" I have one word for men with this problem.......VASECTOMY!!!! Sheeshe. "

" I have one word for women getting an abortion.......TUBAL LIGATION!!!! Sheeshe. See, it works both ways! "

" This case has little to do Child Support and everything to do with EQUAL RIGHTS. The simple question is "Should people be forced to be parents against their will?" In the case of women, we accept that they should not. That's why abortion is legal, abandonment (safe haven laws) doesn't require the father's consent, and adoption requires the fathers consent ONLY when the couple is married. In the case of men. Buck up and take it like a man. That's hypocrisy and a clear violation of the 14th amendment. There are two ways to solve this problem: 1) give both genders the freedoms that women enjoy. 2) give both genders the responsibilities men continue to bear (i.e. revoke Roe vs. Wade for starters) I'll accept either solution but I prefer #1 as it is simpler in application and doesn't force anyone to be a parent against their will (which, honestly, would be in 'the best interest of the child' would it not?). Anyway, this is headed for the Supreme Court - the challenge cannot be ignored. "

" You better watch it, Penny. If you keep getting multiple responses to your writings, Harry might relegate you back to the blogs. (LOL) A very good editorial, Penny. We're not used to many good ones. Keep it up. If old windy ever retires you might get more print time, and I'm sure that would make a lot of people happy. "

" brava. wonderful points. i've often wondered the same thing. if a woman gets pregnant and decides to abort, the father can't do anything about it. just like if she decides to keep it, he can't do anything about THAT either. i don't see any viable solutions though. one can hardly force a woman to have a baby, but then again, i suppose there are women who force a man to have a baby....like i said, wonderful points. this definately gives people something to think about. "

" Ignorance of the law is no excuse, you play, you pay, you know what the definition of child support is, Th F'n you get for thr F'n you got. Probably never see this one on the blogs. Oh well. "

" Quote -- The simple question is "Should people be forced to be parents against their will?" In the case of women, we accept that they should not. That's why abortion is legal, --- Now it wasn't to long ago that someone called me crazy for sugesting that abortion might be used for birth control, oh well. "

" Penny says....But one of the first amusing things to me in this case’s small details is that the suit was brought on the man’s behalf by the National Center for Men in Old Bethpage, N.Y. What on earth do men need their own “center” for? Most things in this world still are skewed in favor of the white Anglo-Saxon male, anyway, so I’m not inclined to see many of them as needing any kind of a helping hand.***************************So because some of us males are white we should be persecuted and have less rights because you see us as having it made?? If a man were to make a comment like that, he would be considered a pig. How does it feel to be a sow? "

" I agree 100% Digital. Well said! "

" Penny, it's interesting to note that you didn't write a single word about the rights of the unborn children, rights that begin at conception, "...endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights...." You write about the responsibilities of a mother and that men should be held to the same standard. (Funny, you didn't use the term 'fathers' – which is perhaps an unintended reflection of your personal bias on this issue.) You didn't mention anything about a child's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I give you a D- for ‘marginal’ humor and an F for failing to address one of the most important issues in our society today. "

" cd-I'm not the one throwing a fit because I concieved a child. You see, I had adequate sex education and I knew how to prevent pregnancy until I wanted children. Oh, and abstinence WAS part of the education, but not all. If this guy didn't want children, it was up to HIM to make sure he didn't concieve one. As far as abortion goes, I hate it! That's why I made sure I took every precaution prior to wanting children. Didn't need an abortion that way. And just for your amusement, when I was done having children, I DID get a tubal ligation. "

" I do find the headline odd. Male bees are drones. Their only responsibility is to have sex, "

" Penny, "If a woman intentionally got pregnant when she knew her male partner didn’t want to support a child.... how could anyone ever prove a woman’s intent to do something like that?" I say, how could the man PROVE that he didn't want children? Those conversations are between the man and woman - rarely made in public. Even if he said he didn't want one and the woman went ahead and didn't use protection - who's to say it's still not the man's fault since HE didn't bother to use protection either? Coonsey's View http://www.freewebs.com/coonsey/ "

" and i agree, abortion is every woman's right. "

" I'm not going to state all the reasons for my following statement. It would do no good because it wouldn't change anyone's mind anyway. It's merely an expression of the way I feel about it....Abortion--As my grandma used to say when she didn't agree "I'm a-gin it!" "

" The unborn child has no choice at all about being conceived. What about about the rights of the child? Tom Andres said it right; a child has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "

" Hopefully this has already been done by now. But if it hasn't been done, I think it would be wise for Dubay to "demand" a test to make "sure" he is the father. If you've ever watched the Maury Povich show, you know what I mean ... woman after woman swearing to Jesus and God Almighty that one particular guy HAS TO BE the father ... only to find out, after testing, that it's biologically not possible ... that it has to be some other man. I'm not saying that this is what's going on for sure. But, if it IS what's going on, it wouldn't be the first time a woman tried to "trap" a man into marriage and/or support obligations - and it probably won't be the last time, either. "

" "A child has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Agreed. A child is, an unborn or recently born person; only within the last 30 years has the "unborn" been amended by the Christian fundamentalists. Still, a person is, something that possesses the body of a human being. A body has a definative form, developed organs, and advanced congative abilities. That is where we draw the line at late-term abortions. We do not, however, claim that a 3 hour old, fertilized egg is a "child." Don't forget, the Old Testament only attributes worth to a late term child -- the New Testament barely goes into the subject. Surely, the All-Knowing God would have had the foresight to see how "great" a crime abortion was and have included it in the Good Book. And no, "Thou shalt not kill" doesn't quite qualify since in Hebrew it is, "Thou shalt not commit murder" and we all know there are many instances where the peace-loving Christian God condones killing. Murder is defined by the laws of a society, and last time I checked, abortion was legal and therefore not able to be defined as murder. Anyways... "

" Locke says "We do not, however, claim that a 3 hour old, fertilized egg is a "child." **** I say human life begins at conception. There are some things that 'just are'. Obviously, this is one of them. It's called a 'no brainer'. **** By the way, just curious - if, as you say, life begins sometime after 'conception-plus-three-hours' and sometime before 'late-term' - tell me, genius, exactly when is that? "

" Glad to see when and how you define life. A wrong answer is really no better than no answer at all; my God told my minister who told me the answer is 42 -- wrong. Honestly, I don't know when and where human life starts -- but a good place to start is when the fetus can survive on its own, outside the mother's body, with minimal assistant (as in assistance given to a nine month old, full-term child.) A fetus that is two weeks, two months old, or four months old, unable to sustain life, hardly meets the qualifications of human life. Potiental life, yes; a fully enabled human being endowed with a soul, no. Remember, God created the physical form in it's whole and then gave unto that physical form a soul. He didn't start with a soul and build the shell around that -- which is exactly what the anti-abortion crowd seems to think is right. I am glad you acknowlede my intellectual superiority, but you can drop that genius praise for me. You know you are on to something when the only thing people can do against your logic is call names. Hey, Doh needs some help over on the Iraq thread, maybe you can go sing the genius line over there? "

" I agree Tom Andres 130%. Take that Locke. "

" Equal rights are something we look at closely when it is not in our favor and take for granted when it works for us. The question is simple to answer: Did you both have consensual ***? If so, you are both responsible, that's it. A lot of "accidents" happen, with unintended results, and now there is a child who needs the best in life. For each man who wants no more children but wants to continue to try to procreate...vasectomy... for a woman who wants the same... tubal ligation. If you don't want a child, don't do it unless you know YOU are 100% sterile, don't count on the other person. As a few others mentioned, people get trapped both intentionally and unintentionally; and how do you prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt? The bottom line is if you make the decision to have willing "relations" and a child is born, it is half your responsibility, period. "

" In Psalm 139:13...You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body and knit me together in my mother's womb. And verse 15-16...You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion, as I was woven together in the dark of the womb. You saw me before I was born. Every day of my life was recorded in your book. If you are interested in seeing how much "human life" is in an 11 week old fetus, you can watch the horrifying abortion at www.silentscream.org. "

" Locke, I apologize for the name calling. You're right, you're not a genius. The more you expound on this one, the more you compound the difficulties of your argument. I'm surprised you don't offer up "Life begins at 40." You say "Honestly, I don't know when and where human life starts -- but a good place to start is when the fetus can survive on its own, outside the mother's body, with minimal assistant (sic) ... ". Let's apply your survival argument to a six-year-old. Hmmm, by your definition, still not a viable life form. OK, how about a 12-year-old? Nope, still not there, are we? Getting closer. 18? Now we're talkin’! By your definition, we (viable life forms age 18 and over) should assess the viability of all potential life forms age 17 and under. If they don’t pass the test, it's OK to 'abort' them, right? **** Hmmm, your question seems to be where do we draw the line? I say anyone who incorrectly spells ‘assistance’ and ‘potential’ and ‘acknowledge’ in a single on-line post shall have their names placed back on the ‘potential-only life form’ candidate list. **** There’s no way around it, Locke, life begins at conception. Perhaps your unwillingness to accept that basic legal and spiritual premise is based on an unwillingness to accept responsibility for your own actions and accountability to others who deserve the same shot at ‘viability’ you were granted upon your own conception. "

