|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#91
December 23rd 03, 02:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"Carry On" wrote in message ... On 22 Dec 2003 17:54:33 GMT, (Kathi Kelly) wrote: "Kenneth S." writes: In the interests of clarity, I should point out that this is not RU-486. It is a product known as an "emergency contraceptive," and is -- on my understanding -- a pepped-up dose of the ingredients of the birth control pill. It is not an abortion-inducing product. Oops, my mistake. Apologies. You were not mistaken. It is an early pregnancy abortion-inducing agent. All of the articles I've seen refer to it in exactly that manner and I have seen nothing that suggests its a contraceptive of any kind since its intended use is for _after_ contraception has taken place, not prior to or to prevent fertilization of an egg. While RU 486 is comprised of female hormones that has no bearing on its function or intended use. The intent of taking the RU 486 pill is to abort a fertilized embryo prior to its implantation in the uterus. No one here disputes RU-486 (Mifepristone) creates non-surgical abortions. It is a drug that is taken after a pregnancy has occured to cause the woman to abort the fetus. This discussion has been about Plan B (Levonorgestrel) which is an emergency contraceptive to be taken after unprotected sex to prevent a pregnancy from occuring and it works much like some birth control pills. While both are commonly referred to as morning after pills, they are not the same. Plan B must be taken within the first 72 hours after unprotected sex to have a chance to be successful. Because it creates a hostile environment in a woman's uterus the woman will either lose the fertilized egg or have a tubal pregnancy. If Plan B does not work, then a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant can use RU-486. 
|
|
#92
December 23rd 03, 07:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"ME" wrote in message ... Because children have the right to make their own decisions without one parent telling them things about the other parent...The child has this right and it should not be influenced by talk from the other parent. Let the child make their own decision of the absent parent and then talk to them about it. I didn't say anything about giving the child a biased opinion of dad--I asked why she didn't redirect the child's attention to something else. Noone said she didn't. -------------- So she's doing everything 'right' and he is still so screwed up by the age of six?!! WTF? I wonder how all the other kids without dads managed to at least survive till puberty? It's a fact that single mother households produce more screwed up kids but this one really pushes things. -------------- WHY is this child, who has never had dad full time in his life, so focussed on what he DOESN'T have? Because he sees all of his cousins, friends, neighborhood children, school children who's fathers are taking them to games, the park, for ice cream, playing with the outside---and the child wants to know why his dad doesnt do these things. Is that so hard of a concept to grasp? He sees what he doesnt have. If he sees his friend with a trampoline he wants to know why he doesnt have one. And if he wants one, is it immediately given to him? If he doesn't get exactly what he wants, does he go into fits over it? No if he wants something it is not immediatley given to him. And sometimes their are fits...as I am sure you see in your classroom wiht ADHD ODD children As you say he is focused on what he doesnt have by seeing others that have it....children do that. Yes, children do that--that is how children--and adults with credit cards--are. OUCH MY EARS--Credit Cards scare me LOL (sorry had to add that bit of humor) But the answer is sometimes "no--can't do that." And children need to learn to accept that. Yes they do ---------------- And accepting that dad is not there is something they have to learn to accept. ------------ This child eventually needs to understand that he has no power over the situation. Or is he given everything he wants by mom, so he thinks he should be obeyed by dad, too? By far isnt given everything.... There is way more to this story than poor, helpless mom doing all she can to help poor helpless baby deal with hateful, nasty dad. I never said dad was nasty---he is absent and irresponsible... Is there an underlying diagnosis that you are not sharing, such as childhood schizophrenia or something? no schizophrenia, diagnosis of ADHD and ODD Ah, now that helps to understand the situation. Do you think that dad's presence would "cure" him of these problems? No it would definitly not ------------------- Dads NOT being there caused the problems and dads being there would NOT cure him. Sounds like a no win to me. --------------------- I have had many such children in my classroom over the years. Dad's unending presence in his life will not fix him--he needs to learn to control his behavior--and he needs help doing that. I am assuming that he is taking some sort of medication to help him. Different meds have been tried. Yes they are helping some. He gets little special help at school, specifically on those 'bad days' And getting special help at school. Solid, 2-parent families struggle to help their ADHD, ODD children. There is no magical setting or situation that can make it all better. Yes, I know. snip for length Take the kid to the park on the weekend. Send a card on birthday's. Call just to see how school went that day....All women can do is sit around and wait for dad to live up to his responsibilities as a father. All women can do is sit around and wait for a man to give them money? NO to live up to the responsibility of being a father---didnt you see i said before that forget about child support payments --- parental responsibilities of the mother OR father is much more than child support in form of money You very plainly said that all women can do is sit around and wait for dad to live up to his responsibilities. What do widowed women do? now that is way off the subject...most widowed women dont have children living at home that need their PARENTS (not saying their arent some)...this is about parents of small children. ------------------- I don't think she is talking little old lady widows. There are lots of widows with young children to raise. Think 9/11 firefighters for instance. ---------------- Sit around and wait for another man? A home with both a mother and a father is the ideal thing for children--but it is not always possible. And "sitting around waiting" doesn't fix that. I didnt mean sitting around waiting literally. Figure of speech. ----------- Figure of speech and maybe a mindset as well? ------------ What? Women can't work and earn money? Sure they can--did I say that? NO But lets just let absent parent off without helping to support his/her children--- Two different topics. Sure, both parents SHOULD be involved in their children's lives. But, if that isn't happening, "sitting around waiting" is not going to fix things. No matter what SHOULD be happening, the parent with the child MUST do what needs to be done, because "sitting around waiting" is not a viable option. again you took sitting around waiting too literrally.... Women can't take children on outings? of course they can.... So is Baby's mom taking him to the park, ball games, etc, like the other kids' fathers are? Instead of sitting around waiting for dad to do so? do you always take things so literally? Yes mom does such things and more with the child but dad doesnt....the point is Child Support cut out of picture--pretend it doesnt even exist in monetary form--why doesnt Dad (in this case) bother to 'spend time' with the child....yes mom spends time--why doesnt dad? ---------------- You answer your own question one sentence from here. ----------------- Sure mom can and does do these things, but wouldnt it be nice to have dad there too? Yes it would, but dad doesnt WANT to be there.... You keep saying the Dad doesn't want to spend time with the kid. Has NEVER wanted to be a dad. Dad doesn't WANT to be there. What in the world makes you think he is going to change?? From the start he has wanted absolutely nothing to do with the kid and yet there is all this, oh, "but wouldn't it be nice to have a dad there too?" Well, wouldn't it be nice if mommy had chosen more carefully who she was going to spread for instead of having the courts force parenthood down this guys throat? --------------- Women can't keep their children;s lives too full for moping? You just read too much into what I was saying---children need both parents -- wether they are together or seperated...absent parents dont have to spend time with children is what you see, to say. Yes, they certainly need both parents. They need both parents fully involved in their day to day lives--not one as the real parent, and the other as a paying visitor. But sometimes that just doesn't happen. And sitting around waiting isn't going to make it happen. again taken too literrally--you make it sound as if Mom is sitting on the couch watching out the window every day for Dad to appear....that isnt the case--- --------- Again, it can very well be a state of mind. ----------- Women can't point their children to the bright side of things? Women are so dependent on men that their children end up in psyciiatric hospitals if men don't do what women think they should? You are painting a very grim picture of women here. No I am not, you are by reading more into this than there is. I never said any of those things. The presence of dad may have helped the issues. I never even thought those things. You are the one painting the bad picture for women....or any custodial parent out there. Let's see--Dad doesn't visit regularly, kid ends up in psychiatric hospital, Dad may have helped had he been there. Sure dad may have helped....had he been there from the beginning and had an influence on the child maybe things wouldve been different, maybe not. But when the problems started coming up dad couldve helped by being there MORALLY EMOTIONALLY (phone calls maybe?) ------------------ Dad has obviously said over and over again that he does NOT want to be a dad. How many different ways does he have to say it?? ----------------- Ya know, when Mom called Dad to tell him child was in hospital Dad's mom hung up the phone saying 'sucks to be him' .... about a 6 year old kid?!?! Her own blood...Now you tell me that something wasn't going on in Dad's household to make him not bother. Oh thats right, alot of you reading this think Mom is to blame...Sorry I forgot. ------------ Apparantly his mom understands that he doesn't want to be a dad why can't the kids mom?? ------------- Women are stuck with sitting around waiting for dad to do the right thing. how about alot of Custodial Parents are wondering wether or not the Non Custodial Parent will ever do the right thing (earlier referred to as sitting around waiting).....I guess I must explain every statement I make because you are taking everything too darn literally. ------------------ "The right thing" in the custodial parents eyes anyway. Why should a man who never wanted to be a parent, and has stated as much since the beginning, be held accountable for the womans decision to be a mommy? ~AZ~ Hmmm... Sounds pretty grim to me.
