If abortion is legal and to remain legal, I think there is a serious legal loophole that no one is looking at. By saying that the fetus is NOT a human and therefore gets no legal protection under the law and that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the U.S. Constitution do not apply, you ARE saying that men DO NOT make children. And if a man can only make a fetus (a nothing according to law) and that the human life in the form of a born child is the direct result of a woman giving birth, it is only her who makes it. Therefore totally canceling out the man’s contribution (since his contribution only makes an insignificant fetus). This then would imply that men have NO RIGHTS OR RESPONSIBILITIES to any born children since they did not take part in the making of that person. That should mean that the child has only one legal parent, the mother, since biology can’t be insignificant at first but then significant later. So if abortion is to remain legal, then all paternity rights should be canceled as well as child support payments. All custody and financial responsibility should go directly to the mother since she is the sole maker and that child’s life is a result of her sole choice.

Or, you see that at the moment of conception when the 23 chromosomes from the mother and the 23 chromosomes of the father join, THEY BOTH create a whole new unique individual person that was non existent prior to that very moment and give it human status that deserves the full protection under the law that all humans are entitled. Thus making both parents equal partners in the creation of that child with equal rights and responsibilities.

By allowing a woman to consent to sex, but not to motherhood based on the idea that she should not be “forced” to carry a baby for 9 months since it is her body, then why is it that a man can not consent to JUST sex, but then can be “forced” into fatherhood by a woman’s choice and have to financially support that child for 18 years? Shouldn’t 2 people who consent to sex have to accept the consequences equally when they make a whole new human being?

So in short, my question is, isn’t the way the law stands now totally unbalanced? Either the fetus is a human and both parents equally share the rights and responsibilities from the moment of conception, or the fetus is NOT a human being and the man takes no part in the making of a child and therefore it ALL falls on the woman. I guess you could also say that during sex the man GIVES the woman his sperm and it is now HERS to do with it as she pleases and he is out of the picture. If that is the case, then keep abortion legal and make the mother the only legal parent. If not, it should be changed.

Thank you,

So what is the real question? It seems on some of the points your confusing yourself. To independently carry a child to term a woman can do just that. A man can not. Upon birth there are responsibilities bestowed upon both parents. The child deserves the benefit of both.

I am not confusing myself. I am trying to make 2 points with two questions. So we will start simple... Because abortion is legal, isn't that saying that a MAN does not make born children, but only insignificant fetuses? And if this is so, shouldn't born children have only ONE legal parent at birth... the ONE who created it? Making a fathers rights null and void?

For the first part of the question. Understand its law.
Its not a mans choice because at that point in time it is part of a woman's body. There are preemptive orders that are recognised in some states as far as move aways are concerned even before a baby is born. So really the insignificant part you keep quoting is irrelative.

Part 2: That has to do with basic human rights. Once the child is born then the child should be able to benefit from both parents.

You have to understand in your asking of the questions that this is a law forum and not an moral forum. If you want to simply debate it there are other areas on AMHD that it can be posted in.

Well, laws can be changed if good points are brought to the argument. At one time slavery was legal and now it is not. Now, my question was not about the born child's rights, and even the born child is not "entitled" to both of it's biological parents, such as the case with adoption. The child has no choice in that matter. No one is saying that the child at age 18 can not know WHO there biological father (or mother) may be. The question is WHY should a man have rights to a BORN human person that according to the law... he did NOT make? Because abortion is legal it IMPLIES that the man only makes the fetus (which is NOT a human by law) Only the woman's CHOICE makes a born child. As in ALL children born on this planet are here SOLELY because a woman, through her choice made them HUMAN by allowing them to be BORN. The man had NO say is the making of a human being... the ONLY thing that has rights under the law.

Maybe you are confused about my intention. It is not to debate, but to see if I have the potential to legally make abortion illegal by pointing out this legal point and having it recognized. Then the law would either have to deny all fathers their rights (which one court would want to do) OR realize their errors and see that men do in fact make a HUMAN being from conception and that the HUMAN unborn child is the responsibility of BOTH parents. It is a new angle on trying to get abortion illegal by showing the court that denying a father the right to his child from the beginning strikes out his making of the born child. But first I need to get a court to understand how wrong it is to allow JUST the woman to make the decision that wipes out the fathers making of a human. So I need to know if you get this and if legally I can make this point so I can make another point to CHANGE a current law.

I don'd understand how this would outlaw abortion. I can see, at least sort of, how maybe it might allow for more men to have a say in it. But then how can anyone really prove that the woman really knows who the father of the baby is so that his consent could be obtained? Maybe you could make the court understand if you could make your argument clearer?

