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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Male Reproductive Choice - thoughts?
Beverly:
Your ideas in theory make alot of sense.. and I agree with them, however that said the practicalities of implementation is a totally different story. Example of what I mean. A freind of mine is in the service. Just prior to being shipped out he did what most young servicemen do. Went out for a good time just before. Well this good time involved alot of alchol by both him and the lady he was with. And as a result they had sex. As a result of this act she became pregnant. Well this is where it gets complicated. From what I understand she attempted to track him down, but only knowing his first name, a very common one at that, and being out of the counrty in Iraq for a Tour of duty lasting over a year. He was pretty much out of contact. When he came home, he happen to find her number written on his desk, so he gave her a call.. A complete chance, or to this day he would still not know he is a father probably. Well now he has found out he is a father, and is very good one at that. Tries every chance he gets to be with his son, and pay his support and whatever else.. . But here is the major flaw in the idea you present. What if the woman is trying to locate the man activily? What is the time limit? What if the guy goes out of his way not to be found?moves out of state... many different ways for a man to hide. What choices does the woman have then? Can she keep the child, and upon location of the father ask for support, or can she get an abortion with out the knowledge or consent of the father? (Which is the case now) What if the father through no fault of his own does no about the child till after the birth, and then requests to become part of the childs life? Do to his name not being included anywhere, because he did not give his consent early on, does he infact have rights to this child? To me current system is not perfect, but it is still fairly decent as this whole problem of fathers complaining about being a father, and wanting nothing to do with their child probably only affects approx 5-10% of all the fathers out there, and thats being genorous. Another flaw in the idea... What if it's the wrong guy? Your whole idea is also based upon the fact that the guy she is informing is 100% the father. What if she had sex with a couple of different men over a a couple of week period, as is her right, or should that right be stripped from women to ensure they will know. What if she informs a guy, and he denies to even ever sleeping with her. And then a DNA test is completed, which has to wait till after birth, or if it can be done in the womb, past the point where she would be legally allowed to have an abortion. DNA test comes back, presto he was right... he's not the father... what then. The guy who is the real father let off the hook as he did not give his consent? I would challenge people out there to poll fathers. Scientific, random poll, done by a credible organization accross the counrty, and ask them a simple question. Do you feel your rights are being infringed upon, by leaving the descision to bring a child to term soely up to the woman? I'm willing to bet that your numbers will not come back very high. As the average guy out there understands that the best precaution to a child is not to have sex with a woman. And they have more important issues to concern their time with. SpiderHam77 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Male Reproductive Choice - thoughts?
"SpiderHam77" wrote in message ups.com... Beverly: Your ideas in theory make alot of sense.. and I agree with them, however that said the practicalities of implementation is a totally different story. Example of what I mean. A freind of mine is in the service. Just prior to being shipped out he did what most young servicemen do. Went out for a good time just before. Well this good time involved alot of alchol by both him and the lady he was with. And as a result they had sex. As a result of this act she became pregnant. Well this is where it gets complicated. From what I understand she attempted to track him down, but only knowing his first name, a very common one at that, and being out of the counrty in Iraq for a Tour of duty lasting over a year. He was pretty much out of contact. When he came home, he happen to find her number written on his desk, so he gave her a call.. A complete chance, or to this day he would still not know he is a father probably. Well now he has found out he is a father, and is very good one at that. Tries every chance he gets to be with his son, and pay his support and whatever else.. . But here is the major flaw in the idea you present. What if the woman is trying to locate the man activily? What is the time limit? What if the guy goes out of his way not to be found?moves out of state... many different ways for a man to hide. What choices does the woman have then? Can she keep the child, and upon location of the father ask for support, or can she get an abortion with out the knowledge or consent of the father? (Which is the case now) What if the father through no fault of his own does no about the child till after the birth, and then requests to become part of the childs life? Do to his name not being included anywhere, because he did not give his consent early on, does he infact have rights to this child? To me current system is not perfect, but it is still fairly decent as this whole problem of fathers complaining about being a father, and wanting nothing to do with their child probably only affects approx 5-10% of all the fathers out there, and thats being genorous. Another flaw in the idea... What if it's the wrong guy? Your whole idea is also based upon the fact that the guy she is informing is 100% the father. What if she had sex with a couple of different men over a a couple of week period, as is her right, or should that right be stripped from women to ensure they will know. What if she informs a guy, and he denies to even ever sleeping with her. And then a DNA test is completed, which has to wait till after birth, or if it can be done in the womb, past the point where she would be legally allowed to have an abortion. DNA test comes back, presto he was right... he's not the father... what then. The guy who is the real father let off the hook as he did not give his consent? I would challenge people out there to poll fathers. Scientific, random poll, done by a credible organization accross the counrty, and ask them a simple question. Do you feel your rights are being infringed upon, by leaving the descision to bring a child to term soely up to the woman? I'm willing to bet that your numbers will not come back very high. As the average guy out there understands that the best precaution to a child is not to have sex with a woman. And they have more important issues to concern their time with. So are you saying that, since the system we have is, in your opinion, fairly serving the majority, the "small number" that are being treated unfairly by the system should just "take it"? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Male Reproductive Choice - thoughts?
