[XenoSapien]

--The putative father should have the right to submit to the judge that they have or may have gotten a woman pregnant, and wish to prevent an abortion attempt by the mother. Pending DNA after the putative fathers request is accepted, should have the right to put a stop on any abortion attempt by the mother.

Right or wrong?

XenoSapien

[GV70]

As a christian I believe in that abortion / with or without putative father's consent / is murder.

[Synnen]

As a woman who had a teen pregnancy where the father didn't stick around... I think it should be the woman's choice entirely.

HOWEVER: When medical technology catches up to the point where men are able to carry babies in some sort of surrogate womb (in other words, go through pregnancy), I think they then should have the right to have that egg transferred to their own bodies. Until then, I think that it should remain the mother's choice.

By the way... since I don't think that DNA testing can't be done on a fetus that young in utero (please... corrections if I'm wrong would be great), I think there is NO WAY that a man should be able to prevent an abortion just by saying the kid is his. Do you realize how many idiots would be stepping forward JUST to prevent an abortion--possibly for a woman he doesn't even know? Until men can take on the pregnancy and everything that goes with it, they'll have to wait to have a say in that choice.

[NeedKarma]

How many threads have you read here where people's lives are ruined by a child that was not wanted? Perhaps it's a good thing that the woman would want to abort.

[J_9]

The only testing that can be done in utero is an amneocentesis, since that is a very dangerous procedure that can possibly result in miscarriage, I do not think it will ever be done for paternity testing, many women, the men you speak of, and the doctors involved will not submit to that form of DNA test. The test itself can be brutal (especially if afraid of needles).

So, since the woman carries the baby, goes through the hormonal mood swings, and has to endure labor and delivery, it will remain her choice until we see the day that Synn speaks of. I don't see that happening in the near future.

Sorry Xeno, your theory has too many holes to hold water.

[froggy7]

I agree with Synnen. The baby is growing inside the woman's body, which puts her at certain physical risks. You are aware that women still die in childbirth, right? When men have the ability to continue the pregnancy outside a woman's body, then they will be able to ask that the fetus be awarded to them.

Of course, a medical advance like that is sure to have many ripples, and will probably cause a huge culture shift in how family is defined and what rights and obligations are attendant upon parents.

[XenoSapien]

I understand it's a woman's body, but nine months compared to the next 50 years or so? A child is NOT just about the first nine months. To say that just because the woman carries the child entitles them to most or total power is a total cop-out. It takes two, doesn't it?

XenoSapien

[Synnen]

Xeno... if a guy doesn't want a child (and really, this applies to women too, but that's beside the point) he should KEEP IT IN HIS PANTS. Period.

You have no idea how hard that nine months is. You have no idea the changes it makes to your body, you emotions, your decision making process... NONE of that.

When you (or any man) can carry baby weight the rest of his life, or FEEL a baby move inside you, or have morning sickness or really and truly understand what those 9 months are like... THEN you can make decisions regarding that fetus.

Until then... your ideas are really pretty insane.

[Nosnosna]

Asinine on its face.

For this to be even considered, we'll have to add a few things:

Father accepts 100% responsibility for the child, financial and otherwise, from birth on.
Father immediately pays all medical costs in the pregnancy and delivery, up front. Father immediately disclaims any right to public assistance for the life of the child. Violate any of this, and he loses all rights to the child permanently, but is required to pay child support. Should anything happen to the mother during or as a result of the pregnancy, the father is 100% liable for it, criminally and financially. This means that if the mother dies in childbirth, we have first degree murder.

Amazingly, all of this is still more reasonable than the original suggestion.

[XenoSapien]

Xeno...if a guy doesn't want a child (and really, this applies to women too, but that's beside the point) he should KEEP IT IN HIS PANTS. Period.

You have no idea how hard that nine months is. You have no idea the changes it makes to your body, you emotions, your decision making process...NONE of that.

When you (or any man) can carry baby weight the rest of his life, or FEEL a baby move inside you, or have morning sickness or really and truly understand what those 9 months are like...THEN you can make decisions regarding that fetus.

Until then....your ideas are really pretty insane.

Again, nine months compared to the horrors that child will be exposed to for the next fifty years does not compare. That pain was God's idea, not MEN. So to punish them is insane.

XenoSapien

[XenoSapien]

Asinine on its face.

For this to be even considered, we'll have to add in a few things:

Father accepts 100% responsibility for the child, financial and otherwise, from birth on.
Father immediately pays all medical costs in the pregnancy and delivery, up front. Father immediately disclaims any right to public assistance for the life of the child. Violate any of this, and he loses all rights to the child permanently, but is required to pay child support. Should anything happen to the mother during or as a result of the pregnancy, the father is 100% liable for it, criminally and financially. This means that if the mother dies in childbirth, we have first degree murder.