Because they would have to call the fetus a HUMAN and to call it human would give it protection under the law. Either two people make a human, or just the mother does. So I want to "force" them to see that denying it a human before birth, strikes out the fathers contribution to making a human. So in order to make abortion remain legal, they would have to continue with their NON human label (a fetus) And see that as it is now, only mama makes the human and strike out fathers all together. So for daddy to have actually made a HUMAN, they have to CALL the fetus a human and grant it human rights, so abortion would be illegal because it is illegal to kill a human and considered murder under the law.

I'm having trouble finding a law that actually says specifically when a fetus is considered a human. I can't find any legal definitions, only debates on it. Which laws specifically are you going off? I'm very curious about this.

This has been moved to a discussion forum so I will offer my own non-legal opinion. Milady, while logical your thesis must be taken to its conclusion of outlawing patriarchal society entirely, including such concepts as marriage and inheritance. I read a great deal of science fiction and I have trouble envisioning a court that would accept such a postulate.

On the other hand, outlawing a medical procedure is a perfect example of the usurpation of the doctor-patient relationship by legislators.

The question is WHY should a man have rights to a BORN human person that according to the law...he did NOT make? Because abortion is legal it IMPLIES that the man only makes the fetus (which is NOT a human by law) Only the woman's CHOICE makes a born child. As in ALL children born on this planet are here SOLELY because a woman, through her choice made them HUMAN by allowing them to be BORN. The man had NO say is the making of a human being...the ONLY thing that has rights under the law.

Im going to address this one last time. At the point of conception a fetus is still a part of a women's body and CAN NOT live independent of it. In theory men don't have a right to the child until they actually apply for it in cases of non married couples. A man has to assert HIS rights. The courts then VERIFY through DNA that the applicant is in fact the father. Its only through this process that a father is held responsible for a child in a non married environment. DNA has to be established. In a married environment the father is assumed without confirmation.

Your looking at all this in an abstract manner rather then fact of law and your confusing yourself. Before making any argument you need to know the facts. I suggest if you want it eliminated you study up on the law as it applies and then make the argument from knowing and not from making wild guesses.

I was told that when Roe v Wade was decided, it was decided that no one could "prove" a fetus was a human, so they could only say it was for sure a human at birth. In Canada, it was also determined that a fetus was not a "person" So the courts here said that only when the fetus becomes a person, which is said to be when the baby is ALL the way out of the mother, it then granted human rights or "person hood". In Roe v Wade they also said if it could be proven that a fetus was human, it would overturn it's decision. Well, if you can make the point based on fathers... it could work. It is like this... I will use me as an example. Lets say I get pregnant by Joe and while he helps make the pregnancy/fetus the law says he has NO rights to it at all. As the mother, I have the sole rights. I decide if the fetus becomes a human and he has NO say. It is like, he gave me his sperm, which is no longer HIS, it is ALL mine to do as I please. So in order for it to go from a fetus to a human... no matter when that point is, is only decided by me the mother. So the father takes NO part in making the HUMAN, unless he has recognition and his 23 chromosome contribution has importance from the VERY start. In order to say the both Joe and I made the human it HAS to be from the start. Thus giving the fetus and the father rights from the start. And since they must call it a human from the start, abortion would have to become illegal, or admittance that the fathers contribution is null and void all together since he never makes the "human child".

The law is much older than the science, and therefore takes precedence in western society.

Logic does not enter the equation. I mean, really, a lawyer being logical? He'd go broke.

LOL Catsmine! Your are funny! And probably right. However, I think this logic if put before a court could change laws if it can be proven, as this is how laws are made and changed. At least you "see" my logic here... many have a hard time seeing it.

The problem, of course, is that the courts are presided over by judges, i.e. senior lawyers.

If you really wish to overturn Roe v. Wade, you should argue the "implicit right to privacy" not being in the Constitution.

Don't get me wrong, my support is for the libertarian premise that the government has no business opining on the issue at all. I think Adoption, Abortion, or Motherhood are each a valid choice to be made by the woman.

And if this is to remain so, and a woman has the option to consent to sex, but not motherhood, then the father should have the right to consent to sex and not to fatherhood where he is then forced to support a child for 18 years. How can his DNA not matter in the fetus and them matter in the born child that he has no say in it's becoming a born human. I think if it is all about the woman, it should always be just about the woman, as in ALL her responsibility... as it was created solely by her choice, the man should be O-U-T OUT unless she wants to allow and the father agree to have him adopt the child after birth.. as in both consent at that time.

the father should have the right to consent to sex and not to fatherhood

Here's the fly in your ointment. The potential father does have the choice of consenting to fatherhood, by his choices to use or not use prophylaxis methods. Accidents do happen but only in less than 1% of instances. If he doesn't want fatherhood, he has a choice, just not at the same time as the potential mother.

