Thread: Question for you all. | If a married man and women have a child and he is there the entire pregnancy with her but doesn't catch the birth and comes back a year later. Does he know that child?

Most attorneys would say no, but I think there is a bond that is built if a man is there from the very start of and for majority of the pregnancy of the women with his child, despite the child actually not coming out the womb and you can't see it.

The heart of the argument is that some would say the law is that the child is only "born" during birth...so how could you possibly have a connection to a unborn child?

and others say conception.

If conception then by law you could prove that if the father was present at the time of the pregnancy then a bond built with the child would be possible. Despite the child actually not coming out the womb and you can't see it.

If this society cares about father's rights. We need to change the definition of life starting, to be at conception.

This topic has come up before in mainstream I think - since there wasn't any benefit to women for men having equal say in what happens to the baby in the "conception" and pregnancy stage it never gained any traction though.

She can abort your baby and you can't do nothing about it as far as I know.

Something something male privilege, yea it sucks I know man.

It is about control. If birth starts at conception then you can prove in court, you can form a bond with the child through the father being there during pregnancy. That’s all this is about. I get it it now.

It's a way for the courts to literally keep you away from the child and give her all rights to the kid considering she leaves you during pregnancy and then she would have full control and rights and even advocate for your rights to be stripped.


You can't have a relationship with a kid that isn't born and you haven't proved the child is yours with the hefty price tag that comes with mandating the courts get her to test.

It's super complex but it all stems down to the law deeming life starts after the child is born.

Originally Posted by manaloneforever

It is about control. If birth starts at conception then you can prove in court, you can form a bond with the child through the father being there during pregnancy. That’s all this is about. I get it it now.

It's a way for the courts to literally keep you away from the child and give her all rights to the kid considering she leaves you during pregnancy and then she would have full control and rights and even advocate for your rights to be stripped.


You can't have a relationship with a kid that isn't born and you haven't proved the child is yours with the hefty price tag that comes with mandating the courts get her to test.

It's super complex but it all stems down to the law deeming life starts after the child is born.

Hmm,

Birth is birth, it does not start at conception. I think maybe you are referring to life, which does start at conception.

Apologies for being pedantic but the distinction is an important one.

Society, and even the law, is highly hypocritical when it comes to this point:

A life is not a life until it is born; therefore abortion is not the taking of a human life and should not be considered murder.

Yet…

Take the life of a pregnant woman and everyone, including the law (mostly), considers it the taking of two lives, not one.

Hypocritical, murderous bastards!

As for forming a bond, of course the father can form a bond with an unborn life. Assuming he intends sticking around he will immediately start making plans for that child’s future, he wouldn’t, and couldn’t do this without forming some attachment.

Originally Posted by Jackoff

Hmm,

Birth is birth, it does not start at conception. I think maybe you are referring to life, which does start at conception.

Apologies for being pedantic but the distinction is an important one.

Society, and even the law, is highly hypocritical when it comes to this point:

A life is not a life until it is born; therefore abortion is not the taking of a human life and should not be considered murder.

Yet…

Take the life of a pregnant woman and everyone, including the law (mostly), considers it the taking of two lives, not one.

Hypocritical, murderous bastards!

As for forming a bond, of course the father can form a bond with an unborn life. Assuming he intends sticking around he will immediately start making plans for that child’s future, he wouldn’t, and couldn’t do this without forming some attachment.

Great point!!!

You just ended all their careers bro. How the hell is there not a reformation of the entire law based on what you said alone.

You caught them red-handed.

Hold this v-beer.

Cheers.

and the point about the bond I argued with my friend who is attorney for hours about that, and he said the court wouldn't acknowledge it because the child isn't born yet.

Originally Posted by Jackoff

A life is not a life until it is born; therefore abortion is not the taking of a human life and should not be considered murder.

This story is a little different, I don't think she is the only one....

Gianna Jessen's POWERFUL Abortion Survival Story | Huckabee - YouTube