|
|
#93
December 23rd 03, 07:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"ME" wrote in message ... Because children have the right to make their own decisions without one parent telling them things about the other parent...The child has this right and it should not be influenced by talk from the other parent. Let the child make their own decision of the absent parent and then talk to them about it. I didn't say anything about giving the child a biased opinion of dad--I asked why she didn't redirect the child's attention to something else. Noone said she didn't. -------------- So she's doing everything 'right' and he is still so screwed up by the age of six?!! WTF? I wonder how all the other kids without dads managed to at least survive till puberty? It's a fact that single mother households produce more screwed up kids but this one really pushes things. -------------- WHY is this child, who has never had dad full time in his life, so focussed on what he DOESN'T have? Because he sees all of his cousins, friends, neighborhood children, school children who's fathers are taking them to games, the park, for ice cream, playing with the outside---and the child wants to know why his dad doesnt do these things. Is that so hard of a concept to grasp? He sees what he doesnt have. If he sees his friend with a trampoline he wants to know why he doesnt have one. And if he wants one, is it immediately given to him? If he doesn't get exactly what he wants, does he go into fits over it? No if he wants something it is not immediatley given to him. And sometimes their are fits...as I am sure you see in your classroom wiht ADHD ODD children As you say he is focused on what he doesnt have by seeing others that have it....children do that. Yes, children do that--that is how children--and adults with credit cards--are. OUCH MY EARS--Credit Cards scare me LOL (sorry had to add that bit of humor) But the answer is sometimes "no--can't do that." And children need to learn to accept that. Yes they do ---------------- And accepting that dad is not there is something they have to learn to accept. ------------ This child eventually needs to understand that he has no power over the situation. Or is he given everything he wants by mom, so he thinks he should be obeyed by dad, too? By far isnt given everything.... There is way more to this story than poor, helpless mom doing all she can to help poor helpless baby deal with hateful, nasty dad. I never said dad was nasty---he is absent and irresponsible... Is there an underlying diagnosis that you are not sharing, such as childhood schizophrenia or something? no schizophrenia, diagnosis of ADHD and ODD Ah, now that helps to understand the situation. Do you think that dad's presence would "cure" him of these problems? No it would definitly not ------------------- Dads NOT being there caused the problems and dads being there would NOT cure him. Sounds like a no win to me. --------------------- I have had many such children in my classroom over the years. Dad's unending presence in his life will not fix him--he needs to learn to control his behavior--and he needs help doing that. I am assuming that he is taking some sort of medication to help him. Different meds have been tried. Yes they are helping some. He gets little special help at school, specifically on those 'bad days' And getting special help at school. Solid, 2-parent families struggle to help their ADHD, ODD children. There is no magical setting or situation that can make it all better. Yes, I know. snip for length Take the kid to the park on the weekend. Send a card on birthday's. Call just to see how school went that day....All women can do is sit around and wait for dad to live up to his responsibilities as a father. All women can do is sit around and wait for a man to give them money? NO to live up to the responsibility of being a father---didnt you see i said before that forget about child support payments --- parental responsibilities of the mother OR father is much more than child support in form of money You very plainly said that all women can do is sit around and wait for dad to live up to his responsibilities. What do widowed women do? now that is way off the subject...most widowed women dont have children living at home that need their PARENTS (not saying their arent some)...this is about parents of small children. ------------------- I don't think she is talking little old lady widows. There are lots of widows with young children to raise. Think 9/11 firefighters for instance. ---------------- Sit around and wait for another man? A home with both a mother and a father is the ideal thing for children--but it is not always possible. And "sitting around waiting" doesn't fix that. I didnt mean sitting around waiting literally. Figure of speech. ----------- Figure of speech and maybe a mindset as well? ------------ What? Women can't work and earn money? Sure they can--did I say that? NO But lets just let absent parent off without helping to support his/her children--- Two different topics. Sure, both parents SHOULD be involved in their children's lives. But, if that isn't happening, "sitting around waiting" is not going to fix things. No matter what SHOULD be happening, the parent with the child MUST do what needs to be done, because "sitting around waiting" is not a viable option. again you took sitting around waiting too literrally.... Women can't take children on outings? of course they can.... So is Baby's mom taking him to the park, ball games, etc, like the other kids' fathers are? Instead of sitting around waiting for dad to do so? do you always take things so literally? Yes mom does such things and more with the child but dad doesnt....the point is Child Support cut out of picture--pretend it doesnt even exist in monetary form--why doesnt Dad (in this case) bother to 'spend time' with the child....yes mom spends time--why doesnt dad? ---------------- You answer your own question one sentence from here. ----------------- Sure mom can and does do these things, but wouldnt it be nice to have dad there too? Yes it would, but dad doesnt WANT to be there.... You keep saying the Dad doesn't want to spend time with the kid. Has NEVER wanted to be a dad. Dad doesn't WANT to be there. What in the world makes you think he is going to change?? From the start he has wanted absolutely nothing to do with the kid and yet there is all this, oh, "but wouldn't it be nice to have a dad there too?" Well, wouldn't it be nice if mommy had chosen more carefully who she was going to spread for instead of having the courts force parenthood down this guys throat? --------------- Women can't keep their children;s lives too full for moping? You just read too much into what I was saying---children need both parents -- wether they are together or seperated...absent parents dont have to spend time with children is what you see, to say. Yes, they certainly need both parents. They need both parents fully involved in their day to day lives--not one as the real parent, and the other as a paying visitor. But sometimes that just doesn't happen. And sitting around waiting isn't going to make it happen. again taken too literrally--you make it sound as if Mom is sitting on the couch watching out the window every day for Dad to appear....that isnt the case--- --------- Again, it can very well be a state of mind. ----------- Women can't point their children to the bright side of things? Women are so dependent on men that their children end up in psyciiatric hospitals if men don't do what women think they should? You are painting a very grim picture of women here. No I am not, you are by reading more into this than there is. I never said any of those things. The presence of dad may have helped the issues. I never even thought those things. You are the one painting the bad picture for women....or any custodial parent out there. Let's see--Dad doesn't visit regularly, kid ends up in psychiatric hospital, Dad may have helped had he been there. Sure dad may have helped....had he been there from the beginning and had an influence on the child maybe things wouldve been different, maybe not. But when the problems started coming up dad couldve helped by being there MORALLY EMOTIONALLY (phone calls maybe?) ------------------ Dad has obviously said over and over again that he does NOT want to be a dad. How many different ways does he have to say it?? ----------------- Ya know, when Mom called Dad to tell him child was in hospital Dad's mom hung up the phone saying 'sucks to be him' .... about a 6 year old kid?!?! Her own blood...Now you tell me that something wasn't going on in Dad's household to make him not bother. Oh thats right, alot of you reading this think Mom is to blame...Sorry I forgot. ------------ Apparantly his mom understands that he doesn't want to be a dad why can't the kids mom?? ------------- Women are stuck with sitting around waiting for dad to do the right thing. how about alot of Custodial Parents are wondering wether or not the Non Custodial Parent will ever do the right thing (earlier referred to as sitting around waiting).....I guess I must explain every statement I make because you are taking everything too darn literally. ------------------ "The right thing" in the custodial parents eyes anyway. Why should a man who never wanted to be a parent, and has stated as much since the beginning, be held accountable for the womans decision to be a mommy? ~AZ~ Hmmm... Sounds pretty grim to me.
