In any event one can find historical examples for anything I bet.

I'm sure we could but that doesn't mean it was commonplace, the law, a societal norm, or tradition. As I said before you can't keep trumpeting historical precedence when there was in fact no historical precedence for what you are advocating for.

Historically single woman were shvt out of luck when they got knocked up.

Historically single woman were shvt out of luck when they got knocked up.

There was typically huge societal pressure to marry someone you got knocked up. The cutural mores were not expressed as 'a child has rights' or interms of women making choices or anythign like it, but the mores in most societies have been structed to parents raising their own children be the default mode. Marriage (ignoring the religious bits) exists largely to promote monogomous pair bonding, easy identification of a father's children, and as a structure to support the progeny.

So yeah pretty much every societyI know of has strong forces pushing for both parents to support their genetic children. Our current society is more rigorous in indentifying who father is and forcing them to support the child even out of marriage, but all those societal behaviors are expressions of the underlying principles.

It sounds like you think I am saying every society looked just like ours in terms of child support or that there are no exceptions where a man "sowed his wild oats" and never paid any support. That is not whatI am saying, what I am saying is cultures by and large are structured with marriage and families, laws and customs, which result in two parents raising their children as the default norm, and this is not something that just happened.

Children are (in a very real sense) a societies future and societies that are not structured to support them likely did not survive.

More U.S. women using the "morning-after" pill: report

There was typically huge societal pressure to marry someone you got knocked up.

If the two people involved happened to be young, single, and weren't of ill-repute. Basically if the farmer's daughter got knocked up by the other farmer's son there was pressure to get married. But if it was the farmer's daughter and a migrant worker or sailor or someone simply someone passing through town the woman and family of hers was shvt out of luck. If the man happened to already be married, again, the woman was shvt out of luck. If she was a woman of ill repute she was shvt out of luck. Basically in order for there to be pressure to marry and take care of the woman and child there needed to be a very specific set of circumstances. Secondly besides public shame there was no apparatus to force a man to take care of the woman and child and sometimes there wasn't even public shame. If a woman were to cuckold her husband and he found out about it he could throw her and his children out on the street and nobody would tsk tsk him for doing it nor would the law have stepped in and told him to support his children. Or if the man simply wanted out he could pack his bags and leave and again there was nothing to be done about it. Historically it has been the other way of what you think should happen. A man, historically, got to choose to opt in or not and could at anytime choose to opt out.

That is terrible logic. The fact that there are children in single parent households has zero to do with the right of the child to support. Does that fact that many children are supported by both parents mean the child absolutely has the right?

Does the fact that many kids have an xbox mean that children have a right to an xbox? For it to be a right, it has to be universal, and available to all. Otherwise, it is not a right. That is the fundamental underlying of rights in the modern world. The fact that what you are asking for is not universally available to all, means that it by definition cannot be a right.

Obama mentioned during the SOTU that a child raised by two parents making minimum wage, can still be under the poverty line. You are telling me that those children are having no rights violated? While the child from a well off single parent, who can afford day-care, a nanny, good, healthy food, an xbox etcetera is? A wealthy child is having his/her rights violated, while a child living in poverty is not? That notion is so far beyond ridiculous, it's not even funny.

Does the fact that many kids have an xbox mean that children have a right to an xbox? For it to be a right, it has to be universal, and available to all. Otherwise, it is not a right. That is the fundamental underlying of rights in the modern world. The fact that what you are asking for is not universally available to all, means that it by definition cannot be a right.

By that logic because someone can not yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater there is no right to free speech. Because I don't have the same 'megagphone' that Al Gore does there is no right to free speech. If something gets stolen ever then there is no right to property. Clearly that is an absurd view of rights.

Rights are an ideal. They are the default position, the expectation. They are not universal in the sense that instances of their violation somehow invalidate the right, that would be silly. Not only that but right's often collide, 'your right to swing your fist ends just before my nose' is one simplified formulation of this. You seem to want to hold children's rights to a much higher standard than any other, because according to your logic there are no rights, because nothing is universal.

Obama mentioned during the SOTU that a child raised by two parents making minimum wage, can still be under the poverty line. You are telling me that those children are having no rights violated? While the child from a well off single parent, who can afford day-care, a nanny, good, healthy food, an xbox etcetera is? A wealthy child is having his/her rights violated, while a child living in poverty is not? That notion is so far beyond ridiculous, it's not even funny.

