View Full Version : Will an abortion be murder legaly if Roe v Wade is over turned ?
BigGreenMnM
11-12-2004, 11:45 AM
Aw, come on LL... you're going to ruin everything for us if you keep using reasoning like that! See, once we can hold you down and make you HAVE the babies, we're only a hop, skip and a jump from being able to hold you down and make you CONCEIVE the babies, right? Isn't that how this works? I mean Hell, I don't see all that much difference when you come right down to it - both are a complete and total subjugation of your will to my mine, and in each case I'm basically just imposing my beliefs re what I'm entitled to do to you on you by force... ah, yes, a true Man's World! Hmmmm.... gives me a strangely disconnected feeling of deja vu.... like we've been there before, and somehow reasoned our way out of such a hard-hearted, harsh and animalistic existence..... wait a minute... wait a minute... it's coming back to me now - OH YEA, NOW I REMEMBER... BACK WHEN WE WERE LIVING IN CAVES AND CARRYING CLUBS! Oh, well, guess we're just going full-circle, eh?::)Dude,your in need of a cochran, kiwi injection,wake up call.
Do you know what the divorce rate is???
Do you know what the rate of custodey for men is after a divorce?
Stop looking at this from a womans point of view.
I can understand some of your brownie point views here,i just hope your teaching your son well on how he must protect himself in the world today.
Maybe you and I wont be affected by the 98% of custodey battles ending with the mother winning,but your Son runs the 50% marriage failure rate of finding out in the future.
As a father of girls,the marriage rate is upsetting,as the father of men,i would be freaked the fuck out at the custodey rate.
hardkandee
11-12-2004, 11:49 AM
Safe then sorry??
Sounds like giving up the fight imo.
Im sorry,nothing you can say will get me to agree that 12-15 year old females should be having sex.Most dont in my opinion,those that do are either stupid or slutty.
how else could or would you describe them???
When is it okay to have sex then? How can you put an age limit on something our bodies are naturally programmed to do?
I'd much rather be safe than sorry. Wouldn't you rather have someone having SAFE sex than be knocked up and have several STIs? I know I would.
stant
11-12-2004, 12:26 PM
Not exactly. They were presented with whether the Texas abortion criminal statutes were too broad or otherwise unconstitutional. In its tortuous reasoning, the Supreme Court went through ancient Greece, Jewish law, medical tradition, twists of common law, Dorland's Medical Dictionary, various Protestant and Catholic views.
They ultimately felt compelled to address the protection of prenatal life. In doing so, they established a definition of life, divided by trimester, completely apart from any Constitutional foundation.
There is no provision in the Constitution to define life. One could argue it logically falls to the conscience of the people in the various states. The Supreme Court had to invent a class of person and stretch the 14th and other amendments to encompass the mother up until viability, at which point the states could encompass and protect the prenatal child - I think....
Jay, thanks for actually reading the decision. Roe is a controversial and complex opinion for some of the reasons you present. Your reading of the opinion, however, is in my opinion flawed.
What you derisively refer to as "tortured reasoning" is arguably precisely what the authors of the constitution had in mind when they wrote the ninth amendment. [see the annotated ninth amendment]
In Roe v Wade, the Court was confronted with competing constitutional rights, namely, the privacy rights extended from the Griswald decision (namely the rights of the mother), and the rights of a "potential" life. This is a legitimate constitutional question, not a legislative "agenda". Defining the boundaries of these rights and protections is clearly within the bounds of the constitution and hence the Supreme Court.
Since no such boundary had been defined before, the Court considered a deep understanding of the issue prior to forming its opinion, precisely as the framers of the constitution had intended. Far from tortured, this is in fact one of the most thoughtfully considered decisions of its time. This does not mean it was one of the best.
The trimester delineation, for example is clearly an odd part of the decision, and difficult to support as an inherent right. You may not be aware but this portion of Roe has in fact been overturned already, under the Casey decision. The exact words are: "Roe's rigid trimester framework is rejected."
Casey, however, clearly reinforces the underlying Griswald based rights in Roe for a woman, early in her pregnancy. You will probably find Casey a less "tortured" read, but remember that Blackmun's underlying basis for the competing rights of mother and unborn "potential" life hold firm.
It is difficult to understand how the delineation of basic human rights is not clearly a constitutional question. The "equal protection" clause demonstrates the intent of the constitution framers for it to have domain over this issue.
Brilliant legal scholars have rejected this interpretation of the constitution, however, and argue a position rejecting this use of the ninth amendment. I will leave it that your analysis, although well intended, is not the accepted opposing view towards Roe.
Roe could conceivably be reversed in its entirety, as Justices Rhenquist, Scalia, and Thomas have openly said they support. If such a profound reversal were to happen, no affirmative prohibition of abortion would necessarily happen under Federal law. But the possibility for such a change, even a Federal law banning abortion, could happen, once Roe is overturned in toto.
The short answer to the original question is no.
Contrary to many of the posters in this thread, the mother does not have absolute rights under Roe to control the fate of her pregnancy.
Casey:
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/833.html
BigGreenMnM
11-12-2004, 01:35 PM
When is it okay to have sex then? How can you put an age limit on something our bodies are naturally programmed to do?