|
|
#94
December 23rd 03, 08:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"ME" wrote in message news  "AZ Astrea" wrote in message ... "ME" wrote in message ... I agree with the fact that the pill should not be released OTC, it is too dangerous for that kind of availability. I do also agree, however, that the OTC release of it would lessen the number of abortions, unplanned pregnancies, teen pregnancy, and other matters of the sort. ----------------- This is NOT RU486! This is just a high dose birth control pill. It does not induce an abortion.---- I never said it did induce abortion......... ------- Oh, I see, you seem to have thought that this was RU486 which does induce abortions but you never said ...... oh, never mind. --------- ---------------------------- As for your point on men not having the choices...if we lived in a perfect world all woman would discuss the matter with the man first, but we don't. BUT... As for your 'plan B' for men....if we lived in a perfect world all men would actually pay their child support and be there for their children through all of their life, but they don't. ----------- In a perfect world the courts would order 50 50 shared legal and physical custody of the kids and no cs would be paid to mommy. I agree 100%--That would be great. My ex husband had that for a while but then his daughters mom moved to another school district so that didnt work any longer. But it was nice while it lasted. -------------- Actually in a perfect world women would not sleep with guys who were such losers in the first place and if they did, would at least realize that choosing to give birth to and keep said losers kid is not going to turn loser into their ideal of a perfect dad. Then if they decide to keep said losers kid in spite of knowing this, they assume full responsibility for the care and raising of kid. --------- ------------------ A girl I know gets pregnant a week before her 17th birthday. Her boyfriend says the baby is not his and breaks it off with her immediatley, but he does vow that if blood test reveal he is the father he would support the child totally. She goes through the pregnancy without him. When the baby is 6 months old Mom needs a car to get a job, since she has now graduated high school. She works out a loan with her Aunt who tells her she won't loan her the money unless she takes the baby's father to court for child support. She does this. Dad requests blood tests. Dad tells the domestic relations hearing officer of all Mom's partners at the time of conception....although he was the only one she was with. Blood tests come back that he is indeed the daddy of the baby. $45 a week is ordered, yippy. Years go by, no support. ---------------------------- What, did she think that somehow a court order was going to turn this guy into your version of a responsible parent? Get real, as soon as he learned of her pregnancy he "says the baby is not his and breaks it off with her immediatley". Buy a clue. He may have said he would "support the child totally" maybe just to get her off his back but his actions speak, scream, louder than words. So Dad shouldn't be responsible for his actions? Let Dad off with nothing because he said it wasn't his from day 1? -------------- Dad shouldn't be responsible for her actions. They both chose to have sex. She chose to take it further and become a parent. Dad has said from the beginning that he didn't want to be a dad. ------------ -------------------------- After 2 1/2 years she starts getting child support when Dad feels like paying it. He sees the child, then doesnt, then does, then doesnt ---------------------- Maybe when Dad feels like paying it is really when dad is ABLE to pay it. Dad is ABLE to pay....at least in this case ----------- At least in your eyes. As long as dad is breathing it is assumed he is able to pay cs. Never mind he may be in an iron lung, (or the modern equivalent). ------------- --------------------- ....Baby is now 5 years old. Dad still doesn't pay child support like he is court ordered and Mom can't get any help from the courts. (Seems the enforcing officers just have too much to do with all the other cases....ya know the ones who owe more back support) Baby starts to see psychiatrists, therapists and any other 'ist' you can imagine. Baby is so emotionally disturbed he sees them 2-4 times a month depending on behavior and emotional outbursts. ------------------- And this is the fault of a person who isn't even there? I think it's more likely that it's the fault of the mother who IS there. You miss the point that Dad was there....then wasn't....then was....he would see Baby tell him see ya next weekend etc.then not call for 6 months, then see him one day a week for the next 6 months then not call for another few months....you don't think that would hurt a child? Especially one so young? ------------------- ---------- Like TM said, "Children pretty much tend to accept that what is happening in their lives is normal--they have nothing else to compare it to." I agree with TM and unless someone calls their attention to it they are not going to be aware of it. ----------- Dad doesn't bother to call, send a card, a letter, or send child support. (By the way, Dad owns his own business, and for the last 4 years sat in bars 6 days a week) ----------------- Why, oh why do people think that owning your own business equates with having lots of money?? It's generally closer to the truth that owning your own business equates to having lots of money problems. I agree, but he does have money in this case.. And as far as his sitting in bars maybe that was the only escape he could afford. Unless he was sitting in them at some luxury resort. Only escape he could afford? Sure everyone needs a break now and then, or an escape...but $2 a beer (more on band nights plus $5 to get in) and he does this 6 days a week? But yet he can't afford to send child support, or at the very least send a card on the babys birthday? You need to escape to beer? Sure we all like to once in a while. But for $20 (or less) you can get a 30-pack of beer, invite a friend over and drink for half the price of going to the bar 6 days a week..... --------------- The point is he is held accountable for what he should or shouldn't be allowed to spend HIS money on. The cp is NEVER held accountable for what she spends his money on. And it is HIS money. ------------- -------------------- Baby spends a week in the inpatient child psychiatry unit at 6 years old because he told Mom he wanted to kill himself. What came out in therapy sessions? Dad did this, Dad did that, Dad didn't do this, Dad didn't do that. ------------------- Puh-leeeze! the only thing that dad didn't do was pay mommy the money she felt she deserved. Daddy was never around right?! So how could he have done this and not do that, blah blah. More likely that mommy TOLD the poor kid a bunch of stuff to tweak his head. When baby started asking why dad isnt around all Mom said was 'because' She dialed the phone and let baby speak to Dad so HE could tell Baby why he doesnt bother. Mom never told baby anything bad (or good) about Dad. She thought it best to let baby make his own decision about Dad.. ------------ That is messed up. If, by some chance, the kid, all on his own, asked why his dad wasn't around, mom could have simply said, because he's not. There was no need to put 'dad' on the spot like that. I wouldn't have been surprised if he had said something like, "because I'm not your 'dad, I was just a sperm donor." That would have been hard on the kid but no worse than what the mom did by putting him in the situation. ------------ -------------------- To make this story as short as possible because I could go on forever, your PLAN B is often ignored by men also. Around here you have to give your arm