CST: Man accused of slipping mistress abortion pill

[Teller]

OK. I fully admit up front to being a raging conservative, and entrenched pro-lifer. But I'm truly not looking to get into a partisan shouting match in this case. In fact, I'm asking some of my more liberal, pro-choice, friends to help me understand this concept in our country.

Is there any other factor in determining when life begins in the United States, than the desire of the mother?

I ask, because I find it incredibly frustrating that my partner (as a hetero male) can choose to abort a child that I desire to have, and by all reasonable accounts have half of the interest in. Essentially, she can kill my child with or without my consent.

Now. On the other hand. Mom choose to abort the child by the same means, fine, no problem. I have no recourse whatsoever. It's all perfectly legal. Basically if mom doesn't want the child, she can kill it (RU 486) or have a doctor kill it (standard abortion.) But if I do the same thing, I lose my freedom, probably forever.

I DON'T understand. If mom or a doctor does it, fine. If dad does it, it's murder. Why???

Lest anyone get the wrong idea, I believe the guy in the following story should go to jail for a long time. He gave this woman a prescription (it still does require a prescription, right?) drug without her consent. That in itself should be worth several years in the clink. But I don't understand how he can be charged with murder for something that's legal for virtually anyone else to do.

My question is this. If we're going to have laws that are inconsistent (abortion is cool, but killing a pregnant woman in the SAME stage of pregnancy results in two counts of murder) is there any way to provide equal protection to men? It is simply wrong, on countless levels, that a woman can abort a fetus without consent of the father, yet a father who doesn't want the same child has ZERO options.

I'm almost to the point where I'd support "paper abortion" legislation. If a guy decides he doesn't want a child, he can file a legal document explaining why, and if it's legit, be absolved of responsibility. I think it's a small price to pay in support of people who's kids can be terminated without recourse.

And before you jump down my throat, yes, I've considered the consequences. Especially in poor communities, many men would shirk their responsibility just for the hell of it. But ya know what? That would force women to make better choices (like not having kids out of wedlock) and could actually lead to a rebirth of the Great American Marriage.

Like I said. I just truly don't understand why a mother gets to decide when life begins; and if I can have my child or not.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/674254,CST-NWS-abort30.article


APPLETON, Wis. -- A married man has been charged with attempted murder for slipping his mistress a drug that authorities say caused her to miscarry twice.

Manishkumar M. Patel, 34, of Appleton, was charged Thursday afternoon with seven felonies and two misdemeanors, including attempted first-degree murder of an unborn child.

[Henry]

Liberal here. The simple answer is it's pro-CHOICE. A man who slips a woman drugs is taking away that choice.


I'm almost to the point where I'd support "paper abortion" legislation. If a guy decides he doesn't want a child, he can file a legal document explaining why, and if it's legit, be absolved of responsibility. I think it's a small price to pay in support of people who's kids can be terminated without recourse.

And before you jump down my throat, yes, I've considered the consequences. Especially in poor communities, many men would shirk their responsibility just for the hell of it. But ya know what? That would force women to make better choices (like not having kids out of wedlock) and could actually lead to a rebirth of the Great American Marriage.

Has 'forcing' men to take some responsibility for children they father lead to the rebirth of the Great American Marriage? The answer is, of course, no. So now your solution is to 'force' women to shoulder ALL of the responsibility? Not sure that would work either. Though it would sure make a lot of irresponsible men happy.

[Popeman38]

Liberal here. The simple answer is it's pro-CHOICE. A man who slips a woman drugs is taking away that choice.I understand this logic. But why is it acteptable to take away the choice from a man?

[Destino]

Men and women do not play the same role in pregnancy. I don't see how one can simply ignore that fact or expect the law to ignore that. ONE of the two involved carries the child inside them risking life, health, career, and taking on serious discomfort.

[Henry]

I understand this logic. But why is it acteptable to take away the choice from a man?

Cause it's not his body?

I understand the conservative point of view. The OP asked what the liberal point of view was, so I gave it. I understand not everyone agrees with it.