I'd much rather be safe than sorry. Wouldn't you rather have someone having SAFE sex than be knocked up and have several STIs? I know I would.You cant get stds or knocked up if you dont have sex.
we tell kids when they can drive.
we tell kids when they can vote.
The list is endless,because they are kids.
When is it ok to drive.
When the person is responsible and able to be accountable in the event of an accident.
Shouldnt it be the same way for sex??
Your body and mine are programed for sex a helluva lot younger then 12-15 years old.Should we allow kids even younger to have sex or to be given protection from schools?
When a 12 year old girl is having sex,do you think her partner is 12 also or do you think the guy is older in most cases?
Are you saying its ok for a 12-15 year old to have sex??
how many 12-15 year olds that have sex are still with the same partner 5 years later do you think??
Have you ever met a 12 year old that you thought was mentally ready to handle a sexual relationship??
Do you know how many problems would be drastically reduced if 12-15 year olds were not having sex??
I agree with many of the statitory rape laws in this country,i just wish they included teens to at least 18.You want a random age,there it is...
I say 18.
A few more of my psycho rules at my compound with 5 daughters of differing ages.
With grades reflecting ability and effort in school...
12 for pierced ears.
16 for escorted dates.
16 for belly button piercing(recently added to the list)
17 for unescorted dates(home at midnight)
18 for two piece bathing suit.
18 for tattoo's.
etc etc etc
The 21 year old and the 19 year old survived the psycho protective dad and the 15 year old looks like she's gonna make it.(knock on wood)
No drug addicts or pregnancies to be found and I hold them as examples to our twin 4 year olds.
Im not saying i do everything right,but if I did it wrong,and it turned out right...
I was doing it right.;)
Casual Observer
11-12-2004, 01:52 PM
I don't care to get involved in the abortion debate as it's needlessly polarizing and I simply wish the government would extricate itself from the equation entirely--no restrictions, no subsidizations, no regulations. Leave it to the medical field and individuals; that's something they have to live with as individuals.
Im just trying to get men the same rights and "choices"as females get. It's coming, BGMM. It will take some time--battleships don't turn on dimes--but it's coming. Paternity tests, custody statutes, child support equality--these changes are entering the legal system now, but it will take some time for the pendulum to swing back to the middle.
The father's rights groups in this country are getting better funded and better represented with each year, as more men become disaffected and aware of just how limited their own reproductive rights are.
Time, BGMM, time.
LauraLove
11-12-2004, 03:18 PM
Im not pro life.Way to many people deserve to die imo for me to ever be pro life.
You say the "parents position",whats that???
The parents position is what the woman wants,at any givin time, with the option to change her "position' at will.
When you say parents position,your really saying the womans view,not the mans.Who the hell are you to tell me what I meant? I used the phrase parent's for a reason. That obviously being that I mean both mother and fathers position in the hypothetical scenario I was discussing.
Im not trying to control other peoples rights.Im just trying to get rights for men that are absent where there should be some.
If men are given these rights,abortion will be gone.
Two birds with one stone kinda thing.Really? So if both parents want to abort the child then you are fine with that? You see no reason to object? I'm seriously doubting that is the case Big Green.
If you want to stop other people from being able to choose abortion then you are, in fact, trying to control their lives and/or bodies. It's also obscenely ignorant of you to think abortion will disappear in the U. S if the father gets to stop a woman from having one. Many men also choose abortion. The fact that you are unaware or do not accept that fact is very telling of your level of intellect.
everyone deserves "rights"except the fathers of our countries children??
How crazy is that???Well, first that is unfactual, untrue statement. You and all other men have rights. You have the same rights as a woman.You have the right to say what happens to your body. Any man who opposes abortion hasthe right to:
1. not have sex 2. wear a condom 3. have sex only with women who also oppose abortion.
I personally don't think this is really about "men's rights" for you. I am quite confident it is about control and wanting to make other people do what you want.
Im sorry,nothing you can say will get me to agree that 12-15 year old females should be having sex.Most dont in my opinion,those that do are either stupid or slutty.
how else could or would you describe them??? No one said that 12-15 should be having sex, we are saying many of them do. Were you an adult your first time ? Were you a virgin on your wedding night. If not, you are a hypocrite.
I sure hope if one of your daughters does have sex or heaven forbid, gets pregnant, you won't turn to her and scream "Stupid Slut" like you did in the above quote.
It also a very telling thing about your character that you would call any 12 year old child a "slut" in the first place >:(
Lilith
11-12-2004, 05:23 PM
Well, first that is unfactual, untrue statement. You and all other men have rights. You have the same rights as a woman.You have the right to say what happens to your body. Any man who opposes abortion hasthe right to:
1. not have sex 2. wear a condom 3. have sex only with women who also oppose abortion.
I'll have to object to this as an illogical, simplistic excuse to explain away that men have no rights.
In regards to #1, I am absolutely convinced that a person telling women that they can avoid abortions by "not having sex" would be railed at as backwards and demanding unrealistic expectations. Let's not apply a blatant double standard to the men.
In regards to #2, you yourself already pointed out instances of birth control failure. So what of men who made responsible efforts yet were thwarted by the universe's funny bone? Tough luck, bozo, we'll call you if we feel like allowing you a say?