and leg and possibly both to get something done about violating court oders, getting child support etc. ---------------- And everywhere you could give away everything and still never get anything done about violating visitation orders and false abuse allegations. ------------------- My point is this, although women may ignore the mans decisions in using birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption etc etc, men also ignore the fatherly rights they have. (child support, even seeing the child, providing clothes or moral support) Meanwhile mom struggles to survive because she chose LIFE and dad chose BAR, sports car etc etc etc. -------------- She chose, she chose! That's EXACTLY the point! SHE makes all of the choices. SHE can choose LIFE or ABORTION or ADOPTION or ABANDONMENT. All men can do is sit by and wait to see what she will choose. Men can choose to support their child, forget about child support payments. Take the kid to the park on the weekend. Send a card on birthday's. Call just to see how school went that day....All women can do is sit around and wait for dad to live up to his responsibilities as a father. -------------------- When has the father of this kid ever wanted the responsibilities of fatherhood? Did you think that this guy, upon seeing his baby boys face, was going to somehow miraculously be transformed into some ideal loving, caring daddy? He DOSN'T WANT to take the kid to the park. He DOESN'T WANT to send a card on birthdays. He DOESN'T WANT to call and see how school went. No, sitting around and waiting for something that is NEVER going to happen is not all women can do. Many women deal with reality and get on with their life. They stop deluding themselves and take responsibility for theirs and the kids well being. I can't stand women like this who think that they can sleep with whoever they want, break the 'rules' as far as having kids without being married and then whine about it when the loser they spread for doesn't step up and become an enthusiastic daddy. They want all the benefits of having a husband and a loving father for their children without actually having to do anything about it. They just want the government to legislate it into the loser and when that doesn't work, then dammit, they want his money. ------------------ ------------------- Sure, make a law that the Dad has to sign permission for birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption, or life ------------------------- No. Make a law giving men the SAME rights that women currently have. The right to decide to be a parent or not. While a man can't force a women to get an abortion he should be able to force her to live with her own choices. A man should be able to choose to 'sign off' from being a parent. Here a man can sign his parental rights away. This case, Dad refuses to do so. BUT mom does have to agree to let dad do it also. Like I said in a perfect world it would be a choice made together in the event a women got pregnant, but we don't live in a perfect world do we? --------------- Sure, a man can sign his parental rights away but he can't sign away having to pay cs. As with everything else, the woman has the say whether to allow it. A man should be able to 'sign off' from being a parent as completely and absolutely as a women is able to sign of on being a parent by having an abortion, giving the kid up for adoption or abandoning him. No one can tell a woman that she CAN'T do those things. ----------- -------------------- but then make a law that Dad also has to live up to his responsibilities of being a Dad. --------------- What, the current set of laws requiring men to pay outrageous amounts of cs to women who have made the choice to become a parent aren't enough for you? Maybe they should have a national registry where all the men in the country who are working are required to be listed so that the courts can easily garnish their paychecks and take their tax refunds. And maybe they should bring back the 'debtors prisons' and lock up men who are unable to pay their cs. And then they could take away the drivers and professional licenses of any man who gets behind on their cs. Oh wait, they already DO those things. Outrageous amounts of child support? How much do you think it takes to raise a child? Sit and think about it. --------------- How much to raise a child? Well, if a child does not die of starvation or something else then the very fact that the child has been 'raised' is proof that whatever the amount the parent, (or even parents), had, was 'enough', to 'raise' the child. -------------- Not everyone pays outrageous amounts of child support, and it is supposed to be based on the income of both parties. I know a girl who pays $15 a week, but I also know a guy who pays over $200 a week. $200 is outrageous but normally the amounts are not all that outrageous. $15 a week? come on.... ----------- Is the child alive and healthy? If so then they are receiving enough to be raised. It takes whatever it takes. It should not based on how much parents earn. Just because parents earn lots of money doesn't mean that the amount it takes to raise a kid is more. And kids of divorce, in reality, don't have the advantages of two parent households and that is just the reality and for the government to order that the standard of living should remain the same is delusional. ~AZ~ --------------------- This argument could go on forever, and so could I. Women are in the wrong, men are in the wrong. Men shouldn't have to pay for the choices of women? Women pay for the choices of men each and every single day. ----------- No, men shouldn't have to pay for the choices of women. Men have no choices when it comes to having children so women don't pay for men's choices. And they don't pay for their own. They don't have to. ~AZ~ "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... In the interests of clarity, I should point out that this is not RU-486. It is a product known as an "emergency contraceptive," and is -- on my understanding -- a pepped-up dose of the ingredients of the birth control pill. It is not an abortion-inducing product. However, the basic point remains. This is yet another way of giving reproductive choices to women. Meantime, no one considers ways of giving post-conception reproductive choices to men. It would be very simple to say that men should not have to pay for decisions made unilaterally by women, and should be able to renounce their paternal rights and responsibilities. However, this doesn't get done, very largely because there is no special interest group representing heterosexual men. For men, "Plan B" consists of paying 18+ years of "child support" money to women who decide that they don't want to make use of all the post-conception choices U.S. law has given them. Kathi Kelly wrote: "Kenneth S." writes: But there is a definite possibility that the FDA WILL accept this proposal. A minority of U.S. states (as well as several European countries) ALREADY say that morning-after pills should be available to women on an over-the-counter basis. Kenneth, Bob and Mel all made good points about RU486. However, another point remains. RU486 is not a safe procedure for OTC release. There are and can be severe consequences. IMO, the FDA should not even consider this proposal. An MD should be supervising the use of RU486. To me, this is yet another example of the vocal minority getting their way to the detriment of society and health issues. It's just ridiculous. The interested readers can peruse these pages. http://pages.map.com/lroberge/ru486.htm http://www.feminist.org/action/action120f.htm#_edn1 N.B., the FM states only the "positive" and makes no mention of adverse side effects. The FM is working for their own political agenda. Women be damned as far as they are concerned.
