I disagree with the euphemism “right to choose,” but I don’t necessarily disagree with you. Both the father and the baby are denied this right. As you pointed out, women are given special “rights” and privileges in this area.

A woman should never be allowed the option of infanticide on demand, especially if the father, who contributed 50% of the baby’s genetic package, is against it. Abortion has nothing to do with a woman’s “right” to control her body. Women lose what little control they have over their (usually fat and poorly maintained,) bodies the instant they become pregnant. It’s not the woman’s body that is most affected, it’s the baby’s/fetus’.

Right now, an American woman has the right to murder her unborn child against the father’s wishes. She also has the right to force the father to financially support a baby (the money is usually spent on herself,) he didn’t want her to have. You weren’t kidding about unequal treatment under the law.

The future will likely judge us harshly for the obscenity of abortion on demand.

you sound like a neurotic misandrist (quick, check a dictionary,) or a neutered girly-man.

Enjoy the ad hominem, because you didn’t have a coherent argument to refute.

What you?re talking about creating is a scenario in which any male could impregnate as many women as he feels like and not take any responsibility for this, so long as he formally disavows responsibility within the preordained time frame. Talk about the cure being worse than the ?disease!?

Aw man, if I’m coming across as a misogynist, you are seemingly a condescending person. Please tell me where all these women are that I can score with and then dump. I need some help here, (actually, I’m a nice guy, so I’ll treat them decent and let them down gently if things ain’t working out).

Let me tell you about a first date I had where the conversation turned abruptly toward the a$$ets in my 401k. I’d also like to note that she asked between appetizers and main course, so she was clever enough to at least get a meal out of it before I dropped her at the curb.

I find it insulting that women won’t know the score and start acting appropriately. I would hope most women would find that insulting too.

Just for modest proposal purposes, I’ll let any woman out of the proposed obligations, if she certifies herself as an idiot. She will, however, have to give up her franchise, but she gets to skip jury duty. To make things equal, we’ll figure out some kinda crap for men too.

I-got-pregnant-on-purpose-and-want-to-extort-money-from-you scenarios that are far less common than you seem to believe.

Hey, I get to quote me again.

SM: While I?m sure the numbers are quite small, I find it hard to believe that she doesn?t think there?s a single woman out there that gets ?accidentally? pregnant for all the wrong reasons, either as an attempt to salvage a relationship or as an attempt to trap a man into marriage (with child support being second prize). In those rare cases, this should provide a proper disincentive. Honestly, with this happening so seldom, I?m having a hard time believing all the rhetoric from all the people that seek to preserve the ?right? to ?entrap?. What are you all thinking? Do you really condone this type of action?

I wonder how a guy who doesn?t trust the government to do, well, anything, could trust the government to figure out whether it was the man or the woman who was irresponsible and/or predatory.

Well, they’re pretty good at delivering the junk mail, but I use online bill pay and 3rd party package shipping for nearly everything else (and I’ve complained about the money orders before too).

That’s true, as far as it goes. What I don’t agree with is the idea that your conclusion necessarily follows from those three assumptions. Which is why I pointed out the reasons that assumptions #2 and #3 don’t apply.

What you’re talking about creating is a scenario in which any male could impregnate as many women as he feels like and not take any responsibility for this, so long as he formally disavows responsibility within the preordained time frame. Talk about the cure being worse than the “disease!”

That’s the problem with your whole “equal protection” line of reasoning — the scenario it creates is less equal (by far) than the status quo. In fact, the only way it bridges any sort of equality gap is if you were somehow magically able to only apply these rules in the sort of predatory I-got-pregnant-on-purpose-and-want-to-extort-money-from-you scenarios that are far less common than you seem to believe. But I wonder how a guy who doesn’t trust the government to do, well, anything, could trust the government to figure out whether it was the man or the woman who was irresponsible and/or predatory.

And once again, this is where the allegation of misogyny comes in. Your entire line of reasoning is predicated on the idea that in any disputed pregnancy, it is usually the woman who has malicious intent, or who was somehow irresponsible.

