Predicto Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 That doesn't mean however that men are unaffected by the pregancy, or that whatever decision the woman makes has no consequences for them. I never said anything of the sort. But my basic point remains. It isn't equal. One of the people actually has to carry the fetus to term, inside of her own body. One doesn't. It can never be equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 A. I'm trying to figure out how being tricked into sex is even possibleB. As for the second two issues' date=' once a man puts his penis inside a vagina, he should assume that a pregnancy could result.[/quote'] I don't know...that's why I was throwing it out there. Can guys be drugged or gotten drunk without them realizing it and then taken advantage of? What about being threatened in some way? Or a girl coming in while a guy is sleeping and having sex with him while he thinks it's a dream or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 B. As for the second two issues' date=' once a man puts his penis inside a vagina, he should assume that a pregnancy could result.[/quote'] All the more reason why I keep saying sex ed should be pushing oral and buttsecks as hard as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 G: Have sex with me. We will have a baby together. B: Okay! G: I'm pregnant. Where is the fraud? Again, too simple. The fraud is in the part you left out at the end, where she announces her plans for an abortion, thereby going back on their agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 I'm pondering this' date=' and I don't think any state authority could force him to take it down. But the woman could almost certainly sue him and perhaps the billboard company for intentional infliction of emotional distress and win.Your thoughts? [/quote'] Couldn't he do the same? What's more intentional infliction or emotional distress then having your child aborted against your will? What if both the woman and man decided to openly engage in unprotected sex, both fully aware of the consequences, and the female decides to abort against the father's will? EVERY situation is "the exception". they are never the same.but the situation you are descibing... the father wants to stay (or get) married, and the mother doesn't? I think this conversation takes us away from the subject at hand. For the record, I think the guy is a jerk too but love the news it's getting in order to have this conversation. I hope it goes national and a debate is sparked. But to your point, from my observations, it often seems that a man who wants to be a father has a woman that doesn't want to be with him and he's willing to take responsiblity but the woman leaves him. But then, when a man leaves a woman the woman is left to bare the burden and the woman wants the man to come back. I think it speaks to a larger issue such as the way society has shaped. Divorce rates are up, more ****s are born. Why? It's because we are shaping society to coerce nature. Attraction has nothing to do with being attractive, it's more of an emotion. When the man does what society asks of him, the attraction dies in the female. It's the ultimate catch 22. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweedr01 Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 I doubt that. The person inside the car during a wreck probably knows far less about what happened than someone watching it from the side of the road.I honestly have no idea what happened to HH' date=' but I can read enough studies to know that the number one problem encountered by the family courts is NOT mothers screwing over loving fathers.[/quote'] that's a pretty poor comparison imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 This subject makes me think of Michael Corleone giving Kate a big old smack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 I don't know...that's why I was throwing it out there. Can guys be drugged or gotten drunk without them realizing it and then taken advantage of? What about being threatened in some way? Or a girl coming in while a guy is sleeping and having sex with him while he thinks it's a dream or something. dear penthouse forum, I am a student at a large midwestern university. I never thought it would happen to ME but..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 that's a pretty poor comparison imo Right. It would be more like a person driving by the accident during final stages of clean up and trying to convince me he knows what happened by the debris pattern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 I guess boyfriends/girlfriends and husbands/wives need to start writing up legal contracts before they have sex each time, about whether they agree to keep any baby that comes out of it. Won't help....the woman's right cannot be denied or removed if she changes her mind,nor can the man's liability be removed (interestingly that liability can be asserted by society even against the mothers wishes) Ignoring the personhood of the fetus creates some interesting conflicts ,not that there would be less if granted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 I'm pondering this' date=' and I don't think any state authority could force him to take it down. But the woman could almost certainly sue him and perhaps the billboard company for intentional infliction of emotional distress and win.[/quote']How so? First off, they are (or were) married. Secondly, there is no mention of her (or his) name or her likeness. And then there is the possibility that the whole thing is a hoax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 How so? First off, they are (or were) married. Secondly, there is no mention of her (or his) name or her likeness. Do you think it causes her emotional distress when she drives by it? Do you think there is a chance that people could find out who she is? Do you think those are the reasons why he put it up? Those are the kinds of questions that will decide the matter legally. And then there is the possibility that the whole thing is a hoax. Good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweedr01 Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Right. It would be more like a person driving by the accident during final stages of clean up and trying to convince me he knows what happened by the debris pattern. lol better comparison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Predicto...why isn't WBC being sued for emotional distress then? I think you have lowered the bar too far Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Do you think it causes her emotional distress when she drives by it? Do you think there is a chance that people could find out who she is? Do you think those are the reasons why he put it up? Those are the kinds of questions that will decide the matter legally.Would a reasonable person conclude that the abortion caused HIM emotional distress? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Won't help....the woman's right cannot be denied or removed if she changes her mind,nor can the man's liability be removed (interestingly that liability can be asserted by society even against the mothers wishes)Ignoring the personhood of the fetus creates some interesting conflicts ,not that there would be less if granted. They are also ignoring the fact that the baby is just as much the father's, as it is the mothers. It's like refusing visiting rights to his children, for the father, for the rest of their lives, even tho the father has done now wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Couldn't he do the same? What's more intentional infliction or emotional distress then having your child aborted against your will? What if both the woman and man decided to openly engage in unprotected sex, both fully aware of the consequences, and the female decides to abort against the father's will? Basically, you would be giving a man power to prevent a medical procedure by a woman. For public policy's sake, I can't imagine a court ever permitting that. ---------- Post added June-7th-2011 at 12:45 PM ---------- Would a reasonable person conclude that the abortion caused HIM emotional distress? A reasonable person would never be permitted to make that determination as a matter of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Interesting, so it's absolutely true, and then you explain how it's not. Even in your two-phase distinction between carrying the child and raising the child, the father is not unaffected because he is responsible for supporting the mother to some extent during the pregnancy. OK, I think I get your point, and it's correct. Yes, during the pregnancy phase, the Father at least might contribute in some way. Please consider this my official retraction of my statement from "the results would only apply to one person" to "the results would apply vastly more to one person". Again, my position is that the person who is paying the vast majority of the costs, should be the person whose vote counts more. And I know it's hard to grasp, but in any situation where the outcome of a decision node could cause me to be financially obligated for the next 18 years, I want to have a say. (for the record, I would be adamantly against the abortion and personally would support the child) And you do. You have exactly the same authority and the same input into the decisions as she does. Except when it comes to a decision which will affect her vastly more than it can affect you. (In my opinion.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 I think this conversation takes us away from the subject at hand. For the record, I think the guy is a jerk too but love the news it's getting in order to have this conversation. I hope it goes national and a debate is sparked.But to your point, from my observations, it often seems that a man who wants to be a father has a woman that doesn't want to be with him and he's willing to take responsiblity but the woman leaves him. But then, when a man leaves a woman the woman is left to bare the burden and the woman wants the man to come back. I think it speaks to a larger issue such as the way society has shaped. Divorce rates are up, more ****s are born. Why? It's because we are shaping society to coerce nature. Attraction has nothing to do with being attractive, it's more of an emotion. When the man does what society asks of him, the attraction dies in the female. It's the ultimate catch 22. whether a father leaves a mother, or a mother leaves a father, or they split due to mutually agreed upon factors.... there are still children . and they are the most important element of the discussion, and the reason this issue is so hairy. Fault for killing the no longer existing union isn't the primary concern.. the children are (or should be). so fault is mostly only useful to the extent that it reveals the difficult to observe factors "good mom" or "good dad" (difficult to observe in a court setting) and.. i certainly hope (and think) you are wrong on that last point. I have to imagine that most mothers think a father being fatherlike looks pretty damn sexy, its kinda hard-wired in there. There has never been a sight that melted my heart and cut to the core of my love and affection than seeing my wife mothering my newborn baby... i don't think that is a biological accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Predicto...why isn't WBC being sued for emotional distress then? They have been. They usually win. Because they are attorneys and know the law. WBC does not do what everyone seems to think WBC does. They don't walk into funeral homes and start screaming at grieving parents. Typically, the grieving parents never see them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Basically' date=' you would be giving a man power to prevent a medical procedure by a woman. For public policy's sake, I can't imagine a court ever permitting that.---------- Post added June-7th-2011 at 12:45 PM ---------- A reasonable person would never be permitted to make that determination as a matter of law. Let's say the guy is prolife and the woman is pro-choice and the man has VERY deep convictions. No way something can't be argued in court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Let's say the guy is prolife and the woman is pro-choice and the man has VERY deep convictions. No way something can't be argued in court? No. This comes down to the question of what is a jury permitted to hear. As a matter of law, a judge would not allow this case beyond a motion to dismiss phase. (Well, no judge who understands what an appellate court does would permit it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 They're disproportionately more likely to get physical custody, and FAR more likely to NOT have to provide for two households. If you consider those things advantages, then your point holds true. And there you have it, folks. Men have to pay to support kids that are theirs, and women don't have to pay to support kids that aren't theirs, therefore women get all the breaks and men get shafted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 And the guy who did this billboard didn't break the law, but he is a complete jerk. IMO. I think its much more disturbing that a person would choose to abort their own child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 whether a father leaves a mother, or a mother leaves a father, or they split due to mutually agreed upon factors.... there are still children . and they are the most important element of the discussion, and the reason this issue is so hairy. and.. i certainly hope (and think) you are wrong on that last point. I have to imagine that most mothers think a father being fatherlike looks pretty damn sexy, its kinda hard-wired in there. There has never been a sight that melted my heart and cut to the core of my love and affection than seeing my wife mothering my newborn baby... i don't think that is a biological accident. To my point, you are talking about a mother mothering. Many examples across the animal kingdom. Not so many in the reverse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.