|
|
#95
December 23rd 03, 08:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"ME" wrote in message news "AZ Astrea" wrote in message ... "ME" wrote in message ... I agree with the fact that the pill should not be released OTC, it is too dangerous for that kind of availability. I do also agree, however, that the OTC release of it would lessen the number of abortions, unplanned pregnancies, teen pregnancy, and other matters of the sort. ----------------- This is NOT RU486! This is just a high dose birth control pill. It does not induce an abortion.---- I never said it did induce abortion......... ------- Oh, I see, you seem to have thought that this was RU486 which does induce abortions but you never said ...... oh, never mind. --------- ---------------------------- As for your point on men not having the choices...if we lived in a perfect world all woman would discuss the matter with the man first, but we don't. BUT... As for your 'plan B' for men....if we lived in a perfect world all men would actually pay their child support and be there for their children through all of their life, but they don't. ----------- In a perfect world the courts would order 50 50 shared legal and physical custody of the kids and no cs would be paid to mommy. I agree 100%--That would be great. My ex husband had that for a while but then his daughters mom moved to another school district so that didnt work any longer. But it was nice while it lasted. -------------- Actually in a perfect world women would not sleep with guys who were such losers in the first place and if they did, would at least realize that choosing to give birth to and keep said losers kid is not going to turn loser into their ideal of a perfect dad. Then if they decide to keep said losers kid in spite of knowing this, they assume full responsibility for the care and raising of kid. --------- ------------------ A girl I know gets pregnant a week before her 17th birthday. Her boyfriend says the baby is not his and breaks it off with her immediatley, but he does vow that if blood test reveal he is the father he would support the child totally. She goes through the pregnancy without him. When the baby is 6 months old Mom needs a car to get a job, since she has now graduated high school. She works out a loan with her Aunt who tells her she won't loan her the money unless she takes the baby's father to court for child support. She does this. Dad requests blood tests. Dad tells the domestic relations hearing officer of all Mom's partners at the time of conception....although he was the only one she was with. Blood tests come back that he is indeed the daddy of the baby. $45 a week is ordered, yippy. Years go by, no support. ---------------------------- What, did she think that somehow a court order was going to turn this guy into your version of a responsible parent? Get real, as soon as he learned of her pregnancy he "says the baby is not his and breaks it off with her immediatley". Buy a clue. He may have said he would "support the child totally" maybe just to get her off his back but his actions speak, scream, louder than words. So Dad shouldn't be responsible for his actions? Let Dad off with nothing because he said it wasn't his from day 1? -------------- Dad shouldn't be responsible for her actions. They both chose to have sex. She chose to take it further and become a parent. Dad has said from the beginning that he didn't want to be a dad. ------------ -------------------------- After 2 1/2 years she starts getting child support when Dad feels like paying it. He sees the child, then doesnt, then does, then doesnt ---------------------- Maybe when Dad feels like paying it is really when dad is ABLE to pay it. Dad is ABLE to pay....at least in this case ----------- At least in your eyes. As long as dad is breathing it is assumed he is able to pay cs. Never mind he may be in an iron lung, (or the modern equivalent). ------------- --------------------- ....Baby is now 5 years old. Dad still doesn't pay child support like he is court ordered and Mom can't get any help from the courts. (Seems the enforcing officers just have too much to do with all the other cases....ya know the ones who owe more back support) Baby starts to see psychiatrists, therapists and any other 'ist' you can imagine. Baby is so emotionally disturbed he sees them 2-4 times a month depending on behavior and emotional outbursts. ------------------- And this is the fault of a person who isn't even there? I think it's more likely that it's the fault of the mother who IS there. You miss the point that Dad was there....then wasn't....then was....he would see Baby tell him see ya next weekend etc.then not call for 6 months, then see him one day a week for the next 6 months then not call for another few months....you don't think that would hurt a child? Especially one so young? ------------------- ---------- Like TM said, "Children pretty much tend to accept that what is happening in their lives is normal--they have nothing else to compare it to." I agree with TM and unless someone calls their attention to it they are not going to be aware of it. ----------- Dad doesn't bother to call, send a card, a letter, or send child support. (By the way, Dad owns his own business, and for the last 4 years sat in bars 6 days a week) ----------------- Why, oh why do people think that owning your own business equates with having lots of money?? It's generally closer to the truth that owning your own business equates to having lots of money problems. I agree, but he does have money in this case.. And as far as his sitting in bars maybe that was the only escape he could afford. Unless he was sitting in them at some luxury resort. Only escape he could afford? Sure everyone needs a break now and then, or an escape...but $2 a beer (more on band nights plus $5 to get in) and he does this 6 days a week? But yet he can't afford to send child support, or at the very least send a card on the babys birthday? You need to escape to beer? Sure we all like to once in a while. But for $20 (or less) you can get a 30-pack of beer, invite a friend over and drink for half the price of going to the bar 6 days a week..... --------------- The point is he is held accountable for what he should or shouldn't be allowed to spend HIS money on. The cp is NEVER held accountable for what she spends his money on. And it is HIS money. ------------- -------------------- Baby spends a week in the inpatient child psychiatry unit at 6 years old because he told Mom he wanted to kill himself. What came out in therapy sessions? Dad did this, Dad did that, Dad didn't do this, Dad didn't do that. ------------------- Puh-leeeze! the only thing that dad didn't do was pay mommy the money she felt she deserved. Daddy was never around right?! So how could he have done this and not do that, blah blah. More likely that mommy TOLD the poor kid a bunch of stuff to tweak his head. When baby started asking why dad isnt around all Mom said was 'because' She dialed the phone and let baby speak to Dad so HE could tell Baby why he doesnt bother. Mom never told baby anything bad (or good) about Dad. She thought it best to let baby make his own decision about Dad.. ------------ That is messed up. If, by some chance, the kid, all on his own, asked why his dad wasn't around, mom could have simply said, because he's not. There was no need to put 'dad' on the spot like that. I wouldn't have been surprised if he had said something like, "because I'm not your 'dad, I was just a sperm donor." That would have been hard on the kid but no worse than what the mom did by putting him in the situation. ------------ -------------------- To make this story as short as possible because I could go on forever, your PLAN B is often ignored by men also. Around here you have to give your arm and leg and possibly both to get something done about violating court oders, getting child support etc. ---------------- And everywhere you could give away everything and still never get anything done about violating visitation orders and false abuse allegations. ------------------- My point is this, although women may ignore the mans decisions in using birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption etc etc, men also ignore the fatherly rights they have. (child support, even seeing the child, providing clothes or moral support) Meanwhile mom struggles to survive because she chose LIFE and dad chose BAR, sports car etc etc etc. -------------- She chose, she chose! That's EXACTLY the point! SHE makes all of the choices. SHE can choose LIFE or ABORTION or ADOPTION or ABANDONMENT. All men can do is sit by and wait to see what she will choose. Men can choose to support their child, forget about child support payments. Take the kid to the park on the weekend. Send a card on birthday's. Call just to see how school went that day....All women can do is sit around and wait for dad to live up to his responsibilities as a father. -------------------- When has the father of this kid ever wanted the responsibilities of fatherhood? Did you think that this guy, upon seeing his baby boys face, was going to somehow miraculously be transformed into some ideal loving, caring daddy? He DOSN'T WANT to take the kid to the park. He DOESN'T WANT to send a card on birthdays. He DOESN'T WANT to call and see how school went. No, sitting around and waiting for something that is NEVER going to happen is not all women can do. Many women deal with reality and get on with their life. They stop deluding themselves and take responsibility for theirs and the kids well being. I can't stand women like this who think that they can sleep with whoever they want, break the 'rules' as far as having kids without being married and then whine about it when the loser they spread for doesn't step up and become an enthusiastic daddy. They want all the benefits of having a husband and a loving