The child has the right to be supported by its parents, with society as a backstop. I suspect there are children whose rights in this manner are being violated, but it has nothign to do with the poverty line (which is a construct much like the idea of a replacement player or wins above replacement, useful but not some determinator of rights or anything).

You talk about money, but in your example you are never mentioning if one or both parents are or are not supporting the child. A child of a wealthy father with a mother who is a deadbeat could very well be fine and have its rights violated. the state will likely go after that deadbeat mother for that very reason - the child is owed support from its mother.

It is similar to the right of property. If I have a thousand loafs of bread or only one loaf, if you steal a loaf you have violated my property rights. The number of loafs of bread I have is irrelevent to the discussion of whether or not you have violated my property rights. Similarly the amount of support the child has from one parent is irrelevent to the discussion as to whether or not the other parent is supporting the child and potentially violating the right of the child.

Unless you are suggesting that somehow having a bunch of property means it is OK to steal some of it? (Edit: to have someone else steal some of it)

I would say it is rather obvious that it is not a right for a child to have two parents supporting it. If it was a right there would be a whole lot of lawsuits by kids and for kids. As we saw from the data posted earlier a ton of men are not supporting their children and a lot of that has to do with the mother not seeking support from them. If it was a right to have two parents support you then a lot of mothers in this nation are walking all over that right.

Basically we as a society have declared that chidlren and human beings in general are guaranteed a certain level of standard of living and if you can't provide that for yourself or have others provide that for you we as a society will provide that for you. If you happen to be a child the state will look at those closest to you, genetically, to pick up part of that tab. But at no time does society or the state think the rights of the child are "paramount" as BM likes to state over and over.

I would say it is rather obvious that it is not a right for a child to have two parents supporting it. If it was a right there would be a whole lot of lawsuits by kids and for kids. As we saw from the data posted earlier a ton of men are not supporting their children and a lot of that has to do with the mother not seeking support from them. If it was a right to have two parents support you then a lot of mothers in this nation are walking all over that right.

You do realize that children con't really participate normally in most legal actions and the guardian of the children does that for them. This means the custodial parent and/or the state. And there are a ton of actions by mothers (and fathers) against deadbeat parents, and actions of the state looking out for the best interest of the child. The ex is a volunteer Guardian Ad Litem and participates in those sorts cases all the time, looking out for the best interests of the child.

One of the things I stated many posts ago is that a foundational principle of the whole thing is we as a society have decided that in general parents make the best decisions for children (there are obviously extraordinary circumstances). So when a mother chooses to not persue a deadbeat father, that is not evidence the child has no rights, it is evidence that we accept the parents decision that overall - considering everything - the mother is doing what is best for the child. When the state decides the parent is not doing the best for the child then steps are taken.

Basically we as a society have declared that chidlren and human beings in general are guaranteed a certain level of standard of living and if you can't provide that for yourself or have others provide that for you we as a society will provide that for you. If you happen to be a child the state will look at those closest to you, genetically, to pick up part of that tab. But at no time does society or the state think the rights of the child are "paramount" as BM likes to state over and over.

To be clear the rights of the child are (I feel) paramount not over all of society, but over the rights of a parent to not support it. Basically people get to decide what to do with their money, but when a child is in the picture that right gets superceded to an extent (we call this child support) because of the child's right for support from its parents.

But we have instituted a safety net (I don't think it is quite as strong as "guaranteed a certain level of standard of living", but it is getting there, but that does not mean there are not other rights also. Why do you think the state does "look at those closest to you, genetically, to pick up part of that tab"?

I suggest it is because the state understands there is a linkage of rights and respnsibility between a parent and a child. A link that very early in the thread Sam wanted to deny (or claim we had moved past as a society). Perhaps someday we will move past it, but we are not there yet, and I have heard nothing as to why we should move past it.

Hundreds and hundreds of posts in, am I the only one who has admited making child support payments? Everyone can and should participate in the discussion (I don't have extra moral authority from making them by any means), but I do find it amusing.

And if I missed/forgot someone else who has stated they pay (or recieve) child support then I am sorry. I have a terrible memory.

