Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbe who wrote (42489)	6/28/1999 7:05:00 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

gee, I don't know...I guess just a weird fascination with dialogue Joan. And I really don't know what people will have to say in advance. Well, I guess I could take a stab at a few, but that would be about it. For instance, Sam seems like a really bright person, so I'm curious what his take would be. To me it's one of those nagging questions that I have yet to hear answered. Much like the burning cross, burning flag one. I guess where we may differ is, I don't feel that asking difficult or uncomfortable questions is "stirring up the hornets nest". I'm here to inquire and learn, and learning sometimes involves difficult questions. Michael

To: jbe who wrote (42489)	6/28/1999 7:15:00 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Hi Joan, I'm kinda in the middle on this. If jizz can be contained in a condom and birth control pills are ok???? Well a little difference, rubbers prevent conception and pills prevent a blastula (itty bitty baby) from hooking up to it's life source..?? Well I'm not smart enough to really get into all this but I and it's just my opinion, that the PBAs are murder in the first.

To: jbe who wrote (42489)	6/28/1999 7:45:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 108807

There's an abortion-related question you might find more interesting. Accept for the sake of this discussion that a woman has a legal right to abort her baby without asking for or seeking the man's opinion, or even telling him that she was pregnant. Given that every state requires the parents of a child to support the child until age 18, at least (unless legally emancipated earlier), the mother then has the absolute right to decide whether she wants to bear the financial burden of raising a child. But the father has no such right. Indeed, the mother has the right to decide for him. If an unmarried couple creates a child, the mother has the complete power to decide whether she is ready and willing to take on that financial burden herself, and ALSO has the absolute right to decide whether the man will be required to take on that financial burden. My argument: that if a couple who are not married and who have not agreed in advance to bear a child together engage in sexual activity which produces pregnancy, the mother should have the legal obligation to tell a man that he has fathered a child by her as soon as she knows of her pregnancy (or if there are many possible fathers, must tell them all and take immediate blood tests, on request of any of them, to determine whether they are the legal father.) That the man will then have the legal right to formally renounce his parenthood and be relieved of any financial burden for the child, and gives up all parental rights. This must be done within a short time period to allow the mother to abort the child safely and easily if that is her choice. If the mother then wants continues the pregnancy and bear the child, she does so in the full knowledge that the father has no financial responsibility for the child and that the father has given up all his parental rights, so that the child can be immediately adopted if that is her desire. (Under the present law it can be quite difficult to forcibly take away a man's parental rights to let the child be adopted, etc.) In this way, the rights and responsibilities of the parents are equalized to the greatest degree possible. Whereas now the mother has the right to decide for herself AND for the father whether to abort the child or to be a parent and take on the joys, rewards, responsibilities, and costs of parenthood, and the father has NO rights to make such a choice (I know of no state which allows a father voluntarily to renounce his parental rights at will), under my proposal both parents have equal rights, to the degree biologically possible, to accept the results of the sexual act or to abort (in the woman's case) or give up (in the man's case) their parental role and responsibilities. I believe that the present situation violates the Washington Equal Rights Amendment in that it gives the mother rights (not to take on an 18 year financial burden) that are denied the father. Some day when I have time and money enough to do it, I'm going to look for a test case on this. Meanwhile, what do you think of this idea?