HERE, HERE !Kath wrote:My wet dream for SCOTUS is to make the 4th Amendment relevant again. And civil forfeiture must die.
+1
HERE, HERE !Kath wrote:My wet dream for SCOTUS is to make the 4th Amendment relevant again. And civil forfeiture must die.
Fife wrote:Think that through for a minute. What kind of case would that be, and how would the opinion be presented? Defeating the abomination of Roe doesn't mean out-Heroding Herod.C-Mag wrote:I actually would like to see the SCOTUS take on and re-balance the roles and responsibilities of men in women in parenting first. It takes two to make a baby, each party should have equal responsibility in what happens from conception to adulthood.Speaker to Animals wrote:
Then don't try to kill your babies, I guess?
He shouldn't be allowed to force an abortion, but in a perfect world, he should be allowed to relinquish any and all responsibility & rights wrt the child. The big problem with that is in many cases, this means the woman goes on welfare and the child becomes a problem for all of us.C-Mag wrote: I think it's only fair to give the guy some kind of say.
Agreed. There's another side to this though: at some point there's another person who should have the right to health and heritage history. The guy should submit that as part of the relinquishment process. It can be done anonymously. Not having that history poses health risks, especially as we become more aware of the genetic component of diseases.Kath wrote:He shouldn't be allowed to force an abortion, but in a perfect world, he should be allowed to relinquish any and all responsibility & rights wrt the child.C-Mag wrote: I think it's only fair to give the guy some kind of say.
Also agreed. They rob their children of their father as well as robbing the father of his opportunity to parent.Kath wrote:I'd also add that if the mom fails to tell the father about the child, she can't come crying three years down the road that she's entitled to child support. She can have that if and when the father wants to be part of the child's life and she accepts that. This process needs to be more transparent, overall. Mothers who don't tell their one night stands that they are pregnant are part of the problem.
Kath wrote:I'd also add that if the mom fails to tell the father about the child, she can't come crying three years down the road that she's entitled to child support. She can have that if and when the father wants to be part of the child's life and she accepts that. This process needs to be more transparent, overall. Mothers who don't tell their one night stands that they are pregnant are part of the problem.
Define "relinquishment process."MilSpecs wrote:Agreed. There's another side to this though: at some point there's another person who should have the right to health and heritage history. The guy should submit that as part of the relinquishment process. It can be done anonymously. Not having that history poses health risks, especially as we become more aware of the genetic component of diseases.Kath wrote:He shouldn't be allowed to force an abortion, but in a perfect world, he should be allowed to relinquish any and all responsibility & rights wrt the child.C-Mag wrote: I think it's only fair to give the guy some kind of say.
Is there any time limit on your desire to know that your children exist?Fife wrote:Kath wrote:I'd also add that if the mom fails to tell the father about the child, she can't come crying three years down the road that she's entitled to child support. She can have that if and when the father wants to be part of the child's life and she accepts that. This process needs to be more transparent, overall. Mothers who don't tell their one night stands that they are pregnant are part of the problem.
What's the correct statute of limitations?
DOB?
DOB + x years?