[numbr1dbcksfan]

What would need to be changed, law wise is the law that states that the person who signs the birth certificate as father is the father, and the law that says that in a marriage, the husband is the presumed father and that this stands
even if the DNA doesnt match"

AH! BUT in both cases it needs to be signed and notarized.... so they knowingly agree on that legal paperwork.... even if they dont read it.

[AdrienneG]

Originally Posted by FH-numbr1dbcksfan

AH! BUT in both cases it needs to be signed and notarized.... so they knowingly agree on that legal paperwork.... even if they dont read it.

Please explain what you mean by "it needs to be signed and notarized".

[alwaysus]

By having it both ways I meant " I, as a woman can have reproductive rights but as a man, you can't" And Brandy, notice that I said " In theory a man has to pay child support" My brother, the butt head up and skipped out and pays NO child support. If I knew where he was, I would be the FIRST to turn him in. It sickens me that he will not provide for the kids. BUt why in a world where women want equality, do a mans rights cease to exsist?
The people that have prospsed this law KNOW it will fail. But hopefully just the act of bringing it up will make people think.

[BrandyHagz]

Please don't misunderstand my comments to mean that a man shouldn't have rights...altho, my views differ in the way those rights should be presented.

I don't want to get into a debate on my personal views of reproductive and parental rights - I think I've shared how I feel about them in the past

[numbr1dbcksfan]

Originally Posted by AdrienneG

Please explain what you mean by "it needs to be signed and notarized".

They give you the form in the hospital and they have it notarized there for you(if dad is there). If you dont do that you have to pick up the form at vital statistics and take it to be notarized and turn it in. Either way, needs to be notarized to get his name on the Birth Certificate without a DNA test. (This is in AZ -- It is a state by state issue..)

[numbr1dbcksfan]

Originally Posted by alwaysus

By having it both ways I meant " I, as a woman can have reproductive rights but as a man, you can't" And Brandy, notice that I said " In theory a man has to pay child support" My brother, the butt head up and skipped out and pays NO child support. If I knew where he was, I would be the FIRST to turn him in. It sickens me that he will not provide for the kids. BUt why in a world where women want equality, do a mans rights cease to exsist?
The people that have prospsed this law KNOW it will fail. But hopefully just the act of bringing it up will make people think.

Im still not getting it. That says the same thing you already said.

A man does have reproductive rights.. he chooses where he deposits his reproductive material...

Im missing the part where a man's rights are ceasing to exist...

[Jensboys]

I just am popping to say WOW ... busy thread guys but I am avoiding posting on more than one busy discussion thread a day!

keep going its keeping my in box full

[ddhuab]

Jen,

Yes, I have been involved in three serious threads ALL DAY!!!!

And I was wondering why you posted this provocative topic and then left us in the dust to fend for ourselves!

D.

[Bassette]

Originally Posted by echaos

Could he not chose to place the child for "adoption" with the baby's biological mother?

The mother can agree to the father legally terminating his paternal rights. It's not really adoption but has the same effect in that the man has no legal right or responsibilty to the child. I agreed to this with my daughter's biological father after years of nonsupport (not just financial). And yes it's true, even though a man may have legal responsibilities to a child he can choose to shuck them. In 10 years I got nada and not from lack of trying.

[alwaysus]

A man does have reproductive rights.. he chooses where he deposits his reproductive material...

Then I guess FOR THE MOST part, a woman can choose not to have genetic material deposited and thats where her reproductive choices should end as well?
we as women can choose to terminate a pregnancy, a man can't...Therefore men do NOT have the same reproductive rights. A woman can choose not to have to have to be financially responsible for a child a man can not. That is NOT equal.

Edited to add that it is hard for me to argue this being that I am so darn pro life.( Speaking about reproductive rights etc...) And I am ALL for parental responsibility. Dead beat parents really hack me off. I am just saying that I honestly understand why men might feel this way.

[numbr1dbcksfan]

we as women can choose to terminate a pregnancy, a man can't...Therefore men do NOT have the same reproductive rights. A woman can choose not to have to have to be financially responsible for a child a man can not. That is NOT equal.

Right, BUT a woman carries a pregnancy. A man cannot terminate because he cannot carry. A man certainly DOES have the right to terminate any pregnancy he may be carrying... His body... his choice.... She would not have a say.

They are two different things that are being intermingled for effect. Apples and Oranges... Do you see that? They threw abortion in there to get those who are very pro-life, like you, on their side. It is a manipulation tactic.

Really this is about responsibility once a child is here. A woman cannot choose to not be responsible for her child -- well except in adoption but ideally he has a say in that.

[Cobb]

Originally Posted by alwaysus

A woman can choose not to have to have to be financially responsible for a child a man can not. That is NOT equal.

Not AFTER birth... Just as a man can't TPR if a mother decides to parent, a woman can't TPR if a father decides to parent. If she doesn't want to raise the child and he's proved paternity, he can do so and she would be required to provide child support. BEFORE birth, the father has no rights because he can't prove paternity (or compel the mother to undergo testing in the late stages of pregnancy). A mother's rights are intact, because maternity is established from the get go.

[alwaysus]

No, not apples and oranges. It all boils down to, A woman can choose not to be a mother, thats fine, If a man chooses not to, hes a dead beat. To me this isn't really an abortion issue. It reminds me of the George Orwells book Animal Farm. At the beginning of the book, "All animals are created equally." By the end of the book, its "All animals are created equally, but some animals are more equal than others." 'Reproductive rights' should be equal across the board. Period.
As far as I am concerned, its a cop out to say.."well the man can't carry a baby so he doesn't get a vote." If we are equating this correctly, that SHOULD mean that a man should have no choice when it comes to adoption either.
Why do most women choose to abort? Finances, not convenient timing? I am SURE they are some of the same reasons a man would not want to be a father.
I have to be done with this, because I NEVER intended this to be a pro life VS pro choice debate.

[numbr1dbcksfan]

I understand your stance as anti-abortion, but what you are saying is not logical. Being said by someone does not automatically make it logic.

A woman can choose not to be a mother, thats fine, If a man chooses not to, hes a dead beat.

This is the core of it. If a woman brings a baby into this world it IS NOT fine to choose not to. She would have to pay support just the same.

Please know that this is a STATE by STATE issue. Not everyone is going to agree with the legislation that is put into action, but the people making the decisions WERE voted in there.

As someone who disagrees with that legislation, it is ok to have your own convictions. BUT the question here is LEGALITY. Abortion is a separate issue and where one person thinks life begins may differ from another and both may differ from the LEGAL meaning of it. For those reasons, if this is a state allowing abortion then there is a line in place to go by as a guideline. If it doesnt allow abortion, then it isnt even a miniscule factor. (I dont have the state in front of me.. sorry).

Either way the question is what the LEGALITY of it is... the legalities and responsibilities when it comes to a BORN child have made huge strides to be equal.


Note: Besides, if he is arguing his right to terminate her pregnancy on grounds of not wanting to be a father, he IS NOT pro-life and DOES NOT support your cause.

[alwaysus]

I will concede theat point BUT, given US history, we can all say that laws are often wrong. Thats what these men are trying to prove, that the law is flawed.
And for the record, a man should NOT be able to tell a woman to have an abortion, that was not my point at all. Again, I was simply saying that the scales are very off balance on this issue.
AND, I am so very glad we were able to have this conversation without being immature....Great debate.....