[ImmortalDragon]

I understand this logic. But why is it acteptable to take away the choice from a man?
Because we don't assume women are our slaves

[Zguy28]

I believe Wisconsin has some anti-abortion laws still in place.

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lrb/pubs/wb/99wb7.pdf (http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lrb/pubs/wb/99wb7.pdf)


Since 1985, under Section 940.15, Wisconsin has prohibited intentional performance of an abortion after the fetus or unborn child has reached viability, unless it is necessary to preserve the mother’s life or health, as determined by her physician. (“Viability” is the stage of fetal development when, in the judgment of the attending physician, the fetus may sustain survival outside the womb, with or without artificial support.) Section 940.13, also enacted in 1985, prohibits prosecuting, imposing a fine on, or imprisoning a mother with respect to any abortion law.

I wonder how far along she was? This may have been why he got the charged.

[Teller]

Men and women do not play the same role in pregnancy. I don't see how one can simply ignore that fact or expect the law to ignore that. ONE of the two involved carries the child inside them risking life, health, career, and taking on serious discomfort.

And I've witnessed that personally, Des. Trust me, there's nothing that caused me to have MORE respect for my exwife than seeing her carry and deliver my kids.

I guess my point is this. Can you, or anyone else, sit there and tell me that our children mean more to her than me? (Note: anyone who tries will have a fight on their hands. ;) ) Yet, she could've taken that blessing from me with no recourse at all. I have no options. If she wants the child (out of wedlock or in) she's entitled to 18+ years of financial support, whether I want the child or not. Why do I not have the same rights, or at least the equivalent?

(Like I said, I'm not trying to be a partisan ass about this, although as an emotional issue for me, I'm sure some of that will leak out. I apologize for that. I really want to know if anything besides mom's decision causes the beginning of life, and why I have no rights in this area.)

[rincewind]

Simple answer is life's a ***** and it ain't always fair. Why do men get to pee standing up?

[rincewind]

Also - I would say they have the advantage of the final say in ab0rtions, but we can just walk away at any point during the pregnancy, they can't.

[Teller]

Simple answer is life's a ***** and it ain't always fair. Why do men get to pee standing up?

Evolution. We love football, and halftime is only 12 minutes. :laugh:

[Destino]

And I've witnessed that personally, Des. Trust me, there's nothing that caused me to have MORE respect for my exwife than seeing her carry and deliver my kids.

I guess my point is this. Can you, or anyone else, sit there and tell me that our children mean more to her than me? (Note: anyone who tries will have a fight on their hands. ;) ) Yet, she could've taken that blessing from me with no recourse at all. I have no options. If she wants the child (out of wedlock or in) she's entitled to 18+ years of financial support, whether I want the child or not. Why do I not have the same rights, or at least the equivalent?

(Like I said, I'm not trying to be a partisan ass about this, although as an emotional issue for me, I'm sure some of that will leak out. I apologize for that. I really want to know if anything besides mom's decision causes the beginning of life, and why I have no rights in this area.)

I don't think you're being a partisan ass about it at all and I agree with much about what you are saying. I'm big on "fathers rights" because I agree with what you are saying about your children. I also share your concern with the financial side of things: If she pokes holes in your condom, lies about being on the pill, or does any other dishonest thing to end up pregnant you still have to pay for 18 years. Hell, in some states if she lies about you being the father you can still end up paying for someone elses kid.

I find the situation alarming but without an easy solution. The reason abortion while legal is her right may be the simplist of the questions. Though I would argue that "murder" can't be the charge if abortion is legal... either life has begun or it hasn't, I don't like laws that try to have it both ways.

[Teller]

Because we don't assume women are our slaves

Are they forced to open their legs?

Come on, ID. I know this is going to be tough, and I already apologized for my frustration in advance, but we can have better discourse than this.

:cheers:

[Teller]

I don't think you're being a partisan ass about it at all and I agree with much about what you are saying. I'm big on "fathers rights" because I agree with what you are saying about your children. I also share your concern with the financial side of things: If she pokes holes in your condom, lies about being on the pill, or does any other dishonest thing to end up pregnant you still have to pay for 18 years. Hell, in some states if she lies about you being the father you can still end up paying for someone elses kid.