I actually would like to know your opinion on this issue; I wasn't kidding. Some of the other Libs have weighed in on it.

I'm largely in agreement with the "men should be able to opt out" contingent in this thread. Sam in particular has done a good job of arguing coherently, consistently, and without falling into logical fallacy. I'm not entirely delighted with where the argument takes us, but it's a principled argument and I'm not one to abandon principles merely because they result in situations I personally don't like.

You do realize that children con't really participate normally in most legal actions and the guardian of the children does that for them. This means the custodial parent and/or the state. And there are a ton of actions by mothers (and fathers) against deadbeat parents, and actions of the state looking out for the best interest of the child. The ex is a volunteer Guardian Ad Litem and participates in those sorts cases all the time, looking out for the best interests of the child.

Again, according to the data a ton of mothers are violating the supposed rights of the child by not seeking support from the fathers. A child turns into an adult and at that time that adult could seek retribution from their mother or at any time the state could go after the mother. That neither does shows that it isn't a right to have two parents support a child. All the state cares about is that a human being recieves X and it doesn't really care where X comes from. If the mother can't provide X but wishes to keep the child the state will step in and try to provide the child X and if it is possible they will try to get the father help pay for X.

So when a mother chooses to not persue a deadbeat father, that is not evidence the child has no rights, it is evidence that we accept the parents decision that overall - considering everything - the mother is doing what is best for the child.

So then the mother's rights are paramount since she gets to decide what is best.

Chat up virtually any social worker in America and they can tell you numerous stories of kids that were better off being taken away from their mother but were not because the mother refused to give them up. Nobody who looks into this the least little bit can say with a straight face that the child's rights are paramount. That is just complete fiction.

So then the mother's rights are paramount since she gets to decide what is best.

No the custodial parent is assumed to be making decisions that are best for the child. The child is assumed to be not able to make those decisions (duh, it is a child), so someone has to, and that is the custodial parent (with occasional boughts of society watching and stepping in in extreme circumstances). Just because someone is incapable of making decisions does not invalidate their rights.

Chat up virtually any social worker in America and they can tell you numerous stories of kids that were better off being taken away from their mother but were not because the mother refused to give them up. Nobody who looks into this the least little bit can say with a straight face that the child's rights are paramount. That is just complete fiction.

Talk to any police officer in the nation, stuff gets stolen all the time. Heck most of the time they just file a report and never even investigate the theft. Nobody who looks into this the least little bit can say with a straight face that property rights are paramount over anything.

And from that choice flows responsibilities. And the responsibilities as always should flow to the person who made the choice.

Unless you are a male and choose to have sex, apparently.

Talk to any police officer in the nation, stuff gets stolen all the time. Heck most of the time they just file a report and never even investigate the theft. Nobody who looks into this the least little bit can say with a straight face that property rights are paramount over anything.

Was this supposed to dispute my opinion?

No the custodial parent is assumed to be making decisions that are best for the child. The child is assumed to be not able to make those decisions (duh, it is a child), so someone has to, and that is the custodial parent (with occasional boughts of society watching and stepping in in extreme circumstances). Just because someone is incapable of making decisions does not invalidate their rights.




I'm glad we assume that since apparently a child and his rights are so important and come first before all other people's rights. Again, where are all the lawsuits from former kids suing their mothers for making bad and irresponsible decisions on their behalf? Why are we letting poor uneducated people make decisions for a protected class of individuals that have rights that trump all other's rights?

How many children are born with defects and debilities because of the mother's actions during gestation? Many children are born drug addicts/alcoholics, effects of smoking, etc. Does the child have cause of action against the mother? Shouldn't he, if his interest are paramount?

Was this supposed to dispute my opinion?

So you agree that property rights are not significant? I guess the right to the father's property (income) is not that significant either. I guess there is no room for complaint then when that money is used for child support then.

Basically a silly argument is being used to diminish the child's rights, and I am using the same argument to show that other right's could be similarly diminished. The follow on to this is your realization that rights can not in fact be dimished in such a manner (but I am not really holding out hope you will realize this).

Again, where are all the lawsuits from former kids suing their mothers for making bad and irresponsible decisions on their behalf? Why are we letting poor uneducated people make decisions for a protected class of individuals that have rights that trump all other's rights?