In regards to #3, let's say that a man actually did sit down and affirm a woman's opinions on the abortion debate before having sex with her (which is reminiscent of a certain college's requirement to ask specific verbal permission before each and every physically romantic act... but I digress). Is she then forbidden to change her mind? If she does, will he have any recourse at all despite having taken the trouble to have this conversation in advance?
This isn't to say anything at all about my own opinions on it. I simply had to point out that the logic doesn't wash. Furthermore, folks here would be hopping and spitting in fury if someone dared suggest to a woman that she wouldn't need rights if she just didn't have sex, or was responsible enough to wrap that sucker up (in fact, I'm sure if a pro-lifer said this people would be screaming "cow-fucking, bible-thumping redneck"). And I can only imagine the wrath evoked should someone suggest that a man should be able to decide post-conception whether or not parenthood suited him, and that if he selected "wrong" (differently than the woman) then it was the woman's fault for not having checked this with him sooner.
LauraLove
11-12-2004, 05:53 PM
I'll have to object to this as an illogical, simplistic excuse to explain away that men have no rights.
I in no way explained away that men have no rights. Maybe you don't think men have the same right to say what does or does not happen to their body. But I disagree.
I also don't see how it is illogical to say that both men and women share that right. In fact, I think it is completely absurd for you to claim that it is illogical.
I simply pointed out that they have the same rights. Those being they right to choose what they will do with their body.
Any other spin of my statement is a bold face lie. I know what I wrote. I know what it meant. Have a different opinion than me, fine. But do not sit there and type lies about what I meant or wrote. >:(
Lilith
11-12-2004, 06:13 PM
For all your indignation, you didn't answer any of the questions. The indignation was rather wasted anyway, as I didn't say that I held a different opinion on male reproductive rights or claim that you hold that men should have no rights. What I said is that your explanation of what a man's "rights" are, are really no rights at all- and you haven't offered anything yet to dispute this.
LauraLove
11-12-2004, 06:20 PM
You're tone and presentation didn't imply you wanted literal answers to each sentance ending in a question mark, sorry.You stated your thoughts along with an incorrect spin on my opinion.
In general I think my previous posts already point out why I disagree with the point of view you presented above.Do you need me to break it down into smaller bites or what ? Fine then, here you go:
I am absolutely convinced that a person telling women that they can avoid abortions by "not having sex" would be railed at as backwards and demanding unrealistic expectations. Let's not apply a blatant double standard to the men.
I disagree that it is a double standard.How is it a double standard ?
I also disagree that it is backward or unrealistic to include abstinence in the various option both sexes have to avoiding pregnancy and std's.
So what of men who made responsible efforts yet were thwarted by the universe's funny bone? That's simple. Take it to family court if the two people can't agree on a course of action.
Same answer for your third question. Now I have a question my own. Do you want to make abortions illegal or more restricted than they are today?
Katrine
11-12-2004, 07:05 PM
Big Green's experience is not the norm. Usually, a woman and her partner will agree to abort, then the woman will have a change of heart and want to keep the child. The man, aghast and indignant that his "decision" was not carried out, will take off and refuse support for the child because he wasn't ready, didn't want it, etc....
By the numbers, unwanted pregnancy situations are more likely to turn out this way. Sure, they woman can get a lawyer and track down the guy to make child support payments, but its not too difficult for the guy to skip the state, or worse yet, use her past of occupation as fuel to not pay up...........
Sorry, BigGreen, but this is more common. Until this country sees more men stepping up to the plate overall, its not the government's choice to force a woman to do, or NOT do, what she wants with her body and her future. We aren't talking 9 months, we are talking 18 years.........
Adina
11-12-2004, 08:35 PM
Damn right, Katrine. I'm all in favor of "father's rights" in custodial decisions, and I think current laws regarding alimony and palimony are absurd. But when it comes to carrying a child to term, that decision lies with the mother of the child. End of story.
I think some of you boys have been reading too much Robert Bly.
GnBeret
11-12-2004, 10:33 PM
Dude,your in need of a cochran, kiwi injection,wake up call.
Do you know what the divorce rate is???
Do you know what the rate of custodey for men is after a divorce?
Stop looking at this from a womans point of view.
I can understand some of your brownie point views here,i just hope your teaching your son well on how he must protect himself in the world today.
Maybe you and I wont be affected by the 98% of custodey battles ending with the mother winning,but your Son runs the 50% marriage failure rate of finding out in the future.
As a father of girls,the marriage rate is upsetting,as the father of men,i would be freaked the fuck out at the custodey rate.
BGM&M: Let's get one thing straight - I could give a s*** less about "brownie points" here: I firmly believe in the position I'm espousing, and I not only vote for, but also contribute $$$ to candidates for office that support those same views. And yes, I'm well aware of the divorce rate and how custody works, as I'm both divorced and had children with my ex prior to the marriage ending in divorce. As for what I'm teaching my boys, well... can be summed up in one sentence - think through anything and everything you're considering doing, make sure you know what the possible consequences of the choices you're making are, and make sure you're willing to deal with said consequences should they ultimately come to pass before you do the act. IOW, nobody's making you have sex with the gir and nobody's stopping you from using protection - so if you DO decide to do so, without protection, and she gets pregnant, don't come crying to me about her decision to not have the child! Instead, be an adult about it and support her in her decision - regardless of which way she chooses to go. And if that means supporting your child even though she no longer wants to be with you, so be it - you want to "be a man" and have sex with her, you have to "be a man" and deal with consequences of your decision too.