Then why can it not be said that the woman's choice is to use birth control or not to have sex and that by having sex, she IS consenting to motherhood? It should go both ways.

Then why can it not be said that the woman's choice is to use birth control or not to have sex and that by having sex, she IS consenting to motherhood? It should go both ways.

She has additional choices because of the additional burden on her of gestation. This is the proverbial "lady's perogative" at it's most basic.

So would this be a equal rights case or discrimination case before it can go further?

So would this be a equal rights case or discrimination case before it can go further?

Ok, this has gone on far enough. Stop quoting things you have no clue in. You keep mentioning that a father has no rights when in fact a father does have rights. So STOP saying that. In many states if a women gets pregnant and a father ( possible presumed ) comes forth then there are restrictions that can be placed on a mother of a child like it or not. Also there are protections under the law already against abuse if the mother is a doper and produces an addicted child. So you wasting thought on this no rights stuff. As I asked before why not look at the laws and see how you can apply them for a challenge. But saying things that aren't true will get it thrown out before you can close your mouth. You keep asking the same thing over and over and quoting a lie. Get it right. Otherwise your just wasting time.

I think you are missing my points... I simply feel it should be one way or the other... NOT BOTH. It is a distorted sense of justice. My personal belief is that the father should have equal rights from CONCEPTION and because I believe the fetus IS a human being, I don't believe a woman should be able to abort. HOWEVER.. if abortion is to remain legal and the fetus is denied human rights then THE LAW IMPLIES the man does not create the human born CHILD. They only acknowledge that he made the FETUS and he has NO RIGHTS TO IT. So by saying that the fetus is NOT a HUMAN that is created by BOTH at conception... the make makes NOTHING (Based on the way the laws stand NOW) I say either give the man equal rights and BAN abortion, or say he does in fact make a human being at conception. And it is not a lie... A who makes a FETUS HAS NO RIGHTS only after it is born and that is my issue! I am not quoting ANY lie.

Law now...

#1. Both man and woman CONSENT to sex. Man and woman create a FETUS through pregnancy in the woman's body.

#2. Man wants the fetus to be born. Woman does not want fetus to be born. Who decides? WOMAN, Man has ZERO RIGHTS to the FETUS he made. Woman ONLY consented to SEX, not to motherhood on THAT day. So woman kills fetus and is not forced into be a mother even if she consented to the sex. Man looses! Woman wins!

#3. Different couple... Woman wants fetus to be born. Man does NOT want fetus to be born. Who gets their way? WOMAN!! Man again has zero rights over the fetus he just made. He only consented to SEX that day, Not to FATHERHOOD. BUT she can... ALLOW it to grow and give birth making it a HUMAN by herSELF through her choice, not the choice of the man. So now the woman is a mother by HER choice and can now FORCE a man to be responsible for the BORN HUMAN she alone chose to make even if the man never consented to FATHERHOOD. He never made that human born child.. He only made a fetus... She did the rest by allowing it to remain and BECOME a human child. So she should have all the rights and responsibilities that her choice alone made.

MEN DO NOT MAKE HUMAN BORN CHILDREN PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO CHOICE.

If the fetus was recognized as a HUMAN from conception THEN they would BOTH make the human and both have rights from the beginning and then BONUS... The law would have to ban abortion as it should.

Why is this so hard to understand? Are the words "Human" and "fetus" and "child" confusing you? Are you not seeing that they dehumanize the unborn and then humanize it at birth? Giving the woman the SOLE credit for ALL born children that are running around on this planet? Because the mans contribution never had a chance or ever MATTERED in making the CHILD.

EASY... Abortion LEGAL... Man SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY RIGHTS over something he never made.

Abortion ILLEGAL... Then both should have equal rights because then the law sees both made a human at conception.

My "babbling" has been to SHOW CAUSE for this reasoning which is totally logical. The law should PICK ONE. Either the fathers DNA counts from the get go... or NOT AT ALL.

So, what about the cases where neither man or woman wants to become parents. By your logic, I believe, they both only consented to having sex-not becoming parents. But if abortion is outlawed, no one has any rights then. The government forces both people to be responsible for a child neither of them wants.

Your so confused its actually funny. Lets take point #3 as your example. Was there rape involved ? No. Was the man so stupid he didn't use birth control. Could be. Did he engauge in the act willingly knowing what the full concequences would be. Lets hope so. Bottom line is if a man wants responsibility then they have to show it in the first place. The only real guarantee to not having a child is to not have the sex in the first place. So your argument is mute. Because what your trying to say he consented to an act that MAY produce a child and decides its not his thing. Duh. You need to stop mixing boudries and start considering real arguments because so far you have nothing but a belief to go on.