You do realize that children are taken away from their parents. That near adult children are sometimes "divorced" from their parents and enfranchised on their own (I am forgetting the exact term for this).

We allow the default position of custodial rights making the decisions because the option is the state making all the choices for the childrne. In general people feel it is better for the children to have the parents making the decision than having the state make the decisions. Are you arguing the state should make all "parenting" decisions? I am not, but it sounds like you might be.

How many children are born with defects and debilities because of the mother's actions during gestation? Many children are born drug addicts/alcoholics, effects of smoking, etc. Does the child have cause of action against the mother? Shouldn't he, if his interest are paramount?

So in order to suggest children have a right to be supported by their parents, every single aspect of that needs to be detailed out in a legal sense? I do know (have heard of) cases around a mother acting against the best interests of the proto-child. I vaguely remember lawsuits around work rules in a factory of some sort with possible exposure to lead and other toxins.

I have no idea how they turned out and I am not a lawyer. I do know thatbalancing the rights of the child and the rights of the mother is challenging. Even determining when the fetus becomes a child can be challenging. However the principle that all the parties involved (Father, Mother, Child) have rights, these rights sometimes conflict, and sometimes some rights are paramount over others in certain situations seems pretty normal to me, so I am still puzzled as to how this is radical.

You do realize that children are taken away from their parents.

I'm glad this wasn't a question.

In general people feel. . .

So then people's feelings are paramount?

Are you arguing the state should make all "parenting" decisions?

If a child's rights are paramount, yes.

So you agree that property rights are not significant? I guess the right to the father's property (income) is not that significant either. I guess there is no room for complaint then when that money is used for child support then.

Basically a silly argument is being used to diminish the child's rights, and I am using the same argument to show that other right's could be similarly diminished. The follow on to this is your realization that rights can not in fact be dimished in such a manner (but I am not really holding out hope you will realize this).



your opinion is that a child's rights trump all others. It does not nor does your example show that I am incorrect in disbelieving your opinion.

I have no idea how they turned out and I am not a lawyer. I do know thatbalancing the rights of the child and the rights of the mother is challenging.

Well once you concede that there is in fact balancing of the rights of mother and child, your whole "the rights of the child supersede everything" shtick you have been parroting for 1500 posts, goes out the window.

So in order to suggest children have a right to be supported by their parents, every single aspect of that needs to be detailed out in a legal sense?

First, that's what you're holding the father to when you say his responsibility derives completely and totally from that one act of sex.

Second, you didn't answer the questions.

As long as some woman somewhere in some way is divested of her parental rights, is held liable, that's good enough for you to justify the state of the existing system. You don't require much to justify your positions, do you? Yet, for one party, the consequences derived from that one act are pretty dire, and incommensurately reciprocal as to the other parties in the calculus.

And, if all else fails, let's throw up our hands and say, oh well, rights conflict, you the father always lose, boo hoo. The tears of the Walrus and Carpenter.

your opinion is that a child's rights trump all others

This is not what I said. What I said was regarding the conflict around the parents right to keep their money versus the child's right to be supported, the Child's right is paramount. As I said many hundreds of posts ago, the parents both are adults who made a choice, the child is not an adult and had no choice, but still it must be supported. Thus in terms of supporting the child the parents rights are superceded.

That does not mean in every instance every right of a child is paramount. This is clearly not the case and I have never said it was. Children have somewhat limited rights and responsbilities. I believe their right to free speech is somewhat limited. Also they are not allowed to violate their parent property rights willy-nilly and steal whatever they want from their parents.

I do not have the simplistic each and every right is absolute and an island. Rights conflict all the time. Society has to decide how to juggle those conflicts. Society has decided (prefers, feels) that in the case of child support from the parents the individual parents do not have the right to opt out.

On the case of who makes decisions for a child, the state or the parents, the status or the primacy of the various rights in their conflicts with other rights has very little to do with deciding who makes the decisions for those who can not make decisions for themselves (such as children). Most societies have a mix of the two. I think you wanting to assign all the decision making to the state is quixotic at best and will never go anywhere. Our society has clearly decided that it is best for children if the parents make the decisions for that child - with limitations (child abuse and so on).

Again how is this possibly surprising to anyone?