I’m still not sure what planet you live in where guys never get women pregnant and then take off.

You’re right, this is getting tedious.

Please send a postcard sometime.

Phil Welch says: There *is* another way out of this. You could have a Baby Moses law that didn?t make it legal per se for a mother to abandon her newborn child, but did allow the mother to leave her child at a hospital or other designated abandonment zone. In this case, the mother would be on the hook for support if she were tracked down, but her appearance at the child abandonment zone could not be used as evidence to track her down

That might be workable, in fact it might be in effect under some of the state’s laws, they vary quite a bit.

The main idea here was to show people that if they support equal rights, and they are willing to let a new mother slip out of her responsibilities with a living breathing baby, then it’s not a too radical a thought to allow men to do likewise, except early in the woman’s pregnancy when it’s still a fetus and the woman has a clear choice.

What I?m trying to point out is that there actually ARE those cases where ?a woman? would be unable to contact the father in a timely manner?. Perhaps this is news to you, but it?s actually true. There are cases where the woman really can?t get in touch with the husband because he?s taken off for real (it may shock you to learn that there are guys who actually do this),

Why would he take off and hide when he has the right not to be the father upon being formally notified that he has been a party to getting someone pregnant?

or he?s an addict, (sometimes they have unprotected sex)

Why would this make a difference?

or he?s a convicted felon behind bars (they have also have been known to have sex without protection), and he is not there to participate in the raising of the child.

If he’s a ?convicted felon behind bars? one has to ask how he managed to get someone pregnant. If he managed to do that, the fact that he’s actually behind bars should make it easy to find and notify him. I have no idea what kind of support he could provide to a child anyway.

Are you even reading my post here?

“There are very few cases where a woman would not know she was pregnant or would be unable to contact the father in a timely manner. I have no problem writing in exceptions to the law for those cases. Again, hopefully this type of discussion happens well before an unwanted pregnancy. A contract here could remove any ambiguity in this circumstance, just like a pre-nup or a ?living together? or a sperm donation contract.”

What I’m trying to point out is that there actually ARE those cases where “a woman… would be unable to contact the father in a timely manner”. Perhaps this is news to you, but it’s actually true. There are cases where the woman really can’t get in touch with the husband because he’s taken off for real (it may shock you to learn that there are guys who actually do this), or he’s an addict, (sometimes they have unprotected sex) or he’s a convicted felon behind bars (they have also have been known to have sex without protection), and he is not there to participate in the raising of the child. Sometimes these kinds of men and women do not make good choices – such as committing crimes, taking drugs, and/or screwing someone who does these things.

Perhaps these people don’t exist within your social circles, but I can assure they do actually exist.

You go on to say “… hopefully this type of discussion happens well before an unwanted pregnancy.” Yeah, well hopefully there will be peace in Africa and the Middle East by tomorrow, too. Last time I checked, HOPE is not a magic cure-all. The circumstances where those nice discussions DON’T for all the the kinds of reasons I outlined above are, I think, are exactly the kinds the anti-dead baby laws were meant to address.

If your world only consists of nice, rational people who think about the consequences of all their actions at all times, and write contracts to deal with every contingency, please let me know how I can teleport there and join you. Until then, here on Planet Earth (at least in the parts of it where we do smart things like write laws to protect newborn babies as best we can) laws need to address those kinds of scary people and the potentially tragic outcomes of THEIR actions as well as well.

Cheers,
- J.

If you?re saying you ?have no problem writing in exceptions to the law for those cases?, what do you use as the measure for this? It?s a good idea in principle but I have no idea how it would work in practice.

I think (hope!) it?s pretty clear that we?re talking about exceptional cases here. I?m pretty sure if we did a survey of the women found to be leaving their babies in dumpsters

Read it again. It’s not referring to “dumpster babies”, it’s referring to those few women out there who become ?accidentally? pregnant for all the wrong reasons.