There is always the choice of adoption. I mean, what if after 2 weeks of having the child you don't want it? But you don't want someone else to have it either? You can't kill it! It is a human being. And Califdad... The SAME MUST APPLY TO THE WOMAN! This is my point! Where is the equality??

There is always the choice of adoption. I mean, what if after 2 weeks of having the child you don't want it? But you don't want someone else to have it either? You can't kill it! It is a human being. And Califdad...The SAME MUST APPLY TO THE WOMAN! This is my point! Where is the equality???

Lol.. you just answered your own question. It does apply to the women and that is your complaint. As you have noted she is responsible from the get go. There is your equality.

There is always the choice of adoption. I mean, what if after 2 weeks of having the child you don't want it? But you don't want someone else to have it either? You can't kill it! It is a human being. And Califdad...The SAME MUST APPLY TO THE WOMAN! This is my point! Where is the equality???

So you're saying, if I were to get pregnant, even though me and my boyfriend would not want a child at this time, I should have to carry it for 9 months, go through labor, and then all of the legal proceedings to give it away?

I'm with califdad. Your argument isn't working

I agree it is not the popular vote, but you are not seeing my point, I think it is because you don't want to. To put it up for adoption, you just sign a paper to terminate your parental rights.

My problem is with the laws... they are supposed to represent JUSTICE. They way the laws are now are not justice. Your comment is just like a slave owner who hears that slavery should be stopped and them responding with "You mean have to give up the slave I paid for and go through my life having to do my own work?"

When you have sex knowing the consequences, you must be ready to accept them, and the rights to both people must be equally fair. Again as of now, the man has NO say in the outcome of a pregnancy. So he has no way to consent to person hood and make a human. Are you grasping the different words I am using to make my point? Because I think you are missing it. Again, I believe that if abortion is to remain legal, then no man should have rights or responsibilities towards the child unless it is agreed upon by both parents after the birth. The born child should have only one LEGAL parent at birth... the mother. Because the man CAN NOT choose to make the fetus a human being and because he should not be forced to 18 years of support to a child he did not opt to bring into person hood and be forced into fatherhood when the woman was the only decider. Can you grasp the concept... ONLY THE WOMAN MAKES BORN HUMAN CHILDREN THROUGH HER CHOICE. Thank to the law, so man makes nothing (since a fetus is a NOTHING in the eyes of the law). I just want to see it go one way or the other. Fair for both.

Equal rights for man, woman and fetus... No abortion

All choices, rights and responsibilities for the woman and none for the man... Keep abortion legal.

Easy and logical.

Your logic doenst apply. Your logic isn't logic at all it's a belief. If you follow your logic then you could end up cutting off the hands of a thief to keep them from stealing. After all it's a preventative measure. As far as your slave analogy its exactly what your true position is. You figure once you impregnate a woman you own her. Isn't that what your saying? After all its your right to pick. Hey you could even force her to have an abortion. Since you don't want the child and its half yours. Your idea of easy and logical doesn't work. So after you file your papers and make it to the supreme court let me know. Right now you don't even understand what your talking about so how can you expect to argue it to others. How about overturning the constitution while your at it since its not filled with logic? That would be a good start for you too.

I never said anything about a man OWNING a woman... I totally disagree. I said as the law stands NOW, it IMPLIES (without realizing)... a man does not make a human child. So if this same law remains, he should have no rights or responsibilities at all.

Your post is so silly, I will have to assume you are either not serious or you are merely baiting others for personal fun. And to be honest I am fairly sure you are another poster who was banned earlier but I could not match your IP addresses up to this point.

With that said

No, your babble makes no difference since you are missing several things.

1. laws do not have to make common sense.

2. you have no no idea ( or appear to) as to why the rights of the women to have an abortion was done. It was not made legal for any other reason than the right to privacy, as given in the US Consitituion. The idea was that the government could not interfere with the rights of the women to do with her body what she wanted , that did not harm her health.

The fetus up to that point, for purpose of abortion is not considered a person. *** Although by state laws, if the baby is killed by an assult, the person can be charged.

The man had no bearing in the case, and the man, always is giving his consent to be a father when he has sex,

I never said anything about a man OWNING a woman...I totally disagree. I said as the law stands NOW, it IMPLIES (without realizing)...a man does not make a human child. So if this same law remains, he should have no rights or responsibilities at all.

The law as it is implied does recognise that a man is needed to create a child. It also implies rights to that man already. You seemed to have missed that in your studies. May I suggest actually reading up on it before you make that statement again and again and again as you have all though this thread. Im not going to do your research for you. But its already on the books. SO again I ask that you stop saying it as if it were true. That's where you keep falling apart in your argument. You make assumptions without reading and doing the needed research to make a valid argument.