Well once you concede that there is in fact balancing of the rights of mother and child, your whole "the rights of the child supersede everything" shtick you have been parroting for 1500 posts, goes out the window.

No it doesn't. See #1772.

First, that's what you're holding the father to when you say his responsibility derives completely and totally from that one act of sex.

If I throw a rock I am held responsible for that one act of throwing a rock. If I fire a gun I am held responsbile for that act. Sex is different how?

As long as some woman somewhere in some way is divested of her parental rights, is held liable, that's good enough for you to justify the state of the existing system. You don't require much to justify your positions, do you? Yet, for one party, the consequences derived from that one act are pretty dire, and incommensurately reciprocal as to the other parties in the calculus.

What? That is not even close to what I said. My stand is the child figures into the calculation, and where support is involved its need for support supercedes the desire of the parents individually to opt out. The existing gender differnce in those who choose to try to opt out is irrelevent to the theory (though I admit not the practice).

As I said many hundreds of posts ago, the parents both are adults who made a choice, the child is not an adult and had no choice, but still it must be supported.

Like the child the father had no choice either. The mother is the only one in the equation that has the legal right to have a child and thus should be the only one who must support the child absent a contract stating otherwise.

Sex is different how?

Sex may cause a zygote.

If I throw a rock and break some guys window I am responsible for that window. If the guy in anger then goes out and kills hisn neighbor I am not responsible for that death.

Hundreds and hundreds of posts in, am I the only one who has admited making child support payments? Everyone can and should participate in the discussion (I don't have extra moral authority from making them by any means), but I do find it amusing.

I don't have any children, so I don't have any payments to make. I did, however, receive alimony for about six months after my separation (I was in the final semester of law school and had no income).

Like the child the father had no choice either.

And here I though men could choose who to have sex with.

If I throw a rock and break some guys window I am responsible for that window.

And if your rock breaks a window you claim no responsibility because the person you threw the rock with could have grabbed the rock out of mid-air, preventing the window from breaking. Since she could have done that you think you are blameless, but you aren't, you still threw the rock knowing she might not catch it out of the air.

Sounds like you need to be more careful throwing rocks.

I don't have any children, so I don't have any payments to make.

As I have said before I have had sex twice sans birth control, and have two children. My mom got pregnant on most forms of birth control (including after having her tubes tied).

The moral is be careful, and even then things can happen. So count yourself lucky (assuming you don't want to be a parent at this point in your life).

And if your rock breaks a window you claim no responsibility because the person you threw the rock with could have grabbed the rock out of mid-air, preventing the window from breaking. Since she could have done that you think you are blameless, but you aren't, you still threw the rock knowing she might not catch it out of the air.

Sounds like you need to be more careful throwing rocks.

Once again, you think this disputes my opinion?

To further elaborate. A father has been expected to support his wife and children throughout most of history. But a man was not expected to support any child he had outside of marriage nor any woman he wasn't married to besides possibly his mother, sisters, and daughters. If you had a child out of wedlock it was too bad so sad for that kid and woman. Giving support to the child is a recent phenomenon not a historical trend.

Well, times changed and all of that. Marriage is too weak an institution to support that any more. Sex inside or outside of marriage, what's the diff? Marriage should be up to the two of us, whenever we want to, it was said. An unmarried man and woman should be able to live together and rent an apartment without any problem. People who want to have sex on the first date should be able to do so. It's all up to the people involved. You wanted it, you got it. Marriage doesn't have any connection to children any more. It's all about sex.

How many children are born with defects and debilities because of the mother's actions during gestation? Many children are born drug addicts/alcoholics, effects of smoking, etc.

Naturally the Yankee Redneck Plan would address this consideration as well as dozens of other through the practical application of free market principles.

From 1433:

Can anyone seriously argue that the purported problems foisted on unsuspecting low-status males in this thread would be addressed and alleviated by the simple application of market principles to commodified infants? Rather than being a long-term burden to the unsupported mother, the newly-minted infant instantly becomes a short-term profit on a significant scale, enough to lift many women out of their impoverished circumstances. Prenatal drug and alcohol abuse would plummet as women protected their investment.

From 1071:

The mother is incentivised to have a healthy pregnancy. Can you imagine the financial hit she takes if the kid is born with fetal alcohol syndrome?