father for their children without actually having to do anything about it. They just want the government to legislate it into the loser and when that doesn't work, then dammit, they want his money. ------------------ ------------------- Sure, make a law that the Dad has to sign permission for birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption, or life ------------------------- No. Make a law giving men the SAME rights that women currently have. The right to decide to be a parent or not. While a man can't force a women to get an abortion he should be able to force her to live with her own choices. A man should be able to choose to 'sign off' from being a parent. Here a man can sign his parental rights away. This case, Dad refuses to do so. BUT mom does have to agree to let dad do it also. Like I said in a perfect world it would be a choice made together in the event a women got pregnant, but we don't live in a perfect world do we? --------------- Sure, a man can sign his parental rights away but he can't sign away having to pay cs. As with everything else, the woman has the say whether to allow it. A man should be able to 'sign off' from being a parent as completely and absolutely as a women is able to sign of on being a parent by having an abortion, giving the kid up for adoption or abandoning him. No one can tell a woman that she CAN'T do those things. ----------- -------------------- but then make a law that Dad also has to live up to his responsibilities of being a Dad. --------------- What, the current set of laws requiring men to pay outrageous amounts of cs to women who have made the choice to become a parent aren't enough for you? Maybe they should have a national registry where all the men in the country who are working are required to be listed so that the courts can easily garnish their paychecks and take their tax refunds. And maybe they should bring back the 'debtors prisons' and lock up men who are unable to pay their cs. And then they could take away the drivers and professional licenses of any man who gets behind on their cs. Oh wait, they already DO those things. Outrageous amounts of child support? How much do you think it takes to raise a child? Sit and think about it. --------------- How much to raise a child? Well, if a child does not die of starvation or something else then the very fact that the child has been 'raised' is proof that whatever the amount the parent, (or even parents), had, was 'enough', to 'raise' the child. -------------- Not everyone pays outrageous amounts of child support, and it is supposed to be based on the income of both parties. I know a girl who pays $15 a week, but I also know a guy who pays over $200 a week. $200 is outrageous but normally the amounts are not all that outrageous. $15 a week? come on.... ----------- Is the child alive and healthy? If so then they are receiving enough to be raised. It takes whatever it takes. It should not based on how much parents earn. Just because parents earn lots of money doesn't mean that the amount it takes to raise a kid is more. And kids of divorce, in reality, don't have the advantages of two parent households and that is just the reality and for the government to order that the standard of living should remain the same is delusional. ~AZ~ --------------------- This argument could go on forever, and so could I. Women are in the wrong, men are in the wrong. Men shouldn't have to pay for the choices of women? Women pay for the choices of men each and every single day. ----------- No, men shouldn't have to pay for the choices of women. Men have no choices when it comes to having children so women don't pay for men's choices. And they don't pay for their own. They don't have to. ~AZ~ "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... In the interests of clarity, I should point out that this is not RU-486. It is a product known as an "emergency contraceptive," and is -- on my understanding -- a pepped-up dose of the ingredients of the birth control pill. It is not an abortion-inducing product. However, the basic point remains. This is yet another way of giving reproductive choices to women. Meantime, no one considers ways of giving post-conception reproductive choices to men. It would be very simple to say that men should not have to pay for decisions made unilaterally by women, and should be able to renounce their paternal rights and responsibilities. However, this doesn't get done, very largely because there is no special interest group representing heterosexual men. For men, "Plan B" consists of paying 18+ years of "child support" money to women who decide that they don't want to make use of all the post-conception choices U.S. law has given them. Kathi Kelly wrote: "Kenneth S." writes: But there is a definite possibility that the FDA WILL accept this proposal. A minority of U.S. states (as well as several European countries) ALREADY say that morning-after pills should be available to women on an over-the-counter basis. Kenneth, Bob and Mel all made good points about RU486. However, another point remains. RU486 is not a safe procedure for OTC release. There are and can be severe consequences. IMO, the FDA should not even consider this proposal. An MD should be supervising the use of RU486. To me, this is yet another example of the vocal minority getting their way to the detriment of society and health issues. It's just ridiculous. The interested readers can peruse these pages. http://pages.map.com/lroberge/ru486.htm http://www.feminist.org/action/action120f.htm#_edn1 N.B., the FM states only the "positive" and makes no mention of adverse side effects. The FM is working for their own political agenda. Women be damned as far as they are concerned.
|
|
#96
December 23rd 03, 08:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"ME" wrote in message ... "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... ME: Your long message below sidesteps the basic question. If so much attention in the U.S. is given to ensuring that women have as many post-conception choices as possible, why can't men have post-conception choices (or in this case, post-intercourse choices)? True---I said in another posting that men should have choices too---I also said that in a perfect world the woman and man would discuss the choices (post-conception, post-intercourse, you name it, of course they should discuss it before ONE of them makes a decision) It would be perfectly possible for men to be allowed to make a legal disclaimer of their paternal rights and responsibilities in situations where they did not want to be forced into fatherhood by the unilateral decision of the woman involved. That's not something that could be done only in a perfect world. Men can sign away their parental rights, as can women, but the other party has to agree also. ------------- Good lord!!!! I can't believe you said this! MEN CAN NOT SIGN AWAY THEIR PARENTAL RIGHTS THE SAME WAY THAT WOMEN CAN!!!!! Women DO NOT have to get permission from the man to have an abortion, put the baby up for adoption or to abandon the baby!!! Men HAVE TO be ALLOWED to by the women in order to get out of paying child support! ---------- To me, discussions about this issue often are characterized by two factors: (1) The determination of so many women to cling to the status of being the victims of men, although in reality it is women who are making the choices and imposing their choices on men. It is not always one way or the other...lets say its 50-50--50% women 'screw' the men but also 50% the men 'screw' the women----the problem?? we only ever hear of when the woman is the victim of the man, not vice versa---take the story i told and reverse the rolls....say Dad had custody and Mom was in the bar all the time and so on....i bet alot of people would have a different opinion on the subject then.... ----------- You may say it's 50 50 as much as you want but that's not the way it is. A women has 100% of the ability to impose fatherhood on a man after conception. A man has 0%. ----------- (2) The disparity in the application of the principle that "life isn't fair." That principle is supposed to be the end of the argument that men should have equal rights. However, for decades, the drive towards giving women more choices hasn't been held back by the consideration that THEY mustn't expect life to be fair. True...but what is fair? What does fair mean? Fair--mom and dad make a decision together ---------------- Together they may have decided to have sex. They each had an equal part in that decision. The decision to have sex. Sex. I doubt that before they hopped into bed they decided to become parents. ------------------------ BUT they had different views to begin with so the decision made is FAIR to one and not to the other do you see what im saying? ------------ Do you see what anyone else is saying? The decision, post-conception belongs to the mom and the mom alone. When a man can tell a woman that she must have an abortion and be able, legally to force her to do so or when a man can tell a woman that she has to remain pregnant and give birth to the kid and be able, legally to force her to do so then things will be fair. Or maybe it would just be easier to allow the father to opt-out ot parenthood and then if the woman wants the kid anyway it can be her responsibility. If she can't afford to raise it then give it up for adoption. Why should the rest of the world have to pay because she wanted to be a mommy? ~AZ~ Is anything in life really fair at all? MEN SHOULD HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS IN THIS DECISION I agree with that, I wasnt trying to put men down, like I said that story could have reverse roles!! No matter what---RU-486 is release OTC or isn't ---- either way the decison will never be made 'FAIR'....in alot of cases anyway.... Your comments exemplify both of these factors. ME wrote: I agree with the