Lilith
11-12-2004, 10:44 PM
You're tone and presentation didn't imply you wanted literal answers to each sentance ending in a question mark, sorry.
You accuse me of putting words in your mouth and then start bringing my "tone" into it in the next breath? Either interpretation of a post is allowable or it isn't. Consistency would be appreciated.
I disagree that it is a double standard.How is it a double standard ?
I also disagree that it is backward or unrealistic to include abstinence in the various option both sexes have to avoiding pregnancy and std's.
Though an abortion could arguably be called "avoiding pregnancy after the fact", I don't think anyone has yet labeled it an STD. Regardless, we aren't discussing "avoiding pregnancy and std's"; we're discussing rights as pertaining to abortion, specifically a man's rights. It's lovely that you don't find your statements to be a double standard. I shall now put you down as feeling that abortion rights are irrelevant to women because she already has the "choice" to just stop having sex or use birth control. If this is not an accurate representation, please feel free to clarify.
That's simple. Take it to family court if the two people can't agree on a course of action.
Just to be sure I read this correctly, you are proposing that a family court judge and the optional attorneys should have a say (a compelling, final say in fact) in a woman's decision to abort, adopt or carry to term if she and the father do not agree. Since you reference this answer to the issue of whether a man has recourse if a woman changes her mind on abortion, I am gathering that you also think the courts should have the authority to force a woman to either undergo an abortion or carry to term if the father can produce compelling evidence of her opinions pre-pregnancy.
To be honest, I don't see how handing such control over private and medical decisions to the court systems, or relying uniformly and totally on abstinence, the hope that birth control won't ever fail or that your partner won't ever change their mind are adequate to provide reproductive rights to people of either gender.
Do you want to make abortions illegal or more restricted than they are today?
This doesn't appear to have much to do with our discussion of male reproductive rights and whether they are equal to that of women.
originally written by Katrine
Sure, they woman can get a lawyer and track down the guy to make child support payments, but its not too difficult for the guy to skip the state, or worse yet, use her past of occupation as fuel to not pay up....
And that's counting on the woman having enough spare income to hire an attorney, which is rather a catch-22 as she isn't getting her child support payments. Child support laws in this country are a joke. Anyone who doesn't feel like making their payments can slip through cracks big enough to pass a Mack truck. And what are the proper enforcement officials going to do about it? "Bad, bad non-custodial parent! We're going to write nasty newspaper articles about deadbeats now! Take THAT!" Oooh, deadbeats are quaking, I'm sure.
GnBeret
11-12-2004, 11:12 PM
There seems to be a misconception amongst some who have posted here re the "rights" of men under the law - it is simply not the case in most States that men have "no rights" re the woman's decision regarding abortion or custody/access to a child they fathered out of wedlock.
First, re abortion, once the fetus becomes "viable," if it's your child and you are willing to step up to the plate and commit to full support and/or full custody of the child after birth, she'll have a very difficult time convincing the court to allow her to have a purely discretionary abortion - especially since the AG's office and/or Child Protective Services will step into the case alongside you and assert the State's interests in the life of the unborn child.
Second, re custody, most States have overhauled their custody statutes over the course of the past 20 years, and almost all follow along with and/or at least used "model act" provisions as a guideline. And in most cases now, Joint Custody, regardless of marriage status, is PRESUMED - meaning she's going to have to come up with a damned good reason why you shouldn't be accorded joint custody of the child before the court will override the presumption. Now, that said, custody is different from "domiciliary status" (meaning where the child will actually live), and in most cases, there's also a presumption that the child should live with the mother from age 1 - 5, with the father being granted specific access by order of the court. After age 5, the court is usually willing to revisit the issue and order that the child will live with the father 50% of the time if that's what he wants. Also, there are numerous provisions in these acts to prevent the mother from circumventing these rules, such as provisions requiring her to seek court permission before moving out of the jurisdiction, etc.
In sum, if you're a stable male (i.e., the kind that can pass court scrutiny re employment, substance abuse problems, etc.), you're willing to go to the time and expense of asserting your interests in the child, and you're willing to make a firm commitment on the record to fully supporting and being responsible for the child, IN MOST STATES you will get exactly what you want.
About the only area you don't have any say-so or rights is in her decision as to whether or not to abort the fetus during the first few months of the pregnancy - unfortunately, the sad fact of the matter is that you probably don't knbow of them because of the reasons mentioned by Katrine: the problems usually arise in the other direction, as guys are normally far less concerned about their rights to the child than their responsibilities that go hand-in-hand.::)
GnBeret
11-12-2004, 11:43 PM
And that's counting on the woman having enough spare income to hire an attorney, which is rather a catch-22 as she isn't getting her child support payments. Child support laws in this country are a joke. Anyone who doesn't feel like making their payments can slip through cracks big enough to pass a Mack truck. And what are the proper enforcement officials going to do about it? "Bad, bad non-custodial parent! We're going to write nasty newspaper articles about deadbeats now! Take THAT!" Oooh, deadbeats are quaking, I'm sure.
For the most part, this, too, is an inaccurrate representation of the CURRENT state of the law, most likely based on an accurrate perception of the way the law used to be.