As 1721 presciently points out:

Restoring a child to the proper status of commodity opens up a host of solutions to problems both extant and unanticipated.

Yes, the answer is right here in front of us.

Marriage doesn't have any connection to children any more. It's all about sex.

This kind of absolute statement is pointless.

Marriage doesn't have any connection to children any more. It's all about sex.

This kind of absolute statement is pointless.

And also dead wrong. Marriage is much more about children than it was 100 years ago. People have sex constantly without getting married. They tend to marry when they are ready to have children.

As I said many hundreds of posts ago, the parents both are adults who made a choice, the child is not an adult and had no choice, but still it must be supported.

Both those adults made a choice to have sex. Only one of those adults was allowed to choose whether to have a child.

The choice to have sex is not choosing to have a child. We recognize that as to one of those parents. Why not the other one?

The child has its recourse--against the parent who chose to have it. Why is that so hard to understand?

And, Bitter Mouse, you still have not answered my questions. Does the child have a cause of action against the mother for injuring and damaging him when he was in her womb?

Marriage is much more about children than it was 100 years ago. People have sex constantly without getting married. They tend to marry when they are ready to have children.

How many illegitimate children are there now as compared to, oh, say, about 1950?

Plus, you've grounded your argument only in the getting married--what about the staying married?

The choice to have sex is not choosing to have a child. We recognize that as to one of those parents. Why not the other one?

The answer is "because".

Good Face,

Thanks for responding.

How many illegitimate children are there now as compared to, oh, say, about 1950?

Plus, you've grounded your argument only in the getting married--what about the staying married?

Many more, but many fewer people are married.

Sex and procreation have a lot less to do with marriage, but marriage (when it happens) has more to do with children. In 1950, it was the default way of life.

There's also a huge class divide. The middle and upper classes have illegitimacy and divorce rates mimicking the 50's. For the working class, marriage is rapidly disappearing.

It's one of the major sources of growing inequality in the US.

The choice to have sex is not choosing to have a child.

It's choosing to possibly have a child.

Pregnant women have a right to an abortion because of the peculiar bodily facts of pregnancy. They also bear a variety of responsibilities because of these bodily facts. People who are not pregnant women do not have an analogous right to separate from the potential child. This is because people who are not pregnant women are not pregnant and thus have no superseding right to bodily autonomy. (In the case of a surrogate pregnancy for a straight couple, neither the genetic mother nor father has the right to an abortion and both are responsible for the child.)

I can tell that it really sticks in the craw of a lot of guys that pregnant women have a right to an abortion, and you don't get to have your own rights-toy, too. It's fundamentally a refusal of reality. (As well as a ridiculous misunderstanding of the responsibilities and physical suffering that attend to pregnancy, as well as in many cases to abortion.)

The answer is "because".

Sadly, after discussing this for hundreds of posts, that really is all they have.

Pregnant women have a right to an abortion because of the peculiar bodily facts of pregnancy. They also bear a variety of responsibilities because of these bodily facts.

But on the issue we are discussing, they don't bear full responsibility at all.

This is because people who are not pregnant women are not pregnant and thus have no superseding right to bodily autonomy.

Yep. Incarceration doesn't impinge upon bodily autonomy.

Women get to decide to be responsible for the caring of a child because they have this thing growing inside them and it isn't really a picnic having it inside them.

A man gets no say and has to dedicate the next 21 years of his life to labor in order to care for the child because apparently working and or going to jail isn't hard on men. So a woman's rights trumps a man because of 40 weeks of uncomfortableness as compared to 21 years of being shackled to labor. Oaky, gotcha.

A woman gets to say, "this is hard. I'm not doing it" but a man isn't allowed to say that. Gotcha.

If being "live" is not the demarcation of having rights, only birth is, why do fetuses in fact have rights in law? Why are there crimes like feticide?

And if that rationale applies at one end of the life spectrum, why not the other end. Not long ago I was visiting someone in a nursing home, and to get to his room everyday I passed in front of room where resided a very old woman in a total vegetative state. I asked some medico about that and he said she had been in that state for months with no hope of recovery. She was in a coma and was fed intravenously--even had a wash cloth wadded in her hands so her fists wouldn't clench shut all the way. Is she viable? Is she a person? Is someone (or thing--private or public) obligated to support her in this state until she is clinically dead?

