Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
Research Chemical SciencesUGFREAKeudomestic
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsResearch Chemical SciencesUGFREAKeudomestic

Roe v. Wade for Men

musclemom said:
You can probably have it removed if you get a DNA test that proves you aren't the father.

It's possible for a birth certificate to read Unknown in either or both parental name spaces ...

A birth certificate is first and formost, identification that the individual is a legal citizen of the United States, having been born within its borders.

Yes, but if the father doesn't want the mother to have the child. Should his name be put on the certificate?? Does it have to be there?
 
velvett said:
I'm not sure how "financial responsibity" can equate to "reproductive rights" in this young man's case nor do I understand how choosing whether or not a fertilized egg will be given the opportunity to be born into the world to equate to choosing whether or not one chooses to be financial responsible for this unborn life.

To me Roe vs Wade for men would be for the conditions in which a man is not informed of conception and that potential offspring was terminated without his input. Or rather his input was given to terminate and the mother chose to keep the child without his knowledge and later came to him for child support.

That said, if you are adult enough to have sex you best be adult enough to accept that people will lie, that you need to be more responsible than the person you're having sex with and suck it up when you fuck up or in some cases accept the gift you have been given in this life.

All I see from this is 25 year old pissed that he has a kid to pay for and bunch people taking this opportunity to bridge their own agenda through this young man.

This is the "If the guy doesn't want financial responsibility he should just keep his dick in his pants" argument.

Let's try a slightly different scenario... something sexual but non-reproductive. Let's say a guy is HIV-positive, but chooses to not tell his partners. Isn't it reasonable for a woman to assume that anytime she's having sex, she knows to use protection anyway? And, if the man gives the unknowing female HIV, should he bear any financial or criminal responsibility? I mean... doesn't the woman know the risks of sex in general? Should we just say "hey, you should have held a quarter between your knees instead."?
 
Still no tits. I don't know why I stick around this place.
 
God. I agree with the financial responsibility part, but who could have a part of them walk around and just say "fuck it, I didn't want it" ?

Wow. Maybe it's because I'm thinking of being a dad, but damn.

Bitches man.... bitches. And doods.
 
nycgirl said:
Yes, but if the father doesn't want the mother to have the child. Should his name be put on the certificate?? Does it have to be there?
Interesting questions. The parents sign the birth certificate, so if the father disputes the child then obviously he can refuse to sign the document and if he doesn't sign, then no name is listed for father but beyond that ??? it's a question for a family court specialist. As regarding getting his name removed because he never wanted the child ... hmm, interesting. Not wanting to be a parent, not being interested in participating in the childs life versus the fact of being the biological father are two different things.
 
musclemom said:
Interesting questions. The parents sign the birth certificate, so if the father disputes the child then obviously he can refuse to sign the document and if he doesn't sign, then no name is listed for father but beyond that ??? it's a question for a family court specialist. As regarding getting his name removed because he never wanted the child ... hmm, interesting. Not wanting to be a parent, not being interested in participating in the childs life versus the fact of being the biological father are two different things.

Yes, it is. That's why I asked. I've heard stories of girls doing that on PURPOSE. Or, the flipside, they will leave him off on PURPOSE and the baby will have her name so they can get welfare and food stamps, etc. :rolleyes:
 
jnevin said:
God. I agree with the financial responsibility part, but who could have a part of them walk around and just say "fuck it, I didn't want it" ?

Wow. Maybe it's because I'm thinking of being a dad, but damn.

Bitches man.... bitches. And doods.


that's the way my ex and I thought about it. Sure some of it was because we were only 16 at the time but we both said to each other that we didn't want any fucking kids. So, we didn't
 
jnevin said:
God. I agree with the financial responsibility part, but who could have a part of them walk around and just say "fuck it, I didn't want it" ?

Wow. Maybe it's because I'm thinking of being a dad, but damn.

Bitches man.... bitches. And doods.

OH, there are people out there like that. They won't give a damn either way.
 
mrplunkey said:
This is the "If the guy doesn't want financial responsibility he should just keep his dick in his pants" argument.

Let's try a slightly different scenario... something sexual but non-reproductive. Let's say a guy is HIV-positive, but chooses to not tell his partners. Isn't it reasonable for a woman to assume that anytime she's having sex, she knows to use protection anyway? And, if the man gives the unknowing female HIV, should he bear any financial or criminal responsibility? I mean... doesn't the woman know the risks of sex in general? Should we just say "hey, you should have held a quarter between your knees instead."?

No, of course not - there was no malicious intent.

It's not a man or woman thing it's a responsibilty thing and anything that is sexual IS about reproductive sex organs.

I am also of the belief that woman should assume the responsibilty of not getting herself pregnant as it is her body that will carry a child and men should be more concerned about how they will father this child, mentor this child and see to it that this child has a life better than his own rather than if he'll "get stuck" paying child support.

Finances does not equate fatherhood.
 
Interesting. If the woman chooses to keep the child and the man has to pay support, the man should get joint custody if he wants it and noone should pay child support.
 
Top Bottom