As a part of the overhaul of the custody laws that's occurred in most States over the past 20 years, the child support payment and enforcement provisions were changed too. As it stands now, once the woman obtains a judgment ordering child support payments (and the State will represent her if she cannot afford an attorney), the judgment is enforceable nationwide without resort to having to file specific suit in another State seeking "full faith and credit" be accorded, the male is subject to the loss of virtually every form of license known (medical license, bar license, hunting and fishing licenses, DRIVER'S license, etc. - again, nationwide), his earnings can be garnished nationwide, and a lien can be placed with the IRS such that any returns, etc. automatically go to the court for remittal to the mother. And in many States (Texas included), the father must pay the support to the State, who then cuts a check to the mother - and if the payment is not made within the 2 day grace period of the due date, a Bench Warrant for his arrest is automatically issued. And as far as needing a lawyer - no: in those States that have made these changes, the State will step in and pursue him on your behalf if you cannot afford to do so (the States have finally figured out how much cheaper it is for them to go after the guy hard than to wind up having to add the children to their social services budgets - and once the first few States had hard-dollar figures the other States could see, it didn't take long for the legislators in the other States to realize they could free up large amounts of money from their existing State budgets for use elsewhere by making the same kinds of changes).
Much like DWI, society's views on this issue have been undergoing a sea-change over the past few years. DWI used to be a joke - get one now and see how funny it is. Same with failure to pay custody - while some States are still behind the curve, they're rapidly falling in line with the majority that have begun to get dead-serious about it.
Jay Zeno
11-13-2004, 05:34 AM
Agreement with both Lilith and GB, even though they seem to be in disagreement with each other.
URESA, the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement Support Act, has been around since the 1950s. It has been made tougher and tougher as the years go on and as computerization and national databases expand.
However, in order to avoid paying child support, the unworthy father can 1) not make his whereabouts known to mom and 2) not get caught by the authorities where his name will come up on an outstanding warrant. Naturally, this most often will happen in cases of low-income families, which is exactly the type of situation that doesn't get investigated much. The mom doesn't have money to track down dad, and county/state officials usually don't have dad searches as active investigations. Sometimes dad gets caught, and whaddya know, there's an ongoing URESA action with a $30,000 judgment. So, yeah, garnishee his wages until he quits and drops off the radar again.
So there's gaping holes in the system, particularly with broke folks. However, in a country with freedom of movement and no debtors prison, it's hard to imagine that there wouldn't be.
Lilith
11-13-2004, 02:39 PM
For the most part, this, too, is an inaccurrate representation of the CURRENT state of the law, most likely based on an accurrate perception of the way the law used to be.
And if you tacked on the phrase " ... in states that have made these changes" then I would agree with you. I'm with Jay in that the progressive states have made it somewhat toothier- but certainly not unavoidable- and will add that this won't help those who don't live in the progressive states. For example, my state of Washington. The OSE will not assist in gaining a judgement in WA state. They will enforce or modify an order already in place, establish paternity, locate the absent parent (if possible) and garnish wages (if possible) but they will not go to court for you to get an order of judgement unless you are receiving public assistance. I'm certain that WA can't be the only state still leaving the burden of attorney fees to the custodial parents. WA would also be one of the states that does not arrest for being in arrears on child support payments. In fact, if they cannot locate the absent parent for X number of years (haven't yet pinned them down on whether X equals three, five or seven) they automatically close the case and the custodial parent must petition to have it re-opened.
The message being that, depending on where you live, if you dodge long enough then the worst they'll do is revoke your license. I went an eight year stretch without ever being pulled over. This has no teeth whatsoever. The more progressive states make it a bit harder to dodge around (Michigan may have accomplished the miraculous feat of nailing Jello to a wall!), but they still can't ensure that someone who refuses to pay will actually pay.
Lilith
11-13-2004, 03:31 PM
GnBeret~
After the fetus is "viable" a woman would have to go through that process to gain an abortion regardless, in most states. I can't quote the requirements in all states but the ones that I do know are so very stringent that what the father may wish is rather a moot point by the time it reaches this level (aside: and rightly so, because the strict requirements make any potential abortion at this point trump, by their nature, one person's wishes). This also accounts for an infinitesmal fraction of abortions.
About the only area you don't have any say-so or rights is in her decision as to whether or not to abort the fetus during the first few months of the pregnancy - unfortunately, the sad fact of the matter is that you probably don't knbow of them because of the reasons mentioned by Katrine: the problems usually arise in the other direction, as guys are normally far less concerned about their rights to the child than their responsibilities that go hand-in-hand.Yeah, agreeing with the two of you there. I'm going with the logic of the thing though; having reproductive rights is (*ahem*... should be) only marginally affected by whether the jackasses deserve them.
In regards to custody: I try to avoid custody law arguments. I can, and often do, play devil's advocate or apply cold logic in many diverse areas but this is the one area where my prejudice escapes me. It can be difficult enough to rein in my tendency to call absent fathers asshats, the lot of them; debating the issue when I'm as biased as the day is long would be a Bad Idea. I've only two things to add to your excellent summary.
