and, in the case of a judgement, the father DOES have appeal rights. But in the way it is practiced currently, the LEGISLATURE has essentially made the decision absent a judge or a divorce agreement

state child support laws exist to ensure both parents provide for any children they bring into the world and dont distinguish between--nor are they intended to burden or favor--fathers or mothers. the language in california's laws, for instance (id be surprised if this isnt the case elsewhere) refers only to custodial and noncustodial parent. the word 'father' appears only in those provisions relative to the need for and means of establishing paternity.

in other words, it's not an issue of 'deadbeat' dads or moms per se. both parents have a legal obligation to provide adequate financial support. the custodial parent's obligation isnt reduced by fact of custody, but costs of housing, etc. (which are open to judicial query) represent consideration. both custodial and non-custodial parents risk being adjudicated for default. that process--like a determination of paternity--isnt automatic and involves a judge.

if you were to insist on totally equal treatment of both parents, i guess we could legislate a maternity test as well but...(im just kidding)LOL

state child support laws exist to ensure both parents provide for any children they bring into the world and dont distinguish between--nor are they intended to burden or favor--fathers or mothers.

But the problem is, the father DOESN'T get a say in whether or not the child makes it into the world. That's what's at stake here, in my opinion, that the father is legally an unperson until the child is born, then he bears full responsibility.

Frankly, I would FAR prefer the father be given some say in the decision, but since numerous court decisions show that our professional jurists do not feel the same way, I DO feel it's time to end the double standard.

believe the greatest challenge facing our society today (I'm speaking in Canadian terms but I think this holds true among most societies) is the breakdown of the family. We spend too much time dicking around with relatively peripheral stuff like gay marriage and it's time we bring the conversation around to what's really important.

David, I gave you an 'insightful' for that statement.
Gideon, I see and agree with your point. However, having said that, men ought to start realizing that they cannot and should not take the woman's word for it when she says she's using contraception. They have to start being more proactive about it...and I know that there are a lot of men who do, but there are obviously those who do not.