fact that the pill should not be released OTC, it is too dangerous for that kind of availability. I do also agree, however, that the OTC release of it would lessen the number of abortions, unplanned pregnancies, teen pregnancy, and other matters of the sort. As for your point on men not having the choices...if we lived in a perfect world all woman would discuss the matter with the man first, but we don't. BUT... As for your 'plan B' for men....if we lived in a perfect world all men would actually pay their child support and be there for their children through all of their life, but they don't. A girl I know gets pregnant a week before her 17th birthday. Her boyfriend says the baby is not his and breaks it off with her immediatley, but he does vow that if blood test reveal he is the father he would support the child totally. She goes through the pregnancy without him. When the baby is 6 months old Mom needs a car to get a job, since she has now graduated high school. She works out a loan with her Aunt who tells her she won't loan her the money unless she takes the baby's father to court for child support. She does this. Dad requests blood tests. Dad tells the domestic relations hearing officer of all Mom's partners at the time of conception....although he was the only one she was with. Blood tests come back that he is indeed the daddy of the baby. $45 a week is ordered, yippy. Years go by, no support. After 2 1/2 years she starts getting child support when Dad feels like paying it. He sees the child, then doesnt, then does, then doesnt....Baby is now 5 years old. Dad still doesn't pay child support like he is court ordered and Mom can't get any help from the courts. (Seems the enforcing officers just have too much to do with all the other cases....ya know the ones who owe more back support) Baby starts to see psychiatrists, therapists and any other 'ist' you can imagine. Baby is so emotionally disturbed he sees them 2-4 times a month depending on behavior and emotional outbursts. Dad doesn't bother to call, send a card, a letter, or send child support. (By the way, Dad owns his own business, and for the last 4 years sat in bars 6 days a week) Baby spends a week in the inpatient child psychiatry unit at 6 years old because he told Mom he wanted to kill himself. What came out in therapy sessions? Dad did this, Dad did that, Dad didn't do this, Dad didn't do that. To make this story as short as possible because I could go on forever, your PLAN B is often ignored by men also. Around here you have to give your arm and leg and possibly both to get something done about violating court orders, getting child support etc. My point is this, although women may ignore the mans decisions in using birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption etc etc, men also ignore the fatherly rights they have. (child support, even seeing the child, providing clothes or moral support) Meanwhile mom struggles to survive because she chose LIFE and dad chose BAR, sports car etc etc etc. Sure, make a law that the Dad has to sign permission for birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption, or life but then make a law that Dad also has to live up to his responsibilities of being a Dad. This argument could go on forever, and so could I. Women are in the wrong, men are in the wrong. Men shouldn't have to pay for the choices of women? Women pay for the choices of men each and every single day. "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... In the interests of clarity, I should point out that this is not RU-486. It is a product known as an "emergency contraceptive," and is -- on my understanding -- a pepped-up dose of the ingredients of the birth control pill. It is not an abortion-inducing product. However, the basic point remains. This is yet another way of giving reproductive choices to women. Meantime, no one considers ways of giving post-conception reproductive choices to men. It would be very simple to say that men should not have to pay for decisions made unilaterally by women, and should be able to renounce their paternal rights and responsibilities. However, this doesn't get done, very largely because there is no special interest group representing heterosexual men. For men, "Plan B" consists of paying 18+ years of "child support" money to women who decide that they don't want to make use of all the post-conception choices U.S. law has given them. Kathi Kelly wrote: "Kenneth S." writes: But there is a definite possibility that the FDA WILL accept this proposal. A minority of U.S. states (as well as several European countries) ALREADY say that morning-after pills should be available to women on an over-the-counter basis. Kenneth, Bob and Mel all made good points about RU486. However, another point remains. RU486 is not a safe procedure for OTC release. There are and can be severe consequences. IMO, the FDA should not even consider this proposal. An MD should be supervising the use of RU486. To me, this is yet another example of the vocal minority getting their way to the detriment of society and health issues. It's just ridiculous. The interested readers can peruse these pages. http://pages.map.com/lroberge/ru486.htm http://www.feminist.org/action/action120f.htm#_edn1 N.B., the FM states only the "positive" and makes no mention of adverse side effects. The FM is working for their own political agenda. Women be damned as far as they are concerned.
|
|
#97
December 23rd 03, 08:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"ME" wrote in message ... "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... ME: Your long message below sidesteps the basic question. If so much attention in the U.S. is given to ensuring that women have as many post-conception choices as possible, why can't men have post-conception choices (or in this case, post-intercourse choices)? True---I said in another posting that men should have choices too---I also said that in a perfect world the woman and man would discuss the choices (post-conception, post-intercourse, you name it, of course they should discuss it before ONE of them makes a decision) It would be perfectly possible for men to be allowed to make a legal disclaimer of their paternal rights and responsibilities in situations where they did not want to be forced into fatherhood by the unilateral decision of the woman involved. That's not something that could be done only in a perfect world. Men can sign away their parental rights, as can women, but the other party has to agree also. ------------- Good lord!!!! I can't believe you said this! MEN CAN NOT SIGN AWAY THEIR PARENTAL RIGHTS THE SAME WAY THAT WOMEN CAN!!!!! Women DO NOT have to get permission from the man to have an abortion, put the baby up for adoption or to abandon the baby!!! Men HAVE TO be ALLOWED to by the women in order to get out of paying child support! ---------- To me, discussions about this issue often are characterized by two factors: (1) The determination of so many women to cling to the status of being the victims of men, although in reality it is women who are making the choices and imposing their choices on men. It is not always one way or the other...lets say its 50-50--50% women 'screw' the men but also 50% the men 'screw' the women----the problem?? we only ever hear of when the woman is the victim of the man, not vice versa---take the story i told and reverse the rolls....say Dad had custody and Mom was in the bar all the time and so on....i bet alot of people would have a different opinion on the subject then.... ----------- You may say it's 50 50 as much as you want but that's not the way it is. A women has 100% of the ability to impose fatherhood on a man after conception. A man has 0%. ----------- (2) The disparity in the application of the principle that "life isn't fair." That principle is supposed to be the end of the argument that men should have equal rights. However, for decades, the drive towards giving women more choices hasn't been held back by the consideration that THEY mustn't expect life to be fair. True...but what is fair? What does fair mean? Fair--mom and dad make a decision together ---------------- Together they may have decided to have sex. They each had an equal part in that decision. The decision to have sex. Sex. I doubt that before they hopped into bed they decided to become parents. ------------------------ BUT they had different views to begin with so the decision made is FAIR to one and not to the other do you see what im saying? ------------ Do you see what anyone else is saying? The decision, post-conception belongs to the mom and the mom alone. When a man can tell a woman that she must have an abortion and be able, legally to force her to do so or when a man can tell a woman that she has to remain pregnant and give birth to the kid and be able, legally to force her to do so then things will be fair. Or maybe it would just be easier to allow the father to opt-out ot parenthood and then if the woman wants the kid anyway it can be her responsibility. If she can't afford to raise it then give it up for adoption. Why should the rest of the world have to pay because she wanted to be a mommy? ~AZ~ Is anything in life really fair at all? MEN SHOULD HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS IN THIS DECISION I agree with that, I wasnt trying to put men down, like I said that story could have reverse roles!! No matter what---RU-486 is release OTC or isn't ---- either way the decison will never be made 'FAIR'....in alot of cases anyway.... Your comments exemplify both of these factors. ME wrote: I agree with the fact that the pill should not be released OTC, it is too dangerous for that kind of availability. I do also agree, however, that the OTC release of it would lessen the number of abortions, unplanned pregnancies, teen pregnancy, and other matters of the sort. As for your point on men not having the