teachrmama wrote: So are you saying that, since the system we have is, in your opinion, fairly serving the majority, the "small number" that are being treated unfairly by the system should just "take it"? In short, yes. The only ones being treated unfairly by the system of reproductive rights that are currently in place are the men who do not want to be fathers. Men who want to be fathers don't really care how the baby comes about.. just as long as it does. It's the men who feel they were somehow robbed of their sperm, and are now being screwed over by the system that are complaining. I'm a father. Proud one at that. No where along the line did I feel I was being opressed. No where along the line did I feel I was being taken advantage of. Why? Because I wanted the child. If I didn't want the child I could see how my view upon the system would be slightly jaded. And for those who do feel that way... I feel for them.. But I won't lose any sleep over their mistake of not taking percautions in their lives to ensure that if a child was not created from their actions. SpiderHam77 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Male Reproductive Choice - thoughts?
On 5 Dec 2005 17:33:59 -0800, "SpiderHam77"
wrote: Beverly: Your ideas in theory make alot of sense.. and I agree with them, however that said the practicalities of implementation is a totally different story. Example of what I mean. A freind of mine is in the service. Just prior to being shipped out he did what most young servicemen do. Went out for a good time just before. Well this good time involved alot of alchol by both him and the lady he was with. And as a result they had sex. As a result of this act she became pregnant. Well this is where it gets complicated. From what I understand she attempted to track him down, but only knowing his first name, a very common one at that, and being out of the counrty in Iraq for a Tour of duty lasting over a year. He was pretty much out of contact. The result of bad choices are visited upon those who made them. The woman slept with a man not even knowing his last name, much less a way to contact him. Had he never contacted her, she would be raising the child as if he had chosen to not be a father and she chose to have and keep a baby. Your friend would have had no rights to force a woman to carry a baby to term, so her choice had no different impact on him than it would have otherwise. When he came home, he happen to find her number written on his desk, so he gave her a call.. A complete chance, or to this day he would still not know he is a father probably. Well now he has found out he is a father, and is very good one at that. Tries every chance he gets to be with his son, and pay his support and whatever else.. . But here is the major flaw in the idea you present. What if the woman is trying to locate the man activily? What is the time limit? There would be no time limit for notification; however, the man may still have the period of time in which to exercise his right to not be a father. If the mother cannot locate the father quickly, she can exercise whatever choices she could exercise anyway. The only time limitation is that of the father's decision... just like a woman has a time limit in which to decide to abort. If a woman goes beyond her choice to abort while trying to locate the father, she is also making a choice to potentially do this alone. Adoption is another potential choice. What if the guy goes out of his way not to be found?moves out of state... many different ways for a man to hide. What choices does the woman have then? Can she keep the child, and upon location of the father ask for support, or can she get an abortion with out the knowledge or consent of the father? (Which is the case now) Well, if the guy goes out of his way not to be found, does this not have some indication on what she can expect from him in the future regarding the child? Personally, I'd rather know while all my choices were still available than after I've formed a bond with my child while unrealistically expecting that he may someday be a father to my child. For what it is worth, my biological mother knew my biological father's intentions shortly after she informed him she was pregnant. He simply disappeared. Abortion wasn't legal back then, so she gave me up for adoption, knowing that her resources were not enough to raise me herself. That was the ultimate show of a mother's love, in my opinion. She did what was best for me despite how much it hurt her to do so. Yes, she can keep the child and, upon notifying the father and receiving a poisitve response or no response at all may ask for support. The goal here is to give men the opportunity to decide to not be a father just as a woman can decide not to be a mother. Child support, however, would never be retroactive before the date of notification. This would eliminate a man finding out he has a 13 year old child someday along with 13 years of child support arrears. Yes, she can still get an abortion without the father's consent. What if the father through no fault of his own does no about the child till after the birth, and then requests to become part of the childs life? Do to his name not being included anywhere, because he did not give his consent early on, does he infact have rights to this child? A father who becomes aware that he is the father may exercise his rights and responsibilities at any time, but not if he was notified and declined to be a parent. To me current system is not perfect, but it is still fairly decent as this whole problem of fathers complaining about being a father, and wanting nothing to do with their child probably only affects approx 5-10% of all the fathers out there, and thats being genorous. I'm pretty sure it is more prevalent than that, but men already know that once conception happens, their hands