I find the situation alarming but without an easy solution. The reason abortion while legal is her right may be the simplist of the questions. Though I would argue that "murder" can't be the charge if abortion is legal... either life has begun or it hasn't, I don't like laws that try to have it both ways.

There's a boatload of common ground I didn't expect.

I agree with virtually all of this post. And I, like you, don't understand the murder charge while abortion is legal. Of COURSE it hurts me more to see a pregnant woman murdered. Like I said, I've got kids. I know that blessing. But fundamentally should the definition of murder change based on the perpetrator?

(I'm not calling abortion murder. It's legal. All I'm saying is that if the life can be taken by one person in the first trimester, I don't know how you can charge another with murder.)

[Burgold]

Is there any other factor in determining when life begins in the United States, than the desire of the mother?



To answer this question, to me the ethical issue isn't as much about when life begins. Humans have no problem killing life, whether it be with soap, antibiotics, or a weapon. We live though killing every day, be it by eating steak, chicken, fish, or carrots. The only thing humans consume that was never alive is a Twinkie. The twinkie is a nefarious and frightening concoction.

So, it's not about life, but when does humanity begin. When does the soul enter the being. Is it at conception? Is it at birth? Is it when the heart first starts thumping? That's where my ethical tipping point lies or to be more precise... my rationalization.

I sometimes thnk of the unwanted child born into a situation that can't afford it, won't raise it with the necessary love and attention, and will be treated badly and wonder if it would be better for that child not to be born. What chance does it have? I saw so many absentee parents when I taught whose children were being shoved down such a destructive path.

To this specific case, I agree with HH 36. The guy should be in jail and his was a horrible act. As to the choice in general, I would like the decision making to be about 65-35 in favor of the woman, but I definately would want to have some say.

[Corcaigh]

I ask, because I find it incredibly frustrating that my partner (as a hetero male) can choose ...

I stopped reading there. Congratulations. :D

:cheers:

[ImmortalDragon]

Are they forced to open their legs?

Come on, ID. I know this is going to be tough, and I already apologized for my frustration in advance, but we can have better discourse than this.

:cheers:
What exactly do you want if this situation were to come up? Where the mother doesn't want the child and the father does.

[Henry]

Are they forced to open their legs?

Come on, ID. I know this is going to be tough, and I already apologized for my frustration in advance, but we can have better discourse than this.

:cheers:

No. But a man has a choice not too sleep with a woman if he doesn't want to be a father. If you don't want a woman making choices with your DNA in her body, then don't have sex with her.

Just as there are men out there who are being denied fatherhood by women getting abortions, there are plenty of women who've been abandoned by men who got them pregnant. Life is unfair. Our laws do the best they can to even things out, but they aren't perfect, and they never will be.

[Zguy28]

I sometimes thnk of the unwanted child born into a situation that can't afford it, won't raise it with the necessary love and attention, and will be treated badly and wonder if it would be better for that child not to be born. What chance does it have? I saw so many absentee parents when I taught whose children were being shoved down such a destructive path.Good post Burgold. When we say "what if" its better not to be born, we must also consider that there are also many people who came out of that type of environment and became great.:2cents:

[Henry]

There's a boatload of common ground I didn't expect.

I agree with virtually all of this post. And I, like you, don't understand the murder charge while abortion is legal. Of COURSE it hurts me more to see a pregnant woman murdered. Like I said, I've got kids. I know that blessing. But fundamentally should the definition of murder change based on the perpetrator?

(I'm not calling abortion murder. It's legal. All I'm saying is that if the life can be taken by one person in the first trimester, I don't know how you can charge another with murder.)

I have no problem with any of this either, by the way. It's either murder or it isn't. That said, I don't usually shed a tear when someone gets charged twice for killing a pregnant woman.