choices...if we lived in a perfect world all woman would discuss the matter with the man first, but we don't. BUT... As for your 'plan B' for men....if we lived in a perfect world all men would actually pay their child support and be there for their children through all of their life, but they don't. A girl I know gets pregnant a week before her 17th birthday. Her boyfriend says the baby is not his and breaks it off with her immediatley, but he does vow that if blood test reveal he is the father he would support the child totally. She goes through the pregnancy without him. When the baby is 6 months old Mom needs a car to get a job, since she has now graduated high school. She works out a loan with her Aunt who tells her she won't loan her the money unless she takes the baby's father to court for child support. She does this. Dad requests blood tests. Dad tells the domestic relations hearing officer of all Mom's partners at the time of conception....although he was the only one she was with. Blood tests come back that he is indeed the daddy of the baby. $45 a week is ordered, yippy. Years go by, no support. After 2 1/2 years she starts getting child support when Dad feels like paying it. He sees the child, then doesnt, then does, then doesnt....Baby is now 5 years old. Dad still doesn't pay child support like he is court ordered and Mom can't get any help from the courts. (Seems the enforcing officers just have too much to do with all the other cases....ya know the ones who owe more back support) Baby starts to see psychiatrists, therapists and any other 'ist' you can imagine. Baby is so emotionally disturbed he sees them 2-4 times a month depending on behavior and emotional outbursts. Dad doesn't bother to call, send a card, a letter, or send child support. (By the way, Dad owns his own business, and for the last 4 years sat in bars 6 days a week) Baby spends a week in the inpatient child psychiatry unit at 6 years old because he told Mom he wanted to kill himself. What came out in therapy sessions? Dad did this, Dad did that, Dad didn't do this, Dad didn't do that. To make this story as short as possible because I could go on forever, your PLAN B is often ignored by men also. Around here you have to give your arm and leg and possibly both to get something done about violating court orders, getting child support etc. My point is this, although women may ignore the mans decisions in using birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption etc etc, men also ignore the fatherly rights they have. (child support, even seeing the child, providing clothes or moral support) Meanwhile mom struggles to survive because she chose LIFE and dad chose BAR, sports car etc etc etc. Sure, make a law that the Dad has to sign permission for birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption, or life but then make a law that Dad also has to live up to his responsibilities of being a Dad. This argument could go on forever, and so could I. Women are in the wrong, men are in the wrong. Men shouldn't have to pay for the choices of women? Women pay for the choices of men each and every single day. "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... In the interests of clarity, I should point out that this is not RU-486. It is a product known as an "emergency contraceptive," and is -- on my understanding -- a pepped-up dose of the ingredients of the birth control pill. It is not an abortion-inducing product. However, the basic point remains. This is yet another way of giving reproductive choices to women. Meantime, no one considers ways of giving post-conception reproductive choices to men. It would be very simple to say that men should not have to pay for decisions made unilaterally by women, and should be able to renounce their paternal rights and responsibilities. However, this doesn't get done, very largely because there is no special interest group representing heterosexual men. For men, "Plan B" consists of paying 18+ years of "child support" money to women who decide that they don't want to make use of all the post-conception choices U.S. law has given them. Kathi Kelly wrote: "Kenneth S." writes: But there is a definite possibility that the FDA WILL accept this proposal. A minority of U.S. states (as well as several European countries) ALREADY say that morning-after pills should be available to women on an over-the-counter basis. Kenneth, Bob and Mel all made good points about RU486. However, another point remains. RU486 is not a safe procedure for OTC release. There are and can be severe consequences. IMO, the FDA should not even consider this proposal. An MD should be supervising the use of RU486. To me, this is yet another example of the vocal minority getting their way to the detriment of society and health issues. It's just ridiculous. The interested readers can peruse these pages. http://pages.map.com/lroberge/ru486.htm http://www.feminist.org/action/action120f.htm#_edn1 N.B., the FM states only the "positive" and makes no mention of adverse side effects. The FM is working for their own political agenda. Women be damned as far as they are concerned.
|
|
#98
December 23rd 03, 11:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
I don't intend to sidetrack this discussion, so that it focuses on
the technical characteristics of what Barr Labs is calling "Plan B" (the pill that was the subject of the FDA panel decision). However, the Canadian website below apparently relates to RU486, which Plan B is not. Instead, Plan B is an extra dose of a regular contraceptive, and (if taken soon enough after pregnancy) can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. This nature of Plan B is relevant to the important moral question of whether abortion is right or not. It is NOT relevant to the point I was making. My point is that, in the U.S., endless energy, legislative resources, and judicial time continues to be spent on giving reproductive choices to women, but no resources are devoted to giving choices to men. Men simply have to pay women for the choices women have made. Carry On wrote: On 22 Dec 2003 17:54:33 GMT, (Kathi Kelly) wrote: "Kenneth S." writes: In the interests of clarity, I should point out that this is not RU-486. It is a product known as an "emergency contraceptive," and is -- on my understanding -- a pepped-up dose of the ingredients of the birth control pill. It is not an abortion-inducing product. Oops, my mistake. Apologies. You were not mistaken. It is an early pregnancy abortion-inducing agent. All of the articles I've seen refer to it in exactly that manner and I have seen nothing that suggests its a contraceptive of any kind since its intended use is for _after_ contraception has taken place, not prior to or to prevent fertilization of an egg. While RU 486 is comprised of female hormones that has no bearing on its function or intended use. The intent of taking the RU 486 pill is to abort a fertilized embryo prior to its implantation in the uterus. The following information comes from a Canadian website. http://www.cbctrust.com/RU486.96.html "Introduction At present, if a woman chooses to have an abortion, she almost always has a surgical procedure. However, a new French medication called RU 486 is now being used to bring about abortion in very early pregnancy, and scientists are researching many other therapeutic applications for this revolutionary drug. Because it stops the gestation of an early pregnancy, RU 486 has been called an abortion pill."
|
|
#99
December 23rd 03, 11:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
I don't intend to sidetrack this discussion, so that it focuses on
the technical characteristics of what Barr Labs is calling "Plan B" (the pill that was the subject of the FDA panel decision). However, the Canadian website below apparently relates to RU486, which Plan B is not. Instead, Plan B is an extra dose of a regular contraceptive, and (if taken soon enough after pregnancy) can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. This nature of Plan B is relevant to the important moral question of whether abortion is right or not. It is NOT relevant to the point I was making. My point is that, in the U.S., endless energy, legislative resources, and judicial time continues to be spent on giving reproductive choices to women, but no resources are devoted to giving choices to men. Men simply have to pay women for the choices women have made. Carry On wrote: On 22 Dec 2003 17:54:33 GMT, (Kathi Kelly) wrote: "Kenneth S." writes: In the interests of clarity, I should point out that this is not RU-486. It is a product known as an "emergency contraceptive," and is -- on my understanding -- a pepped-up dose of the ingredients of the birth control pill. It is not an abortion-inducing product. Oops, my mistake. Apologies. You were not mistaken. It is an early pregnancy abortion-inducing agent. All of the articles I've seen refer to it in exactly that manner and I have seen nothing that suggests its a contraceptive of any kind since its intended use is for _after_ contraception has taken place, not prior to or to prevent fertilization of an egg. While RU 486 is comprised of female hormones that has no bearing on its function or intended use. The intent of taking the RU 486 pill is to abort a fertilized embryo prior to its implantation in the uterus. The following information comes from a Canadian website. http://www.cbctrust.com/RU486.96.html "Introduction At present, if a woman chooses to have an abortion, she almost always has a surgical procedure. However, a new French medication called RU 486 is now being used to bring about abortion in very early pregnancy, and scientists are researching many other therapeutic applications for this revolutionary drug. Because it stops the gestation of an early pregnancy, RU 486 has been called an abortion pill."
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