Most states now use the terms "legal" and "physical" custody. Legal custody is the matter of getting to decide what doctor to use, whether to admit a child to the hospital, the child's best interests in a potential out-of-state move- the decisions, in other words. You are correct that this is now assumed to be split equally among both natural parents regardless of marital or custodial status; a parent has to be a real piece of work for the other party to be awarded full legal custody out of hand. Physical custody would be where the child actually lives. Just a clarification for those who didn't know.
"After age 5, the court is usually willing to revisit the issue and order that the child will live with the father 50% of the time if that's what he wants."
Change just one word and you will be correct; 50% to "joint time". Courts balk with extreme prejudice at 50-50 time splits for school age children (it is usually seen as disruptive to schooling; one must argue a case where the loss of equal time would be more detrimental than any possible school complications), whereas they are very favorable to "joint time" arrangements once a child is in the vicinity of the preschool age. Joint time doesn't necessarily mean equal time, but is typically quite close- ie; all school days spent with one parent, all non-school days spent with the other, negotiated holidays. Or, three weekends a month plus all school holidays plus six weeks in summer. You get the idea. Vast improvement over the formerly common visitation schedules (can't help adding that most non-custodial parents still don't avail themselves of this improvement though, the fecking asshats... I'll stop ranting now).
Chani_Fremen
11-13-2004, 07:26 PM
BigGreenMnM, making it a law for people under 18 not to have sex? LOL.
People under the age of 18 have been having sex for about the last 2 million years. Legistlating a law against it would be making a law against basic human biology.
Besides, even if you do wait until you are 18 years old to have sex you can still catch STDs and still have an unwanted pregnancy, so it's still good to know how to use condoms and birth control regardless.
And btw, congradulations on the parenting. Does parenting make a difference? Of course it does. But making a law against when kids should have sex is ridiculous and I have no idea how it would be enforced. (Like the law against drinking prior to age 21? LMAO.)
Rebuildme
11-13-2004, 07:54 PM
They could have their driver's liscense suspended..........I think someone out there should push for this and then we can all debate it and forget about gay marriage and abortion and all that other stupid shit.
I think it quite moronic that basic birth control methods are not being taught in all schools and there is such a controversy about it, but at the same time why do people think it should be the school systems responsibility to teach children about sex? Being in possession of condoms does not put me in an amorous state, nor did learning about reproduction while looking at medical illustrations..........I swear this world is so damned ass backwards...
Breathing is murder/suicide.
BigGreenMnM
11-14-2004, 09:30 AM
Peterson was convicted of 2nd degree murder on the fetus Conner.
Does anyone care to comment on what affect,if any, this very public case might have on the roe wade case or fetal rights issues?
VenusGoddess
11-14-2004, 09:44 AM
It shouldn't affect Roe v. Wade at all. Murdering the mother, and thus murdering the child is very different from a woman's right to choose.
BigGreenMnM
11-14-2004, 10:23 AM
It shouldn't affect Roe v. Wade at all. Murdering the mother, and thus murdering the child is very different from a woman's right to choose.yes,this has been the standard response from the PC side since roe wade.My question is,do you think there will be an affect,now that a fetus has rights to life??
I just see this as a new wrinkle in the overall debate that really hasnt been there yet.
I bet term papers and theisus's have been started by the zillions already on this wrinkle.
LauraLove
11-14-2004, 10:07 PM
As it was already explained, it will have no real effect on Roe v Wade because it is not the same thing.
There will be lots of talk and plenty of threats from the rightwing. But being that they are two different issues, I don't think it will reverse the decision.
NikkiD
11-15-2004, 07:52 AM
I don't agree completely with a woman's right to choose but I would hate to think that if it were made illegal, women everywhere would be dying again because of botched "back-alley abortions." The main reason I have problems with it though is that some are using it as a last-ditch method of birth control. There are other ways to prevent unwanted pregnancy, widely available.
Thank you, my thoughts exactly.
VenusGoddess
11-17-2004, 10:39 PM
Here's a good article...
http://courttv.com/news/2003/0326/fetalhomicide_ctv.html
GnBeret
11-18-2004, 04:38 AM
I just see this as a new wrinkle in the overall debate that really hasnt been there yet.
Maybe so, but that's only because there hasn't been a high-profile case like this one that raised the issue... over half the States already have laws on the books making it a crime to cause the death of an unborn child while committing an act of violence against the mother. And while most such statutes contain an express requirement re "viability," those that don't have had such a requirement read into them by the courts that have been presented with the question - so far as I know, the Constitutionality of convicting someone for causing the "death" of a fetus prior to viability is, technically, at least, still an open question - but in light of the obvious logical problems presented when one tries to reconcile such a holding with the Roe/Casey line of cases, it's entirely possible the issue will never come up (prosecutor would first have to obtain a conviction, then State Supreme Court would have to uphold it first).
stant
11-18-2004, 03:21 PM
...And while most such statutes contain an express requirement re "viability," those that don't have had such a requirement read into them by the courts that have been presented with the question - so far as I know, the Constitutionality of convicting someone for causing the "death" of a fetus prior to viability is, technically, at least, still an open question ....