[Burgold]

Good post Burgold. When we say "what if" its better not to be born, we must also consider that there are also many people who came out of that type of environment and became great.:2cents:

Absolutely true. I have a few friends who were adopted and know others that are foster parents. Some climb out of the worst environments all on their own despite the ambivalence or destructive actions of their parents.

It's all part of why this is still a contentious issue even after 200 years of debating it.

[Teller]

No. But a man has a choice not too sleep with a woman if he doesn't want to be a father. If you don't want a woman making choices with your DNA in her body, then don't have sex with her.

Just as there are men out there who are being denied fatherhood by women getting abortions, there are plenty of women who've been abandoned by men who got them pregnant. Life is unfair. Our laws do the best they can to even things out, but they aren't perfect, and they never will be.

I appreciate your participation and your rational responses here, Henry, truly. And everyone so far, this is a TOUGH topic.

But it seems to me that here again, you're placing the responsibility on the man, without providing him any of the rights. As Des pointed out, she can poke a hole in the condom, say she's taking the pill (which hopefully none of us would bite on), or make any number of claims. If it's her body. If she's the one that DOES experience pregnancy, why doesn't she have at bare minimum equal respobsibility for preventing it?

Your second paragraph I agree with, mostly. The only thing I'd point out is that those abandoned women can demand a paternity test; and when the guy loses, he pays. The man whose wife/girlfriend has an abortion has no such option.

I'm not a lawyer. Is there an equal protection issue here or not? I truly don't know, but it feels to me like there is. (I know. Feelings shouldn't enter into the construction or interpretation of the law in most cases. Forgive a soon-to-be divorced guy, who's missing the hell out of his kids, for doing so.)

[DjTj]

I guess my point is this. Can you, or anyone else, sit there and tell me that our children mean more to her than me? (Note: anyone who tries will have a fight on their hands. ;) ) Yet, she could've taken that blessing from me with no recourse at all. I have no options. If she wants the child (out of wedlock or in) she's entitled to 18+ years of financial support, whether I want the child or not. Why do I not have the same rights, or at least the equivalent?You have the same rights after the baby has left the womb, but God has given women more rights than you during the pregnancy. The baby is inside her body and for those nine months, you can't physically do anything to the baby without her cooperation.

This isn't really a philosophical argument but a pragmatic one. What are you going to do if a woman really doesn't want to have a baby? What are you going to do if she decides to continue drinking alcohol or smoking or doing drugs? For at least two trimesters, that baby will not survive if taken out of the womb, so the woman's consent is a really necessary requirement for the baby's survival.

Women have more power than men in this situation because that's where God put the womb.

(note that this argument doesn't really shed that much light on the abortion debate, because I think it would be reasonable to take the choice away from both men and women; I just don't think it makes any sense to believe that men must have an equal choice as women. The biology belies that equivalence.)

[Teller]

You have the same rights after the baby has left the womb, but God has given women more rights than you during the pregnancy. The baby is inside her body and for those nine months, you can't physically do anything to the baby without her cooperation.

This isn't really a philosophical argument but a pragmatic one. What are you going to do if a woman really doesn't want to have a baby? What are you going to do if she decides to continue drinking alcohol or smoking or doing drugs? For at least two trimesters, that baby will not survive if taken out of the womb, so the woman's consent is a really necessary requirement for the baby's survival.

Women have more power than men in this situation because that's where God put the womb.

(note that this argument doesn't really shed that much light on the abortion debate, because I think it would be reasonable to take the choice away from both men and women; I just don't think it makes any sense to believe that men must have an equal choice as women. The biology belies that equivalence.)

And of course, it's the Christian conservative who invokes God. ;) :laugh:

Kidding, brother. :cheers:

But here again. I'd argue that if we've decided the "thing" she's carrying is a life (in that murder can be charged for killing it) why not be able to charge her with, say, child endangerment for drinking, etc.

I guess, evaluating my position as this thread progresses, I just feel that as long as abortion is legal in the U.S., we shouldn't be able to charge murder for the death of a fetus. That may sound harsh, but as a pro-life conservative, it's quite a concession in my book. (Afterall, I could be saying, "if physically terminating a fetus by force is murder, then abortion is too. I just think that's counterproductive to real debate.)