Amazingly, all of this is still more reasonable than the original suggestion.

Ok. That's fair :).

XenoSapien

[Synnen]

I don't believe in your god.

The discomforts of pregnancy and childbirth are part of biology, not part of some god's plan.

And again... if you don't want 50 years of a child, keep your pants on. Simplest solution.

[XenoSapien]

I don't believe in your god.

The discomforts of pregnancy and childbirth are part of biology, not part of some god's plan.

And again...if you don't want 50 years of a child, keep your pants on. Simplest solution.

Ok, well your lack of belief in God says it all to me. So from a secular point of view, hindsight is always 20/20. It's easy to say what you're saying; kind of like telling a blind person, "Ha! You're blind".

One can whine and moan forever about what someone should have done, but that is the easy way out of a discussion. Dealing with what is is far more productive. Interesting how you don't believe in God, yet you list the seven deadly sins on your footnote...

XenoSapien

[Synnen]

You know... whether religious or secular, the things you are suggesting set back women's rights by a few centuries.

Right now, let's set men's rights aside. It's taken CENTURIES to allow women the choice of who is in their own bed, rather than who a man chooses for her. Women can now raise a child by themselves, rather than having to marry the man who got her pregnant or raped her. Women can choose whether to burden their lives with a child, or to accept the joys of a child, depending on the point of view.

Sorry, but I can't feel too sorry for men who have to pay child support. Or women, for that matter!

If you want to have rights to your child, FIGHT for them. We have a court system that is increasingly awarding custody to fathers. If your ex is that psycho, DOCUMENT it, get a good lawyer, and get custody of the child yourself.

Again... when men can go through pregnancy and childbirth, that's when I'll put the rights to decide back into their hands.

And just for your information, I've faced that choice. It's not an easy one, regardless of circumstances.

I'm betting that if we got your ex's side of things, we'd hear a drastically different story.

[XenoSapien]

"You know...whether religious or secular, the things you are suggesting set back women's rights by a few centuries."

Yet as it stands now, it's like that only the sexes have been switched. It is the men who are profoundly persecuted, and I am only looking to encourage a once and for all balance.

See the other post I did as to what I've already done to fight.

As for the "X's side of things", here is who you will be attempting to be fair to:

---10/29/97

Count 01: Domestic Battery/Physical Contact; Class A Misdemeanor

This particular offense is one that says a lot to me. It wasn't just battery, it was battery on her OWN MOTHER. According to the docket information, "Defendant to have NO CONTACT WHATSOEVER with ******** *********."

We are talking here about a woman who already has two girls. Granted, at this current time and the last that I've heard, the oven is making plans to have these two girls move in the home along with her new boyfriend. These girls have been raised, for at least the past three years at the least by grandma, and now their mother will finally raise them like she should have all along.
But will these girls have a developed, life-long profound level of animosity, that they will end up doing the same thing to their mother? And will the child we have, should mom have custody, end up doing the same thing?

In March of 1999, the docket ends with saying that the "Court finds that the People have not proven their case".

---09/11/98

Count 01: Resist/Obstruct peace officer
Count 02: False report of offense

This docket talks about how "The Court notes Defendant is currently on 12 mos. Conditional Discharge in 97 ** **** for domestic battery."

In October of 1998, the oven tenders a plea of 'guilty' to disorderly conduct as set forth in Count 02. This plea was accepted by the court, and the oven spent two days in jail with no time served. Apparently, "On People's motion, Count 01 is dismissed."

---07/02/99
Count 01: Forcible Entry & Detainer

This charge is evidently submitted by the Housing Authority. I had no idea about this one, but apparently it talks about her being evicted from a residence.

---08/27/99

Count 01: Resisting/ Obstructing Police Officer

It looks like a warrant was issued in March of 2000 for her arrest. But, as is the pattern, all charges were dismissed by July of 2001.

XenoSapien

[XenoSapien]

---09/08/99
Count 01: Driver's License Expired 6 Months or Less

I was never told about this one. But if I remember correctly, she has never had a license. And if I'm still correct, she still doesn't have one. She pled guilty, and was found responsible for fines and costs.

---09/08/99

Count 01: Operate Uninsured Motor Vehicle

And yes, charges dismissed. Pretty girl fools the system yet again.

---03/17/00

Count 01: Domestic battery/ contact/ prior
Count 02: Battery/ makes physical contact

Now, if I remember what she told me about this one, this is an attack on her first borns' father, who she abandoned at the alter. I'm not sure exactly, but I think this was her revenge for him breaking her jaw (of which I now know likely why he did it, and have a hard time personally blaming him for it); so she retaliated and got him back. I don't know his last name, so I'm not able to pull up his information, but I assume he had charges pressed on him too. But this is her second domestic battery charge.