Check out the article Venus posted (good find btw, VG), and even more relevant to your particular question:
http://courttv.com/news/2003/0326/pafeticide_ap.html
In this case a woman was convicted of fetal homicide for causing the miscarraige of a 15 to 17 week old fetus, without a question long prior to viability. An interesting constitutional question, but apparently one that has so far been rejected by lower courts:
Lucas said he planned to appeal on several issues, including the constitutionality of the fetal homicide law. An earlier attempt to have the charge thrown out on that basis failed.
Sounds like he filed for a writ prior to trial, which was as usual rejected. Now that the state has an actual pre viability homicide verdict on its hands, I suspect we'll see this case meander its way through the system in the coming years.
stant
11-18-2004, 04:06 PM
After a second look, I believe this constitutional question (can an intentional unwanted termination of a pre viability fetus by a third party be considered a homicide) has been dispositively decided by the Supreme Court under
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services:
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/492/490.html
In that case, the Supremes reviewed a Missouri law which included the phrase:
"[t]he life of each human being begins at conception," and that "unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being,"
In brief, the Court ruled that as long as the state asserted this principle in ways that did not conflict with the rights of the mother under Roe, it was free to do so. Enacting laws against fetal homicide (properly defined so as not to conflict with a mother's rights) are clearly within the guidelines provided by the Webster decision. In other words, women can have rights both in the decision for termination, as well as the protection against criminal trespass, of a potential life they carry. No conflict.
VenusGoddess
11-19-2004, 08:39 AM
Check out the article Venus posted (good find btw, VG), and even more relevant to your particular question:
http://courttv.com/news/2003/0326/pafeticide_ap.html
Heh...thanks...I'm a CourtTV junkie...my bosses (all lawyers) used to have this on their TV's throughout the day...just got pulled into it...well, actually, it started with the OJ trial... :D
GnBeret
11-19-2004, 09:13 AM
In brief, the Court ruled that as long as the state asserted this principle in ways that did not conflict with the rights of the mother under Roe, it was free to do so. Enacting laws against fetal homicide (properly defined so as not to conflict with a mother's rights) are clearly within the guidelines provided by the Webster decision. In other words, women can have rights both in the decision for termination, as well as the protection against criminal trespass, of a potential life they carry. No conflict.
Thanks for running down!
stant
11-19-2004, 10:35 AM
Thanks for running down!
Thanks for pointing out an already decided constitutional issue as an open question, you almost had me.:P
GnBeret
11-19-2004, 06:30 PM
Thanks for pointing out an already decided constitutional issue as an open question, you almost had me.:P
Mea culpa. Apparently the acknowledgment of error implicit in my "thanks" for providing correct answer was insufficient in the "glory to" department... my apologies, and I'll try to fall on my sword in more dramatic fashion next time, K?::)
So, that said - mind if I ask who pissed in your Cornflakes this morning?:D LOL
VenusGoddess
11-21-2004, 06:23 PM
This young man was charged with attempted murder for shooting his pregnant girlfriend in the neck...the state did NOT pursue murder charges for the ultimate death of the baby/fetus because of the girl's decision to get an abortion...here's the full story:
http://courttv.com/trials/news/1104/18_abortion_ap.html
Jury convicts teen of shooting pregnant girlfriend at abortion clinic
INDIO, Calif. (AP) — A teenager was convicted of attempted murder for shooting his pregnant girlfriend at the clinic where she went to get an abortion.
Jeffrey Cameron Fitzhenry, 17, was convicted Wednesday. The shooting April 29 left the 16-year-old girl a quadriplegic, and the fetus was declared dead three days afterward.
The victim, identified only as Sara S., testified Fitzhenry repeatedly threatened her, saying that she was "depriving him of his unborn child." When she entered the clinic, Fitzhenry followed her, argued with her, and shot her in the neck, she said.
Defense attorney Robert Dunn argued that only a lesser charge of attempted voluntary manslaughter should be considered. He said Fitzhenry shot the girl after a "continuous escalation" of anger and he did not plan to kill her.
The jury also found Fitzhenry guilty of assault with a deadly weapon and enhancements that make him subject to a sentence of life in prison. A sentencing hearing is set for Jan. 6.
Prosecutors did not seek a separate murder charge for the fetus because of the girl's decision to have an abortion, according to Robert Blythe, an attorney handling the girl's lawsuit against Fitzhenry.
Prosecutor Traci Carrillo told the jury that Fitzhenry had questioned who the father was, and the case was about his attempt to control the girl, not her decision to get an abortion.
BigGreenMnM
11-22-2004, 11:40 AM
Venus,I think me repling to this post would be like standing in the shallow end of a gas filled swimming pool,trying to light a fart with a cricket lighter.
:flamed: :flamed: :flamed: :flamed: :flamed: :flamed: :flamed: :flamed: :flamed: :flamed: :flamed: :flamed: :flamed: :flamed: :flamed: :flamed:
But
"I love the smell of napalm in the morning"}:D
This guy was wrong,guilty,and should be charged with attempted murder.Im sorry the baby died,and im sorry that the girl will spend the rest of her life in pain.
Prosecutor Traci Carrillo told the jury that Fitzhenry had questioned who the father was, and the case was about his attempt to control the girl, not her decision to get an abortion.(Get your flame throwers ready.)
This wasnt about the abortion.
But if it was????
Just for the sake of discussion,IM NOT SAYING THIS IS OK<THIS IS NOT MY OPINION<THIS IS JUST FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION>
If he shot her over the abortion,would it be justifiable homicide??