[Henry]

I guess, evaluating my position as this thread progresses, I just feel that as long as abortion is legal in the U.S., we shouldn't be able to charge murder for the death of a fetus.

If that's your point I think it's a valid one.

[Teller]

If that's your point I think it's a valid one.

Thanks. It's certainly part of my point.

I guess I have some more studying/soul searching as far as pre-birth parental rights go. Heck, I'm not sure there even is a right or wrong answer there.

[Henry]

But it seems to me that here again, you're placing the responsibility on the man, without providing him any of the rights. As Des pointed out, she can poke a hole in the condom, say she's taking the pill (which hopefully none of us would bite on), or make any number of claims. If it's her body. If she's the one that DOES experience pregnancy, why doesn't she have at bare minimum equal respobsibility for preventing it?

No matter what laws you put in place, there will always be people out there who will attempt to exploit them. Like I said earlier, we do the best we can in an imperfect world.

[Teller]

No matter what laws you put in place, there will always be people out there who will attempt to exploit them. Like I said earlier, we do the best we can in an imperfect world.

You're right, of course. But I'm sure you'd agree that "good enough" seldom is. That's why our laws, system, interpretations and discourse are ever evolving. Heck, my own position evolved in this very thread. While we "do the best we can," as soon as we stop trying to do better, we stop trying to live up to that mantra.

My sincere thanks to all, again, for the cordial discussion. I'm truly impressed. Not one example of hotheadness in a thread that certainly lends itself in that direction. I hope this spirit continues even after Sean's death is a more distant memory.

Hail to my fellow ESers. I love you guys.

:cheers:

[DjTj]

And of course, it's the Christian conservative who invokes God. ;) :laugh:If I had written "that's where evolution put the womb" it would have opened a whole new can of worms ... :silly:


But here again. I'd argue that if we've decided the "thing" she's carrying is a life (in that murder can be charged for killing it) why not be able to charge her with, say, child endangerment for drinking, etc.When we don't charge murder for abortion, I don't think that's necessarily saying that the baby is not alive. You can kill people without being charged for murder (by accident, in self defense, during war, or in euthanasia). If a terminal cancer patient in a hospital bed was shot to death by an intruder, that would be murder. If that same cancer patient had her respirator removed by a doctor with her family's consent, it would be perfectly legal. Legalizing abortion is merely an exception to the laws for murder - we apply the exception to operations performed by doctors but not to deliberate acts committed by others.

[Popeman38]

Because we don't assume women are our slavesSimple answers always solve the issue. If we don't assume that women are our slaves, do we assume that men are women's slaves?

Because if she is bound and determined to become preggo, the man is locked in for minimum 18 years (23 if the child goes to college , in most states) of financial support to her tax free and no laws on the book requiring her to use the money on the child. Oh, and if the man begins to make more money, the woman can file to increase child support at any time, as many times as she decides. Look at Strahans settlement: she files for $365,000/year in child support. $1,000/day. And he has to continue to pay that after his lucrative career has been finished.

EDIT: I am in no way suggesting that men should not take responsibility for their offspring. I am, however, suggesting that paternity laws and child support laws be modified to allow the father greater rights. And to require that the majority of the child support be used on the child, perhaps with some sort of receipt audit at tax time each year.

[Henry]

Simple answers always solve the issue. If we don't assume that women are our slaves, do we assume that men are women's slaves?

Because if she is bound and determined to become preggo, the man is locked in for minimum 18 years (23 if the child goes to college , in most states) of financial support to her tax free and no laws on the book requiring her to use the money on the child. Oh, and if the man begins to make more money, the woman can file to increase child support at any time, as many times as she decides. Look at Strahans settlement: she files for $365,000/year in child support. $1,000/day. And he has to continue to pay that after his lucrative career has been finished.

