Dude, you can't legilslate every nuance of life. For every argument like this you give me, I can counter it. But that starts to get irrelevant. The point being is this "law" is too difficult to make "perfect" so lets revert to common sense ...which is we should put the onus of responsibility on the individuals involved rather than the legal system. Seriously? The woman is going to sabatag her husbands condom so she can turn around and get an abortion? bwaaa hahahahaha. bwa hahhaha. Oh, stop it. .........phew that was a good one. Let me know when you rejoined earth. If the father thinks he is married to a nut job that would do such a thing, then he should take that into consideration before fornicating with her. The sabatoged condom is probably the least of his concerns. The father has MORE responsibilites than the mother?!? Where are you getting this stuff? In all but the extreme child support cases, the mother's financial expendatures (coupled w/ her daily responsibilites) far outstrip the paultry $500 the father sends in child support...or whatever the amount. Again, if the father did NOT want the legal responsibility of raising a child, then the father should not have engaged in activity that would produce that result. PERIOD. Once he donates his sperm to the woman, the sperm are now in her possession. He gets no legal say. Sorry. That being said, since he is the spouse, he gets to talk to her every day at home so I'd argue he has MORE influence with the mother than any law could ever provide.
Geez you don't have to get snappy about it. I mean you did post your belief that they had "SOME rights" (despite it being off-topic according to you). You can discuss it (write a lengthy paragraph about it, in fact), but I ask for clarification of comments made by you under this thread and suddenly it's off-topic? Anyway, I wasn't asking to debate you about it. You listed rights you felt they did not have; then you wrote they "certainly" had "some rights" but conspicuously neglected to elaborate. I was curious what these rights were. Doesn't look like you're gonna answer that question though. Have a nice day, anyway.
Sorry if you interpreted my tone as too aggressive. You only asked a single line question so I wasn't trying to blast you. I was just generally defending my stance mostly to others that have been arguing FOR spousal notification. I just used your question as a launching board. Sorry. What rights do the unborn have? Well, since you brought it up, I can't really think of any "legal rights" that the unborn have...hence the being "unborn" part. Loosely speaking however, I think somebody can be tried for a double murder now in some places if a pregnant woman is murdered. Also Roe v Wade does protect 2nd/3rd trimester fetuses. Off hand, that is about the only legal standing I can think of for the unborn. I'm sure there is more. May I ask why you are asking?
Yes, let's. I think common sense is to allow all of the babies to be born, and then if neither of the parents want it, to give it up for adoption. I don't see anything unreasonable there. You misunderstood. In this case, the father would want an abortion, but the mother has gotten pregnant on the sly and can now saddle him with 18 years of child support. The mother can immediately give the child up for adoption, or even abandon it at a fire station or hospital. The father gets no such option in dodging his responsibilities. Yes, I would say that 18 years of child support is more than 9 months of carrying a baby. Were any rational person to read it, that would seem to be the case. In practice, that is not true. Any woman can claim "emotional distress" and have her baby aborted at pretty much any time.
What about Conner Peterson? Wasn't his daddy tried for his murder? If I toss a chicken breast or a 5LB bag of sugar into the bay, nobody comes and arrests me for murder, do they?
That's an opinion...not common sense. I'm not discounting your opinion, however, just pointing it out. I'd argue the common sense is that a fetus is not alive and isn't afforded the same rights as an adult human. Somehow I feel you'll take issue with that. Regardless, the larger abortion conversation isn't really the topic...it's spousal notification. So I don't mean to delve too far into the general question of abortion other than to support an argument. The topic of the conversation is spousal notification...ie the parents are MARRIED. Child support isn't a relevant topic. Again, child support isn't particularly relevant here but for the sake of argument: ...and the father can move to Canada and never pay child support. Any person can forgo their responsibilities if they chose but how is that relevant? My whole point is people should take responsibility for themselves...both the mother and father. And if the father has sex with his wife, he has to know that a baby could be next. And if the husband never talked to his wife about the prospect of having children and the wife isn't ready to have kids yet, then the husband is an idiot (as well as the wife). But the wife is now in possession of his sperm. He biologically relinquished control to her. You make it sound like the woman is going into a 7/11. Can you prove it is as easy as you claim or are you just regurgitating right-wing propaganda? So to get a 3rd trimester abortion, she can just claim stress and it is so, huh?
I'm pretty sure the husband still has to pay to support the child, even if the parents are married. I don't think he can just tell his wife, "Anything you feed that kid is coming off of your plate." They could also get a divorce before the kid turns 18. The responsibilities of the parents are absolutely relevent. ... and the mother could go to Canada and get an abortion without notifying her spouse, blah, blah, freakin' blah. We cannot control what people do to ignore or bypass the law. That does not mean that we just scrap the idea of creating laws. This country is big on equal rights, and there is no legitimate reason that a father should not be given the same rights as a mother. I don't feel like digging it up right now, but my claim is based on testimony by an abortion doctor before congress. It has been discussed here before in a previous abortion thread. If you replaced 7/11 with Planned Parenthood, that would be exactly where we stand now.