EASY... Abortion LEGAL... Man SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY RIGHTS over something he never made.

Abortion ILLEGAL... Then both should have equal rights because then the law sees both made a human at conception.

There are no 'equal rights' in making abortion illegal... making it illegal gives both parents NO right to make a decision.

If both 'parents' were responsible enough in the first place the decision wouldn't even be on the cards... they would have realised that sex can equal pregnancy.
My partner and I do have sex and we realise that even with protection it can equal pregnancy... we have discussed our options and what we would do if I did fall pregnant BEFORE it has happened so we know we are both on the same page.

Honestly, I don't feel sorry for guys in that situation (most of the time) because they were not smart enough or educated enough to realise that it could happen before they pull 'ol mr. willy out of their pants. (same goes for women)

Fr_Chuck,

I am not "joking" and I am very serious in my posts. I am not "baiting" others for personal fun. I do understand the laws as they are now. I just disagree with them and want to find a way to change them in a round about way by pushing them into a "catch 22" so to speak. I know what the laws are, and I am not asking about what is legal NOW. I want to know if I brought my points into a court of law... Could I get them to see that by allowing abortion, they really have no right to give the father any rights... by using their own logic in relation to abortion against them.

If they see this point and see how wrong it would be, they could not allow fathers not to have rights, so they would have to ALL agree the fetus IS a human and it deserves full protection as all other humans regardless of location. Then the killing would stop.


" A central issue in the Roe case (and in the wider abortion debate in general) is whether human life begins at conception, birth, or at some point in between. The Court declined to make an attempt at resolving this issue, noting: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." Instead, it chose to point out that historically, under English and American common law and statutes, "the unborn have never been recognized... as persons in the whole sense" and thus the fetal child are not legally entitled to the protection afforded by the right to life specifically enumerated in the Fourteenth Amendment. So rather than asserting that human life begins at any specific point, the court simply declared that the State has a "compelling interest" in protecting "potential life" at the point of viability."

I do believe that is ever they all agreed to view the fetus as a human, they would make abortion illegal. To force them to choose between keeping the fetus a "Non Human Being" thus giving all rights to the woman to choose to make it become human, which cancels the importance of his DNA because the same DNA on one day has no legal rights then it can’t possibly on another day. If his DNA contribution makes no human at conception, but only a non human fetus... then that is all the credit his DNA buys him FOREVER. OR admitting that his DNA IS what makes a human being in order to avoid the above logic BECOMING a law. And to see that there are no gradations to being human, you either always are, or you are not (As if to say an infant is just a little human, a toddler a little more human and so on). So since I believe this logic CAN show that as things stand now, there is reason to make fathers non existent If I can do that, it MIGHT change the laws because if that happened, how fast do you think everyone would agree the fetus is human? I believe it would force the courts into a catch 22 leaving no other option than to overturn Roe v Wade giving human status that has equal protection under the law.

Once again…I KNOW how the laws are NOW…I want to take my point to CHANGE the laws. So telling me I do not understand the schizophrenic laws is not true. I just don’t agree and want to see if I can find a lawyer who could take my views and find a way to present it to the courts to hopefully change what it is now. The questions are not WHAT IS LAW NOW. It is can I use these theories to change current laws.

And no, I have never been banned from this site. I am just looking for help and answers but no one is getting my point.

Ok, for one thing your making the case against yourself perfectly clear. Your arguing the wrong point. Your not looking at law your looking at a theory you have. First off. Do you have any proof whatsoever of what a human is and is that consensus across the board? In any argument you have to define the parameters. Your argument is saying YOU and YOU alone are the sole deciding factor. Bring the proof you need. When they decided Roe v Wade They admitted they didn't have a consensus. So where is this new consensus? Where is the headlines that are so earth shattering? Where is the proof? I guess won't overturn any laws no matter how unjust you feel about them. Courts want proof. Do you have it? If not then this suject and question is mute. The law is what it is. If you don't like the law you seek change. They have given you the answer to create change. So where is it?

The consensus would come when they would see that by the ways things are now, it is not right to give men ANY paternal rights because they do not make the CHILD that pops out of the woman. SHE IS THE SOLE CREATOR OF BORN CHILDREN. She is what makes the TRANSITION FROM FETUS (that the man helps to make) TO THE HUMAN BORN CHILD (that the man does not make).

I still don't get what you are trying to do.
Are you saying that you want abortion to become illegal?
Or are you saying that it should be legal but both man and woman have to agree to it?

ILLEGAL Here is how my friend explains my point, seeing as she is more "educated than I am, I will post her explanation of what I am trying to do.