" Locke, man's laws do not overrule God’s laws. But you will probably try to use that reasoning when you stand at the Great White Throne Judgment and the books of your life are opened. You could escape that judgment though if you would repent and put your faith in Jesus Christ. "

" ("Locke, I apologize for the name calling. You're right, you're not a genius.") - LOL!!!!!!! Touche Tom! Annnnnd Checkmate! Hahahahaa! Oh no Locke! Looks like your degree from Wikipedia University has been challenged! LOL!!!!!! "

" I'm sure you are right, having gained this insight from the Bible. You know, this great logical interpretation of the Bible has proven the world is 6,000 years old and the Earth is the center of the universe. Just because you say call it murder doesn't mean it's murder; just because you call it life doesn't mean it's life. Nice to see you are still around Doh. "

" The Bible suggests in several places that the unborn are not endowed with the qualities of personhood. For instance, one is not allowed to observe the Jewish Laws of Mourning for an expelled fetus. These Laws are not applicable for a child who does not survive until his 30th day. Since the fetus is not considered a person under Jewish law, it would be impossible to consider its abortion a murder. In Genesis 38, Judah mistakes Tamar as a prostitute, and orders her to be burned to death, despite the fact she is three months pregnant. If her twin fetuses had been considered persons, the law would have delayed her execution at least until her twins were born. In Leviticus 27:1-7 the lowest values were given to children between the ages of one month and five years. Boy babies were worth five shekels, and girls were worth three. Below the age of one month, they did not even merit any price. In Numbers 3:15, only male babies older than one month were to be counted. Below this age, they were not considered persons thus were not to be counted. In Exodus 21:22-23, a woman recieves no extra justice for the result of a miscarriage -- as if the Bible assigned no worth to the unborn child. Remember, this is the passage where we get the "eye for an eye" Old Testament mantra. Would beating a woman and causing the miscarriage of her child have warranted the death of the offender -- if the unborn was considered a life? No, not according to Exodus 21:22-23. See, the Bible really doesn't back up what popular theology has told you on Fox News and each Sunday morning at church. Bible doesn't support your claim at all. Most Christians know only a single Biblical reason to oppose abortion, and that is the obvious one, "Thou shalt not kill." This is one of the most critical laws a society can obey, and every pro-choice advocate agrees with it. However, it is impossible to break this commandment if there is no person on the receiving end of this action. "

" Under locke's reasoning then it is ok to kill children up to the age of 5 since they are of little worth and if they happen to be an inconvenience. Locke, so then I take it you think we should all live under the Old Testament Jewish law? "

" So, Mrs Locke, we can use the 'brain hook' on newborns through their 30th day here with no repercussions, well, except for the 3 or 5 shekel restitution thingy? Do I have that right? "

" Exodus 21:22-25 prescribes the same penalty for someone who causes the death of a baby in the womb as the penalty for someone who commits murder. "

" I know it is difficult to some to accept, especially for those who have a closed mind on the subject, but my point is not that "it's okay to kill anyone up to 30 days old." Feel free to reread what I wrote, quoting from your own holy book. Nowhere, I repeat nowhere, in the Bible does it outlaw abortion -- whereas in several instances the Word of God assigns almost no worth, definately not the worth of a human being, to the unborn. In one instance, Numbers 5, God stated unfaithful, pregnant women were to be taken to the priests where they would have "bitter water" administered to them -- if they were unfaithful, and the child was not of their husband's issue, the sinful wife's "womb would drop" and the fetus within would perish. Sounds like God is perfectly fine with abortion when it's administered as a test for fidelity by the priests! Please, look that one up. Since in Genesis God first created the physical form of man (as a whole, not a developing fetus) and _then_ imparted him with a soul and the Bible also consequently gives very little worth to the unborn, where do people get the idea that life (and more importantly the impartion of the everlasting soul) happens immediately when the sperm hits the egg? Some people believe what they believe because they were told to believe it by someone else -- not through any critical examination or understanding of Christianity. Nowhere in the Bible does it prohibit abortion. "