I guess then we should start preaching abstinence. ;)

[Teller]

If I had written "that's where evolution put the womb" it would have opened a whole new can of worms ... :silly:

When we don't charge murder for abortion, I don't think that's necessarily saying that the baby is not alive. You can kill people without being charged for murder (by accident, in self defense, during war, or in euthanasia). If a terminal cancer patient in a hospital bed was shot to death by an intruder, that would be murder. If that same cancer patient had her respirator removed by a doctor with her family's consent, it would be perfectly legal. Legalizing abortion is merely an exception to the laws for murder - we apply the exception to operations performed by doctors but not to deliberate acts committed by others.

Here again. You're right, Teej. But we've seen that ending life-sustaining services to terminally-ill patients can be a source of much debate (Terry Schiavo) I think this is a legitimate debate to have as well.

From a legal perspective, your argument makes perfect sense. (As I'd expect.) But here again, in both examples, I guess the argument is more about humanity than life; as I think Burgold pointed out earlier.

Is it fair to say Terry Schiavo was less "alive" than me? I have no idea. But in that case, I guess I have to re-re-evaluate my position on the fetus as well, if I want to be honest with myself.

[JosephGibbs]

If I had written "that's where evolution put the womb" it would have opened a whole new can of worms ... :silly:

When we don't charge murder for abortion, I don't think that's necessarily saying that the baby is not alive. You can kill people without being charged for murder (by accident, in self defense, during war, or in euthanasia). If a terminal cancer patient in a hospital bed was shot to death by an intruder, that would be murder. If that same cancer patient had her respirator removed by a doctor with her family's consent, it would be perfectly legal. Legalizing abortion is merely an exception to the laws for murder - we apply the exception to operations performed by doctors but not to deliberate acts committed by others.

Wow, oustanding reasoning, good points.

[Teller]

Wow, oustanding reasoning, good points.

You'll find that's Teej's norm. Even when I don't stick to the same rules. :D

[Popeman38]

I guess then we should start preaching abstinence. ;)I think we should, but also responsibility for your actions as well as providing a real education, not just sex ed. When I was in school I had a class that gave mea wife, an income, bills, and other "adult" responsibilities. We had to budget our money and over the course of the year make decisions. After we made a decision, we had to deal with all of the ramifications.

[ImmortalDragon]

Simple answers always solve the issue. If we don't assume that women are our slaves, do we assume that men are women's slaves?

Because if she is bound and determined to become preggo, the man is locked in for minimum 18 years (23 if the child goes to college , in most states) of financial support to her tax free and no laws on the book requiring her to use the money on the child. Oh, and if the man begins to make more money, the woman can file to increase child support at any time, as many times as she decides. Look at Strahans settlement: she files for $365,000/year in child support. $1,000/day. And he has to continue to pay that after his lucrative career has been finished.

EDIT: I am in no way suggesting that men should not take responsibility for their offspring. I am, however, suggesting that paternity laws and child support laws be modified to allow the father greater rights. And to require that the majority of the child support be used on the child, perhaps with some sort of receipt audit at tax time each year.
I agree with you that fathers deserve more rights but we can't demand that she goes through 9 months of pregnancy if she doesn't want to.

[Popeman38]

I agree with you that fathers deserve more rights but we can't demand that she goes through 9 months of pregnancy if she doesn't want to.I 100% agree with you. But if the pregnancy is a true accident, the woman is afforded more rights. If the man wants to terminate and the woman doesn't, he has to pay for 18-23 years. If the woman want to terminate and the ma doesn't, she gets an abortion. It just ain't right.

[Teller]

I 100% agree with you. But if the pregnancy is a true accident, the woman is afforded more rights. If the man wants to terminate and the woman doesn't, he has to pay for 18-23 years. If the woman want to terminate and the ma doesn't, she gets an abortion. It just ain't right.

QFT.

[Henry]

I 100% agree with you. But if the pregnancy is a true accident, the woman is afforded more rights. If the man wants to terminate and the woman doesn't, he has to pay for 18-23 years. If the woman want to terminate and the ma doesn't, she gets an abortion. It just ain't right.