" OK, the deal is legally that the courts have skirted defining "personhood." This issue would press them into defining it. If they defined it as beginning at any other point in time besides conception, then only women should have sole "property rights" prior to personhood and sole custody rights afterward. She has all rights and responsibilities because the man had no choice in establishing personhood. If the mother allows her "property" to mature to the point of personhood, it was solely her choice."

Is this better?

It is taking their OWN argument to the logical extreme! It's saying, "you want to treat people like property, let's legally define it that way then and see what can of worms we can open."

It is taking their OWN argument to the logical extreme! It's saying, "you want to treat people like property, let's legally define it that way then and see what can of worms we can open."

Try again. Its just not working.

Natural and legal rights: Definition from Answers.com (http://www.answers.com/topic/inalienable-rights)

If the law says that what is inside her body... it is her property and unless she gives or shares her property no one else can take it. The law is treating the fetus as property. So it should be fought, that since it is the woman's, it does not belong to the man. He gave away his property when he had sex, it is no longer HIS, but hers. The laws agrees by saying the fetus is hers to do as she wishes. And disregarding his sperm. Once that sperm leaves his body, it is no longer his. It is a gift. So he should therefore have no rights based on this fact. So it should become law when it is looked at this way. It is their logic after all. The fetus is not a person and the man can never make a person. So no rights or responsibilities should be given or forced upon him.

You have missed addressing one facet in your argument. The process of changing laws requires a suit to be brought. Implications, sophistry, logic, and beliefs do not matter without a crime/injury and a suspect/defendant. Who are you going to sue?

To the lawyers currently working on trying to over turn Roe v Wade. I have a friend in Texas finding out who to present it to. She believes that if forced to view it this way, they will have to rule that personhood begins at conception in order to guard the rights of the father. Thus having no other choice that to protect the fetus from harm just like all other humans regardless of location. That or continue to treat the fetus as the woman's property eliminating the father all together. That would just make all men sperm donors with no rights other than consenting to donate their sperm by having sex. The end.

The end.


If you don't have an answer to my question, you're right, the discussion is over.

Who ever would take the matter before the supreme court would argue my point. As I believe it is a good point to argue. I am not a lawyer, that is why I can only offer my theory. I guess what ever lawyer have a client, maybe a father who wants to challenge forced fatherhood could use the one theory in court and if he won on that, then the next step in to overturn the other. Like I said, I am not the lawyer. That is why I am asking here. I am asking the experts.

I can see this now. Some guy that doesn't wan to pay child support "but your honor, i only consented to sex! i didn't want to be a father. i told her she should get an abortion!" really? If I didn't think you were actually serious, it'd be funny.

But that is what the woman claims. And yes, if it were not so serious, it would be funny. Why is it that the woman is not consenting to motherhood when she consents to sex? But the father is? Schizophrenic logic.

But that is what the woman claims. And yes, if it were not so serious, it would be funny. Why is it that the woman is not consenting to motherhood when she consents to sex? But the father is? Schizophrenic logic.

So you want to change the rules of the game? Man OWNS woman and that's it. By submitting to an act that may lead to the birth of a child then the MAN reigns supreme and only he can decide. That only sets us back a few thousand years of progress. I suppose since you hold women in such low regard that a man owning as many as he likes wouldn't be a problem either? You really need to decide if that's a pandoras box you want to open. Personal ownership of another human being isn't a road to travel. If you want real choice then wait until medical technology catches up to the point of a man being able to carry a child to birth. Then you have options. Until then you need a different argument.

I am asking the experts.

You did get several answers. I'm not an attorney, but my best guess is that your theory will not hold up in a court. That seems to be the consensus here among the other people answering. Correct me if I'm wrong, Dad, JC55, anybody else.

The same theory worked to allow abortion, who would have once thought that they would ever say a fetus was not a human being? Who would ever have thought that a woman can consent to sex, but not always to motherhood while the man can't just consent to sex, it always consents to fatherhood. Who would have ever thought that a human fetus could become the property of just their mother? Well, it did. So seeing that stranger things have happened... I think my theory could work with the right lawyers to present this case to the supreme court. Popular opinion does not always apply.

Here is the letter my friend is sending out...

" The courts have avoided determining personhood as if this subject has no bearing on the issue of abortion, BUT what if lawyers pled the case from the standpoint of a father who wants to avoid all rights and responsibilities of a child who has been born because the woman had the legal right to abort his child and she did not? If you took a case like this to court, a judge would be forced to define when personhood begins. If he defined it as beginning at any other point in time besides conception, then only women should have sole “property rights” prior to personhood AND sole custody rights afterward. No woman in America could demand any responsibility from a man, nor could any man in America demand any rights of fatherhood. In essence, if the mother allows her “property” to mature to the point of personhood, it was solely her choice and the man bears no responsibility for it. He consented to giving his sperm only at the point of conception when he was creating only the woman's property and not a person. When the legal status changes to personhood, why is he then responsible? Only if personhood is defined as beginning at conception does the court have physical evidence of the father's consent to the creation of a person for whom he is responsible.