I know as a father,i would kill anything or anyone who tried to kill my children,without a moments hesitation or a wink lost to remorse.
Isnt that how im supposed to think???
Ladies,if your husband/so tried to kill your kids,would you drop him where he stood if you had a gun??
What if your Mom or dad tried to kill your kid??Would you just wing them if you thought they could still hurt your kid,or would you shoot to kill??
Should a father kill the mother if she is trying to kill the kids?
I know its a crazy question,im sure your family and mine wouldnt do that.
I dont want to sound like attilla the DJ,but i answered yes to all the above,and i would use a taser gun on them after i shot them dead just to be sure.
The real question is.
Why would a man be convicted of something that 9 months later will be expected of him??
BigGreenMnM
11-22-2004, 11:43 AM
:::::reminder::::
the last post was just for discussions sake.
I dont agree with killing mothers or abortion doctors.
Tigerlilly
11-22-2004, 12:09 PM
Great article VG- nice research work !
If he shot her over the abortion,would it be justifiable homicide??
:ill: NO. And if the next question is why, let me save you some time--I'm not going to go there with you-- its a waste of time for me to try to explain my pov on the value of a woman's rights/life to you- based on posts I've read here on SW- ofcourse that's just my opinion so..... ::)
I think both the jury and the prosecutor made the right choice in this case , no question . The reasons I agree are boldface in the quote below
Prosecutors did not seek a separate murder charge for the fetus because of the girl's decision to have an abortion, according to Robert Blythe, an attorney handling the girl's lawsuit against Fitzhenry.
Prosecutor Traci Carrillo told the jury that Fitzhenry had questioned who the father was, and the case was about his attempt to control the girl, not her decision to get an abortion.
VenusGoddess
11-22-2004, 01:12 PM
This wasnt about the abortion.
But if it was????
Just for the sake of discussion,IM NOT SAYING THIS IS OK<THIS IS NOT MY OPINION<THIS IS JUST FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION>
If he shot her over the abortion,would it be justifiable homicide??
Well, let's put it into this context. If the law says that any body aborting a pregnancy after the 12 weeks (unless there is a sustainable medical condition that will cause the mother's death) can very well be charged with murder. By law, a fetus is "not viable" until after the first trimester. A 16-year-old child, is obviously, past that point. :D Right? Now, anyone who takes her life, would be charged with murder. However, since her unborn child/fetus was within the 12 week gestational window...her aborting the fetus is not murder. This is according to the law. He was also not charged with the death of the baby/fetus...pretty much because the mother had already decided she wanted to abort...
Does this make sense? I am not asking if you agree...but does it make sense?
Ok...now...when is murder REALLY ever justifiable? Murder is murder...you may get off on a murder charge if the jury finds "Not guilty due to crimes of passion". But, you're still a murderer. You weren't "justified" in the murder...but you were sympathized with...
The real question is.
Why would a man be convicted of something that 9 months later will be expected of him??
It's as simple as this: Because at the point in time of the abortion, it is not in his right to decide. What sense does it make if you kill your pregnant wife because she wants an abortion? You kill the mom, you kill the child. He's NOW the one responsible for the baby's death. Anyone who justifies killing a pregnant woman because she wanted an abortion, therefore killing the unborn baby he was "trying to protect" is more than a little nuts.
BigGreenMnM
11-23-2004, 11:36 AM
Venus,I agree with everything your saying because i really belive your correct.
I would just like someone to answer the question.
Would you kill anything and anyone that tried to kill your child??
Tigerlilly
11-23-2004, 12:42 PM
^ ::)
Was that really the question or was it :
If he shot her over the abortion,would it be justifiable homicide??
Because that question was answered
BigGreenMnM
11-23-2004, 01:49 PM
Care to answer any of the rest????
If you cant find an honest answer to those questions,maybe you can answer the single question posed to Venus(in a non combative conversational post)?
here it is again for your benny...
Would you kill anything and anyone that tried to kill your child??I will also add the rest to see if you would like to answer them as well.
1.This wasnt about the abortion.
But if it was????
2.If he shot her over the abortion,would it be justifiable homicide??(you answered this one already,twice)
3.I know as a father,i would kill anything or anyone who tried to kill my children,without a moments hesitation or a wink lost to remorse.
Isnt that how im supposed to think???
4.Ladies,if your husband/so tried to kill your kids,would you drop him where he stood if you had a gun??
5.What if your Mom or dad tried to kill your kid??Would you just wing them if you thought they could still hurt your kid,or would you shoot to kill??
6.Should a father kill the mother if she is trying to kill the kids?
7.Why would a man be convicted of something that 9 months later will be expected of him??
Before you walk blindly into the trap that everyone else spotted in the last post(the reason why they didnt answer the same questions and i dont blame them),i feel the need to warn you of how stupid your going to look for your own cause.
I kinda feel like the driver on the short bus telling you to "keep all hands and heads inside the windows"
So go ahead,i double dog dare ya,answer them all!!!!!;)
Tigerlilly
11-23-2004, 02:00 PM
Yes, I could/would kill IF I had to to protect my child. BUT in any possible situation where such a responce might occur, my actions would legally justified. I would never choose to kill in unjustified circumstances such as the man did in the news story VG posted.