Pope, those are artificial means designed to make up for the fact that the woman bears all of the natural responsibility for the pregnancy while the man bears none. The woman HAS to make the hard decisions, because it's her body. That's not always a luxury, but it is always a necessity.

[Henry]

Here again. You're right, Teej. But we've seen that ending life-sustaining services to terminally-ill patients can be a source of much debate (Terry Schiavo) I think this is a legitimate debate to have as well.


Actually, I'd say the Schiavo example reinforces Tj's point. People are taken off of feeding tubes all the time. My grandmother was after her stroke. Noone called it murder.

The only reasn activists were up in arms about Schaivo was because the parents didn't want the tube pulled. It was called 'murder' by some because someone wanted her to live.

That's pretty much exactly the rationale used in the case presented in your first post.

[Popeman38]

Pope, those are artificial means designed to make up for the fact that the woman bears all of the natural responsibility for the pregnancy while the man bears none. The woman HAS to make the hard decisions, because it's her body. That's not always a luxury, but it is always a necessity.I understand that. And I agree with them in principle. But the details need to be changed to afford the man the ability to support his child, and not the mother of the child. Support for the woman is called alimony. I understand that the woman needs some of the money, which is why I think she should be accountable for the child support every year at tax time.

[DjTj]

I understand that. And I agree with them in principle. But the details need to be changed to afford the man the ability to support his child, and not the mother of the child. Support for the woman is called alimony. I understand that the woman needs some of the money, which is why I think she should be accountable for the child support every year at tax time.Where did you get the idea that it wasn't?

Alimony and child support are two different payments with different tax treatments. Alimony is taxable as income while child support is not. If the woman is audited by the IRS and isn't really using the child support for child support, there will be consequences.

[Zguy28]

If the woman is audited by the IRS and isn't really using the child support for child support, there will be consequences.In theory. I know first hand that there are in reality no consequences. Several personal friends have dealt with ex-wives who used the child support to live an opulant and drug-infested lifestyle when otherwise they wouldn't be able to. And the children requested the courts to let the dad's have custody and were denied.:2cents:

[Henry]

In theory. I know first hand that there are in reality no consequences. Several personal friends have dealt with ex-wives who used the child support to live an opulant and drug-infested lifestyle when otherwise they wouldn't be able to. And the children requested the courts to let the dad's have custody and were denied.:2cents:

And there are lots of deadbeat dads who are legally bound to pay child support and don't. I think you'll have a hard time arguing that the system favors women based on people who exploit it.

[DeanCollins]

see I've got a problem with this. If two people conceive a child and the woman can go out and get an abortion, even if they are married (happened to me and I wanted the child! :mad: ) then why can't the father terminate without the mothers consent? :doh:

[Zguy28]

And there are lots of deadbeat dads who are legally bound to pay child support and don't. I think you'll have a hard time arguing that the system favors women based on people who exploit it.No doubt, but not the point I was addressing. I was only addressing DJTJ's statement about consequences. :)

[TMK9973]

Couple things

1) On THIS case - It was not RU486. The abortion pill is taken within 48 hours. When you take that pill, you have no idea if the person was pregent or not
2) RU-486 does NOT require a perscription.
3) He gave her something that causes a miscarraige. I don't think it is murder, but it is assult.

As for the bigger question - How much say should the father have if the women wants a abortion - It's the womens body. She gets the final say. The best a father can do is to try to convince her.

[DjTj]

In theory. I know first hand that there are in reality no consequences. Several personal friends have dealt with ex-wives who used the child support to live an opulant and drug-infested lifestyle when otherwise they wouldn't be able to. And the children requested the courts to let the dad's have custody and were denied.:2cents:Well, there's no consequences in probably 99% of cases, but that's true of a lot of white-collar crimes.

I think I would generally agree that divorce law is unfairly slanted towards women, and we should probably have better enforcement on both sides of the equation, but I guess I was really addressing Popeman's contention that women weren't accountable at all. The reality, as usual, is somewhere in between...