Taking the pro-choice argument to the logical extreme creates a political Catch 22 and opens a legal can of worms for the courts. If they want to treat the unborn like property, then they must write the law that way, and what judge will want to do that? They would be legally obligated to define the unborn as something besides the pro-choice standby of “part of the woman's body” since this is no longer a scientifically viable argument. This would force them into calling the fetus “property,” which in effect, is the reason a woman is able to get an abortion now. What judge will want to be the person responsible for stripping wanted American children of a right to be brought up in a family with both parents? Who would want to deny single mothers child support payments? Who would want to tell half of the American populace (men) that they don't matter AT ALL?

2. I thought of this argument when thinking about deadly force law in Texas. Many people do not want to change abortion to save the 98% of children killed for convenience because of the 2% killed in cases of rape or incest. They also can't stand the thought of dragging women into court and prosecuting them for abortion, particularly in these two cases. These objections can be overcome with existing law.

What if personhood were defined at conception, but exceptions for abortion were classified as use of deadly force and doctors, not women, were prosecuted for unlawful use of deadly force? In other words, the child is defined as a person and granted full rights under the 14th amendment. Now that they are both defined as people, the child is granted equal protection under the law except in the following cases in most states (other states could adapt)

*The doctor would be justified in using deadly force to save the life of the mother. In Section 9.34 of the Texas Penal Code, a person (in this case a doctor) is justified in using deadly force (against the unborn) in defense of a third person if he believes it “is immediately necessary to preserve the other's life in an emergency.” This would cover life of the mother issues.

*In the case of rape or incest, though it is true that the mother should make the ethical choice to save the unborn child as a fellow victim, most people cannot fathom the idea of forcing her to carry the baby to term when she did not consent to the sexual act—especially if doing so will affect the physical or mental stability of the mother. Couldn't this be covered under the duress exception? In section 8.05 of the Texas Penal Code, a doctor would be justified in aborting if “compelled to do so by threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury to himself or another.” I think this is a start, but the law would have to be written to define “serious bodily injury.” Also, it would be wise to include a specific time limit as well as a requirement of physical evidence of the rape so that a woman who wanted an abortion could not simply claim rape later. Additionally, if the law defined personhood at conception, hospitals could be equipped with Plan B to administer only in cases of rape while pharmacies would not be allowed to stock it for the general public.

In either case, the main objective would be to define the personhood of the unborn rather than ignoring it, which is the goal here. I understand it has been a challenge to get courts to hear personhood arguments. Perhaps these two arguments could provide the “foot in the door” needed to accomplish this.

I appreciate you taking the time to read my letter, and I hope it might provide a unique perspective in this complex legal argument. If the Rutherford Institute does not choose to use this information, perhaps you could forward it to someone who can. As I said, my main goal is to contribute in any way to stopping this unjust massacre of innocents in our country."

Here is the letter my friend is sending out...

" The courts have avoided determining personhood as if this subject has no bearing on the issue of abortion, BUT what if lawyers pled the case from the standpoint of a father who wants to avoid all rights and responsibilities of a child who has been born because the woman had the legal right to abort his child and she did not? If you took a case like this to court, a judge would be forced to define when personhood begins. If he defined it as beginning at any other point in time besides conception, then only women should have sole “property rights” prior to personhood AND sole custody rights afterward. No woman in America could demand any responsibility from a man, nor could any man in America demand any rights of fatherhood. In essence, if the mother allows her “property” to mature to the point of personhood, it was solely her choice and the man bears no responsibility for it. He consented to giving his sperm only at the point of conception when he was creating only the woman’s property and not a person. When the legal status changes to personhood, why is he then responsible? Only if personhood is defined as beginning at conception does the court have physical evidence of the father’s consent to the creation of a person for whom he is responsible.

Taking the pro-choice argument to the logical extreme creates a political Catch 22 and opens a legal can of worms for the courts. If they want to treat the unborn like property, then they must write the law that way, and what judge will want to do that? They would be legally obligated to define the unborn as something besides the pro-choice standby of “part of the woman’s body” since this is no longer a scientifically viable argument. This would force them into calling the fetus “property,” which in effect, is the reason a woman is able to get an abortion now. What judge will want to be the person responsible for stripping wanted American children of a right to be brought up in a family with both parents? Who would want to deny single mothers child support payments? Who would want to tell half of the American populace (men) that they don’t matter AT ALL?

