Is abortion only the womans right to choose?

The point is that she makes the final decision and that decision materially affects her sexual partner regardless of his consent.

It isn't unfair that she has the final say of whether or not to bring a life into the world; as you pointed out, that's biology. But humans aren't governed solely by biology, thus it is unfair that a decision on the part of one assigns massive responsibilities to another.

By the way, aren't X and Y two-dimensional coordinates?

And if that's the case, then men are two-dimensional. However, Women are only one- dimensional. Sexual inequality on a chromosomal level...what is the world coming to?

I sense we've reached an agreement to disagree.

Though I for one will not be the least surprised if we begin seeing "pre-coitus" agreements in the near future to go along with pre-nuptial agreements.

I wonder how something like that would play out in court. Better yet, I wonder how that would play out in the bedroom...

What solution have you in mind in cases like this?

Sorry, I'm still laughing over the remark that men bear a larger financial burden then women.

...with the exception of failed birth control the guy DOES have absolute say in it earlier. He can have a vasectomy before the sex and thus unilaterally decide there will be no children without even so much as informing the woman.

Imagine the opposite situation to our abortion argument. "Is it right that a man can have a vasectomy without even informing his girlfriends who may be attempting to get pregnant".

I don't think that the law should try to balance biology though.

...that's the traditional labeling on a cartesian plane...

I don't know but there's a 24 hour store where I can buy tacos at 4am opening up near me so I say it's all progress Wink

Remember, if we had a system such as the one I'm arguing for, then a woman would still be perfectly able to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term; she just wouldn't be able to hold her sexual partner responsible if there was no prior consent.

That was a rhetorical question used to set up nerd humor.

Welcome to the 21st century! I live in the Vegas area, so I can buy a taco and a lap dance at 4am!

Though I for one will not be the least surprised if we begin seeing "pre-coitus" agreements in the near future to go along with pre-nuptial agreements. I wonder how something like that would play out in court. Better yet, I wonder how that would play out in the bedroom...

(Quoting Mills) ...x= the potential result of the woman's decision, which is placing a greater financial and emotional demand on her sexual partner than she, as a competent, willing, and equal participant to the act, has a reasonable expectation of.

And they said romance is dead

Both parents are required to support their children. Child support is a right that belongs to the child. Any agreement between a man and a woman that negotiates away the right of the child to be supported by both parents is unenforceable.

Both parents are required to support their children. Child support is a right that belongs to the child. Any agreement between a man and a woman that negotiates away the right of the child to be supported by both parents is unenforceable.

Actually, a man may legally sign away his parental rights and obligations if the mother agrees. Child support, technically, is not a right of the child but of the custodial parent. You usually see this in cases where the mother has the child but doesn't want the father to have anything to do with the child. For that matter, a mother may sign away her rights if the father agrees. Indeed, if a custodial parent never files for child support, then there will be no child support and the child can't go back later to sue for back child support. Because of this fact, I think a "pre-coitus" written agreement might actually be legally binding.

The right to child support belongs to the child, and neither the parents nor the Court has the authority to waive that right.

The right to support does not belong to the parent who has custody of a child; the right to support belongs to the child. Each parent has an equal responsibility to support a minor child, depending on income.

Plaintiff argues that the agreement between the parties contained in the property settlement agreement established the age of emancipation at eighteen and thereby terminates his obligation to pay support beyond his "best efforts" to pay college expenses. However, the right of support belongs to the child, not the custodial parent. Pascale v. Pascale, 140 N.J. 583, 591 (1995); Blum v. Ader, 279 N.J. Super. 1, 4 (App. Div. 1994). As we said in Zazzo v. Zazzo, 245 N.J. Super. 124, 130
(App. Div. 1990), certif. denied, 126 N.J. 321 (1991), "there is no divorce between parent and child." Cf., In the Matter of Baby M, 109 N.J. 396, 429 (1988); R.H. v. M.K., 254 N.J. Super. 480, 488 (Ch. Div. 1991)(a parent may not terminate parental obligation by contract). The public policy of this State as derived from its parens patriae interest in the welfare of children prohibits parents from bargaining away the essential
rights of their sons and daughters, including the right to be properly supported. Kopack v. Polzer, 5 N.J. Super. 114, 117 (App. Div. 1949) aff'd, 4 N.J. 327 (1950); Martinetti v. Hickman, 261 N.J. Super. 508, 512 (App. Div. 1993); Blum, supra, 279 N.J. Super. at 4; ESB, Inc. v. Fischer, 185 N.J. Super. 373, 378-79 (Ch. Div. 1982).

