Jane Roe wants Roe v. Wade overturned

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 6/19/2003, 4:20 pm

some of us like to have sex though.

while i agree that we should be accountable for our actions, i think that we need fairness under the law.

Axtech · Post by **Axtech** » 6/19/2003, 4:24 pm

There's more to sex than just having children.

nelison · Post by **nelison** » 6/19/2003, 4:25 pm

but it's the only reason sex exists

Axtech · Post by **Axtech** » 6/19/2003, 4:26 pm

It's the original reason, yes. But not the only reason any more.

Sufjan Stevens · Post by **Sufjan Stevens** » 6/19/2003, 4:29 pm

Man, if you live your life believing sex is only there for procreation, I feel sorry for you. Because if that's the case for you, then you're looking at having sex two or three times in your life. Both men and women get pleasure out of it, that's how it goes. Not everyone wants to be a parent at anytime.

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 6/19/2003, 6:38 pm

Allowing a woman to have an abortion means that she no longer has to be accountable for her actions.

nelison · Post by **nelison** » 6/19/2003, 6:42 pm

For Your Lungs Only wrote:Man, if you live your life believing sex is only there for procreation, I feel sorry for you. Because if that's the case for you, then you're looking at having sex two or three times in your life. Both men and women get pleasure out of it, that's how it goes. Not everyone wants to be a parent at anytime.

I know that sex is about pleasure, I just mean in a legal aspect you can make the debate that its main reason is to procreate.

One-Eye · Post by **One-Eye** » 6/19/2003, 7:17 pm

starving eyes wrote:what i want is for the father to have the same options as the mother. you have already indicated that you do not agree. why do men not deserve the same rights as women? please explain.

You misunderstand my position. What you want is sound - there should be no rights arbitrarily given to one gender and not the other. The right to have an abortion is no different. Men also, presumably, have the right to abort. Of course, since men can't get pregnant, it's moot. So <i>how</i> do you intend to give fathers the same rights as women? By outlawing abortion? That's the only way to make the rights of each potential parent equal, but then we lose choice altogether. The fact is that women give birth, not men. It isn't fair, but it's biology.

One-Eye · Post by **One-Eye** » 6/19/2003, 7:18 pm

Corey wrote:Allowing a woman to have an abortion means that she no longer has to be accountable for her actions.

One word for you, buddy: Rape.

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 6/19/2003, 7:58 pm

Aerin wrote:You misunderstand my position. What you want is sound - there should be no rights arbitrarily given to one gender and not the other. The right to have an abortion is no different. Men also, presumably, have the right to abort. Of course, since men can't get pregnant, it's moot. So <i>how</i> do you intend to give fathers the same rights as women? By outlawing abortion? That's the only way to make the rights of each potential parent equal, but then we lose choice altogether. The fact is that women give birth, not men. It isn't fair, but it's biology.

How would i sugget men be granted equal rights with respect to potential parent-hood?

do away with child support & alimony payments, for one. get rid of the myth of the deadbeat dad. that's how. let a man walk away from a child in the same way that a woman is allowed to walk away from her pregnancy.

One-Eye · Post by **One-Eye** » 6/19/2003, 8:19 pm

Um. What about women? They should be allowed to walk away from the children, too. In utero, or any other time.

If we're talking fairness, here.

(I in no way agree with you, though)

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 6/19/2003, 11:09 pm

with that i disagree. at some point you have to be accountable. if the mother & father agree to have the baby, or even if only one parent ends up keeping the child, they should live up to the responsiblity. if they feel they can't, then there's always adoption. but christ, if you go through 9 months of pregnancy with the intention of keeping your child you think you'd stick to that decision.

of course you don't agree with me. running the risk of being cynical, what i'm saying is probably too logical. failing that, i see no reason why child support payments should still exist. it has been proven through anecdotal evidence time and time again that family court is unjust, and it is easily proven rationally that the concept of mandatory child support payments are unfair to the father.

if you disagree, for pete's sake please explain why.

One-Eye · Post by **One-Eye** » 6/19/2003, 11:53 pm

You DO know that most child support payments are mandated after a divorce WHEN THE CHILDREN ARE ALREADY BORN, right? It usually happens something like this: Mother and father are in some sort of committed relationship and have kids. Pregnancies are welcomed and brought to term. Then, relationship breaks up.

So tell me why mothers should be stuck with the financial (and emotional, and physical, blah blah blah) responsibility of their children, while fathers get off scot-free. Abortion is out of the picture. You can't just KILL the kids after they're born.

I'd support banning child support if the mother and father weren't in a legally binding relationship at the time the child is born. That takes care of the abortion issue. But if the parents are in a legally binding relationship (i.e. marriage) at the time the of the child(ren)'s birth, and then break up, child support is perfectly fair. To the mother, father, and child(ren).

emily · Post by **emily** » 6/20/2003, 5:34 am

If a child is brought in the world it is BOTH of the parents' responsibility to care for it, and it should be morally and lawfully wrong for one of the parents to walk away and leave the other parent with double the amount of responsibility. Child support pays for the time and effort the other parent doesn't want to put into the child. If you get rid of child support, are you going to force the father/mother who doesn't care for the child to love them and spend time with them?? I also think it is wrong for fathers/mothers who have left their child at a very young age to try to contact them and form a relationship with them later on. It puts an extreme amount of stress on the child and is not fair for the parent who has spent a lot of their life caring for the child.

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 6/20/2003, 6:15 am

Aerin wrote:
Corey wrote:Allowing a woman to have an abortion means that she no longer has to be accountable for her actions.

One word for you, buddy: Rape.

three words.

Day After Pill

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 6/20/2003, 8:47 am

well, in the situation of a divorce, the mother gets "stuck" with all the burden because she chooses to keep her kids.

if the father choose to become the parent, would you ask the mother to pay child support? why not?

One-Eye · Post by **One-Eye** » 6/20/2003, 9:11 am

Yes. Because fair is fair.

emily · Post by **emily** » 6/20/2003, 3:24 pm

I would also, but most of the time the mother is going to take the child because she's become attached after having it in her for 9 months. This is not in the situation of a divorce, but when the two people aren't married.

One-Eye · Post by **One-Eye** » 6/20/2003, 7:13 pm

That's her choice, though. She would know that because she chose to get pregnant without being married she could very well end up raising the child with no physical, emotional, or financial support.

Neil · Post by **Neil** » 6/22/2003, 5:33 am

I think the woman is crazy......crazy.....without a doubt. Take make such a landmark event than now say "oh...I want that overrturned". I hope the judge physically laughs in her face.

Anybody who chooses to represent this woman in court obviously was doing bong shots off the same shit that she was.

ClumsyMonkey.net

ClumsyMonkey.net

Jane Roe wants Roe v. Wade overturned