2. I thought of this argument when thinking about deadly force law in Texas. Many people do not want to change abortion to save the 98% of children killed for convenience because of the 2% killed in cases of rape or incest. They also can’t stand the thought of dragging women into court and prosecuting them for abortion, particularly in these two cases. These objections can be overcome with existing law.

What if personhood were defined at conception, but exceptions for abortion were classified as use of deadly force and doctors, not women, were prosecuted for unlawful use of deadly force? In other words, the child is defined as a person and granted full rights under the 14th amendment. Now that they are both defined as people, the child is granted equal protection under the law except in the following cases in most states (other states could adapt)

*The doctor would be justified in using deadly force to save the life of the mother. In Section 9.34 of the Texas Penal Code, a person (in this case a doctor) is justified in using deadly force (against the unborn) in defense of a third person if he believes it “is immediately necessary to preserve the other’s life in an emergency.” This would cover life of the mother issues.

*In the case of rape or incest, though it is true that the mother should make the ethical choice to save the unborn child as a fellow victim, most people cannot fathom the idea of forcing her to carry the baby to term when she did not consent to the sexual act—especially if doing so will affect the physical or mental stability of the mother. Couldn’t this be covered under the duress exception? In section 8.05 of the Texas Penal Code, a doctor would be justified in aborting if “compelled to do so by threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury to himself or another.” I think this is a start, but the law would have to be written to define “serious bodily injury.” Also, it would be wise to include a specific time limit as well as a requirement of physical evidence of the rape so that a woman who wanted an abortion could not simply claim rape later. Additionally, if the law defined personhood at conception, hospitals could be equipped with Plan B to administer only in cases of rape while pharmacies would not be allowed to stock it for the general public.

In either case, the main objective would be to define the personhood of the unborn rather than ignoring it, which is the goal here. I understand it has been a challenge to get courts to hear personhood arguments. Perhaps these two arguments could provide the “foot in the door” needed to accomplish this."

Calidad... The man does not and can not own the woman! Not anymore than he can now by having rights after the birth. When two get divorced, the man can keep the woman where he wants her THROUGH the born kids... He can make the courts make her stay in a certain location by saying she can't remove the kids. He can still be in her life, through the kids. He can torment her as many father today continue to do. As long as men have any rights to the kids, he will always to some degree own her. So if that is the problem, give them all the rights... FOREVER.

Actaully no, the man ( or the women) depends on who gets custody, ( although joint is more common today)

Either side in a joint custody can stop the kids from moving, the other parent is free to move just without the kids. So it is always the choice of that other parent to move or not move, they just can not keep the kids in custody if they move.

And it is not the man alone, again, you are looking at it from some view point you had, in my case I had custody of my son, so as long as my ex wanted visits I could not move.

Also if the other party, ( non custodial) does not live close enough or live in same state they can't stop the move either.

Again and again you are showing a complete loss of understanding at even the basic laws you are trying ( and I do mean trying) to discuss.

Next sorry they can not force theirself into anyone's life, the one party can require no contact, they can require a 3rd party do all the pick up and delivery, or it be done at a neutral place like fire house or police station.

So no if a person ( either male or female) allows the thierself to be tormented it is not because of the legal system, they have a way to stop it.

It is still torment and restraining. It is like in that movie... Not Without My Daughter. The woman was free to leave the country, but was not allowed to take her child. It was wrong. If the woman has all the rights to the child from the start, then it should continue. Legal abortion makes the child her property.

I wasn't going to post here anymore in this thread. But after reading what I just did I can't help myself. Lol.

If I could give a greenie to Fr_Chuck I would because I agree completely.

As far as the reasoning being presented there is no comparison whatsoever you can draw between the use of deadly force when handling a firearm.

The bearing of arms is upheld by the second amendment and also use of force through a firearm is and extremely dangerous thing to have happen in the general public. The castle doctorine shows that in defense of the home its still not safe but a protected option. Bullets don't care where they go they only look for something to hit. And in an emergency without special training others can be hurt or killed very easily. So there is no comparison.

First of course I don't think the OP is actually serious, no one, even the extremists I run around with are that silly and completely lost in the understanding of the legal system.

1. Legal system has nothing to do with "fair" with "right" or even with "justice"

So you have to forget any common sense when dealing with law.

It has to do with special interest groups, voters and power.

Why do you think certain political parties wanted to give lets say blacks the vote, or perhaps get illegal aliens to be legal, so they can start voting and vote for the party that "saved" them.

Infants can't vote, they don't have dollars to spend,
Abortion clinics and groups like planned parenthood get millions, even tax dollars and they spend millions on lobby groups

So you want to change the laws, get a non profit polictical action group started, grow the membership, hold grass root meetings, raise millions, if not billions of dollars and lobby the elected officials, that is the way it changes.

Thank you Fr_Chuck! That is helpful... I appreciate that.