In May of 2000, there is an appearance of the States Attorney on her behalf. By July, "Motion by the State to dismiss. No objection by the defendant. Motion is allowed. The indictment and each count thereof is dismissed and nolle pross'ed"; which means dismissed. I compared the file date and the offense date, and it seems that she spent three days in jail for this one.

---05/10/02 Count 01: Criminal Trespass to Land

A warrant was issued on 06/20/02. And apparently, this warrant was never served. Hence, the oven seems to still be wanted by the law. Granted it was almost five years ago, but this made me jump for joy. Regardless of whether the city cares to issue this warrant or not, the judge is GUARANTEED to learn of this one. There's another ace in my pocket.

--- 09/17/02

Count 01: Possession Amount of Controlled Substance (Except A/D) Class 4 felony

In October of 2002, a warrant for her arrest was issued with a bail set in the amount of $25,000. In November, she pleas not guilty and requests a trial by jury. Exactly thirty days later, she changes her plea to guilty of "unlawful possession of a controlled substance, a class 4 felony".

If I remember what she told me of this one, it was that she was hanging out with a dealer (no sex involved), and he got busted with her in the house. So basically, to some degree, she "ratted" him out, and escaped jail time. According to the docket, she was sentenced to 48 days in the county correctional facility, but was given credit for 48 days and given 24 months worth of probation.

On this same docket, in October of 2004, a probation violation report was placed on file. In April of 2005, another violation of probation was placed on file and the next day a warrant was issued for her arrest. 23 days later, she appears in custody to the court. By early November, an order of discharge from probation is entered.

I really wish that I could understand these dockets/legal data much better, because I think I'm probably leaving out a lot. But I am trying to learn, and by all means when she and I stand before the judge on this custody issue, the judge will be thoroughly briefed by my lawyer on these past offenses.

--- 11/06/02

Count 01: Driver's License Expired 6 Months or Less

Fines: $75.

--- 11/06/02

Count 01: Operate Uninsured Motor Vehicle

No suprise; just as I've found her to be: a repeat offender. And her state judiciary system is a joke. Fines and cost and that's it. Pretty girls with a cute body and do not deserve to be held accountable for their criminal behavior. Have a nice day!

--- 10/09/04

Count 1: Domestic Battery/ Contact/ Prior

In December of 2004, a warrant was issued for her arrest for this matter with a bond set at $5,000. This also had an appearance by the State's Attorney. In September of 2005, "On motion of the state this cause is ordered dismissed and stricken."

This domestic battery was her attack on the only man she ever married. A good guy who I actually met, but the details of this case for some reason, is quite hazy. I'm not exactly sure how it all went down, but I think that he ended up dropping the charges.

--- 04/07/05

Count 01: Knowingly damage property<$300
Count 02: Knowingly damage property<$300

It appears that she was in jail for this one for a period of 13 days. But again, "On motion by the People, with no objection by defendant, this cause is dismissed and nolle pross'ed. Bond, if any, is discharged."

I had no idea about this incident. If she did tell me, I definitely don't remember it.

Now these above are the only charges that I could find. But I'm positive that there is at least one more: Unknown. It is unknown because she refused to tell me what it was about, and that she just wanted me to bail her out; this also occurred just this past year. I know that she was in jail for at least a week, and was desperate to get out. She hates jail, but it's amazing how I have concluded that she belongs there.

This is who the oven is. This is someone who I made a poor choice to interact with, and now that she is carrying my child, I'm sick with myself that I ever got involved with her at all. ANY WOMAN ON EARTH THAT TELLS ME THEY WILL "SNAIL-MAIL" ME AN ABORTED FETUS WILL SUFFER THIS SAME FATE.

I am shocked by the surplus of dismissals issued by this state's judiciary system. This woman is not an explosion waiting to detonate? This woman is a "fit" mother to already two girls? This woman deserves to be totally admonished of consequences in respects to her multiple disregard of legal authority, commits multiple counts of battery, and has by her own mother's words, medical documents that support my assessment of the mother's psychological behavoir? What kind of judge will allow her full custody?

And just so you know, my last run-in with breaking the law was disobeying a traffic sign, and a seat-belt violation about three years ago.

XenoSapien

[NeedKarma]

What are those and what relevance does it bring to the discussion?

[XenoSapien]

Momma's criminal record and the concept of 'credibility'. Momma would make the girl who went after the Duke University lacrosse players look like a 'choir-girl'. I'm entreating Synnen's curiousity about who the mother is when she stated:

" I'm betting that if we got your ex's side of things, we'd hear a drastically different story."

Funny thing is, Synnen is right. We WOULD hear a drastically different story.

XenoSapien

[NeedKarma]

So you're bitter because you chose to have sex with a less than stable person and now you're paying for that decision. Got it.

[XenoSapien]

Wrong. Read my other post. I'm not going to repeat myself because someone doesn't have the full story.

XenoSapien