Pregnant women have a right to an abortion because of the peculiar bodily facts of pregnancy. They also bear a variety of responsibilities because of these bodily facts. People who are not pregnant women do not have an analogous right to separate from the potential child. This is because people who are not pregnant women are not pregnant and thus have no superseding right to bodily autonomy. (In the case of a surrogate pregnancy for a straight couple, neither the genetic mother nor father has the right to an abortion and both are responsible for the child.)

I can tell that it really sticks in the craw of a lot of guys that pregnant women have a right to an abortion, and you don't get to have your own rights-toy, too. It's fundamentally a refusal of reality. (As well as a ridiculous misunderstanding of the responsibilities and physical suffering that attend to pregnancy, as well as in many cases to abortion.)

While I disagree with the "men's rights crew" they do have a point in exposing the hypocrisy of the abortion law.

The father is equally the parent as the mother. He should have equal say in whether an abortion occurs (if anyone is to have any say), and equal responsibilities and rights after the child is born.

And, Bitter Mouse, you still have not answered my questions. Does the child have a cause of action against the mother for injuring and damaging him when he was in her womb?

Well you never addressed my question whether you think children are property. Are they?

Anyway the answer is I am not 100% sure. I suspect it is a case by case basis. If a 8.5 month pregnant woman knowingly did something to horrifically abuse or damage the child within her, then probably. According to curent law at that point is viable and you can't do whatever you want with it (like have an abortion - obviously the matter gets more complex when it is the life of the mother versus the life of the child, but that doesn't seem to be your question).

If the mother is 2 weeks pregnant, doesn't know it yet, and does something foolish that harms the zygote then I kind of doubt it.

However, since the child is not an adult it would likley be up to the state to see to redress and not the child (not many 2 day olds file in court I suspect).

More fundementally how does a conflicting in rights between a mother and child (which is basially what you are describing) invalidate anythign I have said. I have acknowledged that all the parties involved (Mother, Father, and Child) have rights. Those rights conflict often, but in a specific circumstance (support of the child) the Child's rights are paramount.

That does not mean the child's rights are always paramount, and in fact sometimes the child's rights lose out to the parents rights. This does not invalidate the child's rights any more than a decision the mother makes invalidates the childs rights anymore than the parents having to support their child invalidates the child's rights.

Once again, you think this disputes my opinion?

I guess I don't know your opinion of property rights. If you think they are meaningless I guess not. Are property rights meaningless in your opinion?

The answer is "because".

If you add in "because the child is the progeny of two parents, has rights which are not abrogated by any decision the mother makes, and so both parents must support their children" then yup.

So a woman's rights trumps a man because of 40 weeks of uncomfortableness as compared to 21 years of being shackled to labor. Oaky, gotcha.

What in the hell do you think she is doing for those 21 years?

The father is equally the parent as the mother. He should have equal say in whether an abortion occurs (if anyone is to have any say), and equal responsibilities and rights after the child is born.

It would indeed be much more fair, physically, if both genetic parents of the child became pregnant. I think that would be good for the world in any number of ways.

However, since it's not the world in which we live, our laws have to reflect reality

As I have noted, surrogacy shows us that it isn't about "women" and "men", it's about "pregnant women" and "everyone who isn't a pregnant woman." Pregnancy, the physical fact of having an embryo or fetus that is at once part of your body, does not have any analogue for non-pregnant people, and we shouldn't write laws to pretend as if it does.

It would indeed be much more fair, physically, if both genetic parents of the child became pregnant. I think that would be good for the world in any number of ways.

However, since it's not the world in which we live, our laws have to reflect reality.

I don't think it's relevant. The facts of biology are what they are.

We don't use biological differences between the sexes to give greater or lesser rights in other areas, we shouldn't here.

It's choosing to possibly have a child.

No, it isn't. You keep avoiding the crux. At the most, we can presume that both have to know that impregnation is a possibility. They are both responsible for the pregnancy. But having a child? That doesn't hold for both of those adults. It is up to only one of them whether there will be a child. Only one is responsible for the child. If Congress overrides a presidential veto, it can't then blame the president for what is birthed into law.

What in the hell do you think she is doing for those 21 years?

Anything she wants. She doesn't have a court order threatening incarceration over her head.