[Catsmine]

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?

[miladyshaila]

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.

[Catsmine]

The end.

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

[miladyshaila]

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.

[justcurious55]

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.

[miladyshaila]

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.

[cdad]

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.

[Catsmine]

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.

[miladyshaila]

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.

[miladyshaila]

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."

[miladyshaila]

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."

[miladyshaila]

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.

[Fr_Chuck]

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.

[miladyshaila]

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.

[cdad]

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.

[Fr_Chuck]

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.

[miladyshaila]

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