“Child support is a right that belongs to the child.” See Cronebaugh v. Van Dyke, Jr., 415 So. 2d 738, 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). While the child is a minor, unable to enforce his own right to receive support, a parent or legal guardian may file the appropriate action to enforce such right on behalf of the minor. See id.; see also Newman v. Newman, 459 So. 2d 1129, 1130-31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Generally, once the child reaches the age of majority, a parent loses standing to pursue child support.

Although a custodial parent may have a representational right to collect support on behalf of the child, the right to support really belongs to the child. See Abrams v. Connolly, 781 P.2d 651, 658 (Colo. 1989); Conley v. Conley, 259 Ga. 68, 377 S.E.2d 663, 665 (1989); Alexander v. Alexander, 494 So.2d 365, 368 (Miss. 1986).

The appellee also contends that because the child's mother “bargained for” the lump-sum agreement, she (and through her assent, the parties' child) should be “held to the terms of the bargain.” However, on this latter point, our cases are clear that even the best- intentioned parents cannot “bargain away” their children's right to ongoing support from their parent. “The duty of a parent to support a child is a basic duty owed by the parent to the child, and a parent cannot waive or contract away the child's right to support.” Syllabus Point 3, Wyatt v. Wyatt, 185 W.Va. 472, 408 S.E.2d 51 (1991). See also Runner v. Howell, 205 W.Va. 359, 518 S.E.2d 363 (1999).

As to the lower court's ratification of the parties' agreement, a review of the entire record, and especially the absence in any of the lower court proceedings of either a guardian ad litem for the child or the child advocate office, leads to the inescapable conclusion that the child's independent interests were not properly represented or protected.

Alabama appellate courts have held in a number of recent child support cases that the money due for support belongs to the child, not the custodial parent.

A parent, we believe, sho uld not be permitted to avoid or evade child support obligations by voluntarily terminating parental rights, especially when, as in this case, no adoption is contemplated. . . .

The plain language of Rhode Island’s termination of parental rights statute, § 15-7-7, addresses only the “legal rights of the parent to the child” and not the reciprocal rights of the child with respect to the parent.

In Rhode Island, even a non-custodial parent has a common-law duty to support his or her child. In re Adoption of L. and G., 118 R.I. 316, 319, 373 A.2d 799, 800 (1977). Moreover, we agree that “a parent cannot waive or contract away the child’s right to support.” . . . ("The right to child support belongs to the child.”); Matter of Harvey-Cook v. Neill, 504 N.Y.S.2d 434, 436 (App. Div. 1986) (“A father cannot contract away his duty to support his child with either the mother or a third person.”) (quoting Matter of Smith v. Jones, 250 N.Y.S.2d 955, 958 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1964)); Hobus v. Hobus, 540 N.W.2d 158, 161 (N.D.
1995) (“Parents may not voluntarily terminate their rights in a child to avoid support payments.”). In short, we agree with the gravamen of CSE’s argument that “a voluntary termination [of parental rights] or agreement not to visit with the child” cannot be the basis for a suspension or termination of child support. “If this were the law, the non-custodial parents would line up to ‘voluntarily’ terminate rights simply to avoid paying child support.”

Actually, I stated 'A' is unfair because it has the quality x and you retorted 'B' has the quality y but 'B' is fair. I'm sure this 'sleight of logic' was accidental. In my argument, x= the potential result of the woman's decision, which is placing a greater financial and emotional demand on her sexual partner than she, as a competent, willing, and equal participant to the act, has a reasonable expectation of. In your analogies, y= making a decision that affects someone who has no control over that decision. x simply does not equal y.

Even a broken clock is correct twice a day. As I demonstrate above, however, the quality that makes the focus of my argument unfair is not the quality identified by your analogies and counter-arguments. I've explicitly stated the qualities that make holding men liable for the birthing decisions of women unjust numerous times. Somehow you failed to take note of them.