" Reread Exodus 21:22-25. If a man hurts a woman enough to cause a miscarriage, he reciprocates according to how much injury he caused her, i.e., an eye for an eye, etc. However, if the miscarriage resulted in no injury to the woman, then all the assailant had to pay was a monetary fine. The fact that the Bible does not equate the assailant's life with the stillborn's life is proof that the Bible does not count the fetus as a person. To bend this straightforward passage to giving equal rights to the unborn requires one to work in modern concepts into ancient laws. Miscarriages in ancient times almost always resulted in stillbirths. Saving premature babies is an achievement of modern science. "

" If any Christian feels a need for clarification on Exodus, feel free to contact a Jewish legal expert -- they know a bit more than the average layman Christian. One might even say the Jews are subject matter experts on Exodues and the Old Testament laws. One might also consult the laws of neighboring civilizations regarding the rights of the unborn and "eye for an eye" justice which Christianity borrowed, which also point to the more straightfoward interpretation of the verse in question. For thousands of years, until R. v W. and the radicalization of American Christianity in the 1980s, Exodus 21:22-25 had but a single, clear, straightforward interpretation. So basically, Jerry Falwell finally came along and figured it out after several thousand years of everyone else having it wrong. "

" Locke...how do you interpret the meaning of Psalm 139:13-16? The Bible states that children are a gift from God. You will probably reply that the unborn are not children. That may be true, but they are potential children. And even if a soul wasn't applied at conception, you are denying a potential soul from the glory of God. "

" Some guy impregnates a woman and he doesn't think he should bear any responsibility for it. Who should? Me? The guy is irresponsible. ********** He says the woman could choose abortion or adoption. Neither option is walking away from it like *he* did. The guy is a jerk. ********** HOWEVER!!!!! ********** Expressing amusement at the National Center for Men and stating "Most things in this world still are skewed in favor of the white Anglo-Saxon male, anyway" is where I have to take an issue. ********** I promise you that as a white Anglo-Saxon male Protestant (WASP), most things in this world are definitely *not* skewed in my favor. I agree completely with equal rights under the law. I agree completely with the thoughts that a person should not suffer any repercussions because of race, gender, age, religion, etc, etc for the whole seven conditions. I *have* been passed over for a job because the requirements were such that a certain race was desired for that position. I *have* been denied advancement because my company doesn't have enough of a certain gender (not mine) in such positions. ********** Selecting a white male for a position because he is white and male is not right. Denying a white male for a position because he is whate and male is equally wrong. Don't tell me how I'm getting paid back for all the iniquities brought about by white males in the past. That was the past. This is now. ********** We have the NOW. We have the NAACP. We have the GLBT groups. They're all lobbying for their own causes. Since both government and private industry now are hiring and promoting on the basis of gender or race, why shouldn't the men have equal representation? That is unless equal representation under the law if not for white men. In that case, how can it be equal representaton? "

" Exodus 21:20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. This is the book that you use to prove your point on abortion? "

" BEC: Yes, I would first argue that the unborn, based on the numerous passages already provided in this thread, are not children -- according to God's Word. Still, Psalm 139:13-16 is relevant since nobody really does know if the soul is imparted at conception or at some point down the road. While I am pro-choice, I would never condone an abortion by my wife, sister, or daughter. I would do everything in my power to advert the act of an abortion. Of course, I do not expect everyone has to live by my personal beliefs. "

" Actually Becky, we are using Exodus 21:22, not 21:20. And, if you will be bothered with reading the context of my posts, I am not just "proving a point on abortion", but rather, proving a point that the Bible does not place the full worth of a human being to an unborn child. Thereby, the Bible cannot be used as an argument against abortion. "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she has a miscarriage but there is no serious injury to the woman, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury to the woman, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, etc..." Thus, causing the death of the fetus does not cause the offender to lose their life under the "eye for an eye" justice of the Old Testament. How much more clear does God need to be for people to realize that a fetus does not equal life. "

" " In Psalm 139:13...You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body and knit me together in my mother's womb. etc. ***** Note that the Psalms are written by a man, not by God, so that quote has no more significance in this argument than the posts on this line. It is simply the opinion of one man. The arguments advanced by Locke are much more convincing. Of all the "sins" enumerated in the Bible, why is abortion not mentioned -- if it really is a "sin"? Why is it that those who claim to believe in every word of the Bible are stubbornly unwilling to accept the evidence of Locke showing that The Bible does not condemn abortion and generally shows that children are not valued util well after birth??? Note that there was no active anti-abortion movement until the Republicans seized upon it. So views on abortion are not religious views; they are political views. It's no coincidence that supporters of ignoramus George Bush are anti-abortion; non-supporters of Bush are generally pro-choice. "