Actually, I stated quite clearly in my first post on this topic and several times thereafter that is right and proper that a person should be the final and absolute authority over what happens to her or his body. In fact, I state that "...the man doesn't have the right to choose whether or not the woman has an abortion..." in my very first post. It's the consequences of the woman's decision and the responsibilities they create that are in contention.

Come now. Your automobile accident analogy is clearly sexist. It implies that women are merely sperm receptacles during coitus with little to no personal responsibility for their part in it rather than active sexual beings who are equal partners in consensual sex. I realize that you may be in denial about the sexist attitudes you hold; I myself still stand helpless against the urge to hold doors open for women, pull their chairs out for them, and defend them from harm; it's an unavoidable side effect of being reared in a patriarchal society. However, I have come to see that women are strong, competent equal partners in society. Just remember, denial is just a stage and acceptance is the key to recovery.

DL is right; the money belongs to the child, and any spending from it must be preapproved by the court until the child reaches majority or 18. The parents are not allowed to "borrow" from these funds for anything.

Your initial position, then, was that it was simply the imbalance in the ability to make a choice that made this situation unfair. Now, however, you want to qualify that: it's not that the woman gets to make a choice while the man bears the consequences, it's that the woman gets to make a big choice and the man has to bear the consequences. You want to see that as a difference in kind; I, on the other hand, fail to see the distinction.

'll go over this slowly so you'll have a chance to understand. The hypothetical that I offered should be considered on its own terms, not as any kind of analogy to abortion. In other words, the question is not whether it would be fair to make the man pay if he was a Father rather than a Driver, but rather whether it is fair to make Driver pay under the set of facts as presented in the hypothetical.

You're right. In the initial statement of my position, which was to propose a more just system of distributing parental and 'pre-parental' rights and obligations, I did not fully elucidate the arguments supporting that proposed system. Those arguments have, however, certainly been made clear since. Indeed, I state the necessary element of 'reasonable expectation' in my first response to your analogies. Thus my arguments have nothing to do with how "big" the decision of the woman is, but to what obligations she has a 'reasonable expectation' of holding the man. You fail to see the distinction, I trust, due to some mental block. Or perhaps you've tried so hard to obfuscate the issue with verbiage that you've succeeded in confusing even yourself.

If you honestly meant your "hypothetical" to be taken on its own terms, and not as a false analogy used to counter an argument that would otherwise be unassailable to you, then you have unwittingly wasted time (mine, yours, and anyone else who paused to read it) because there was no point to it. If, however, you intended it to be an analogy and are simply confused as to what an analogy is, then I've already shown you how your analogy falls short here.

Now, I'm not sure why you're obsessing about how "big" the decision is--I've discussed the significance of the decision, but it's never been presented as germane to the central argument. Any honest woman will tell you, however, that size does matter, and we wouldn't be having this debate if the monetary impact was pocket-change and the emotional impact was akin to getting or not getting a goldfish.

The distinction is difficult to discern because there really is no distinction.

We'll go through this one more time (but after this I'm going to have to start billing you).

The position: If conception occurs as the result of consensual intercourse, and there is no prior agreement between the parties concerning what would be done in the event of conception, then the male's only obligation should be to pay half the cost of an abortion.

The argument: Given that the female partner can choose to have an abortion instead of carrying the pregnancy to term, she has no reasonable expectation of long-term financial support from the male partner should she choose to carry the pregnancy to term.

The justification: If one is presented with a choice between alternatives that are equally viable with regard to one's own material well-being (equal in financial cost, safety, etc.), and if those alternatives represent differing viabilities to another person's material well-being, and if one has not been placed in the position to make said choice unilaterally by that other person, then one is required by any rational sense of justice or fairness to choose the alternative that is most viable to the other.

However, in the case of unplanned pregnancy, abortion and live birth are not equally viable alternatives to the female's material well-being--abortion is clearly more viable with regard to the female's material well-being. It is safer and less costly. The only objection to this comparison of abortion to live child-birth is the religious one, which is moot since one can't justly force another to abide by his or her religious beliefs.