are tied. Another flaw in the idea... What if it's the wrong guy? Your whole idea is also based upon the fact that the guy she is informing is 100% the father. What if she had sex with a couple of different men over a a couple of week period, as is her right, or should that right be stripped from women to ensure they will know. Not at all. If she slept with several men, she must notify several men they they are potentially the father of her unborn child. If more than one agrees to accept being a parent, then tests will have to be done to determine who the actual father is. What if she informs a guy, and he denies to even ever sleeping with her. And then a DNA test is completed, which has to wait till after birth, or if it can be done in the womb, past the point where she would be legally allowed to have an abortion. DNA test comes back, presto he was right... he's not the father... what then. The guy who is the real father let off the hook as he did not give his consent? He wouldn't have to deny sleeping with her... only enact his right to not be a parent against his will. I would challenge people out there to poll fathers. Scientific, random poll, done by a credible organization accross the counrty, and ask them a simple question. Do you feel your rights are being infringed upon, by leaving the descision to bring a child to term soely up to the woman? I'm willing to bet that your numbers will not come back very high. As the average guy out there understands that the best precaution to a child is not to have sex with a woman. And they have more important issues to concern their time with. Abstinence is best, absolutely. I just don't see it practiced much anymore. SpiderHam77 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Male Reproductive Choice - thoughts?
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 20:16:40 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote: So are you saying that, since the system we have is, in your opinion, fairly serving the majority, the "small number" that are being treated unfairly by the system should just "take it"? I'm interested in hearing how you think my ideas would have affected your husband. Either he would have been notified much sooner or would have been liable for child support only after he was notified. Would this not have been much more fair to him? He also would have had the right to say he was not now going to be the father of a half grown child, although I suspect he would have taken responsibility. He should have never been hit with the arrears, IMO, though. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Male Reproductive Choice - thoughts?
On 5 Dec 2005 21:21:06 -0800, "SpiderHam77"
wrote: teachrmama wrote: So are you saying that, since the system we have is, in your opinion, fairly serving the majority, the "small number" that are being treated unfairly by the system should just "take it"? In short, yes. The only ones being treated unfairly by the system of reproductive rights that are currently in place are the men who do not want to be fathers. Men who want to be fathers don't really care how the baby comes about.. just as long as it does. The notification aspect is quite important... even to men who want children. There are numerous men who find out they are fathers years after the birth of the child. Then, the courts order child support and include an arrearage that could be thousands of dollars which can ruin a man's credit. Is it fair that women will always know when a baby is coming and men won't? Child support should never be retroactive past when the father finds out he is/was "expecting." It's the men who feel they were somehow robbed of their sperm, and are now being screwed over by the system that are complaining. I'm a father. Proud one at that. I'm complaining and I am not even a man. No where along the line did I feel I was being opressed. No where along the line did I feel I was being taken advantage of. Why? Because I wanted the child. If I didn't want the child I could see how my view upon the system would be slightly jaded. And for those who do feel that way... I feel for them.. But I won't lose any sleep over their mistake of not taking percautions in their lives to ensure that if a child was not created from their actions. I agree with you that people should take precautions to ensure that a child they do not want is created. I assume you disagree with Roe v Wade? After all, shouldn't a woman also be expected to take proper precautions? I have a friend who was pregnant and wanted the baby. The father of the baby did not... so he punched her so hard in the stomach as to cause a miscarriage. He never spent a day in jail as this was his first offense and the miscarriage was not considered murder. Is THIS how you would like to see it? Or would his ability to tell the woman that he intends not to be a father be a much better alternative? Just as in pre-Roe v Wade days, there are going to be people so desperate for an "out" that they are going to do whatever it takes. Are you sure you want to endanger women this way? A civilized society can handle male reproductive choice which cannot force a woman to have an unwanted child; rather, it does not force a man to have one either while giving the woman all the reproductive rights that she currently enjoys. SpiderHam77 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Male Reproductive Choice - thoughts?
Beverly wrote: The notification aspect is quite important... even to men who want children. There are numerous men who find out they are fathers years after the birth of the child. Then, the courts order child support and include an arrearage that could be thousands of dollars which can ruin a man's credit. Is it fair that women will always know when a baby is coming and men won't? Child support should never be retroactive past when the father finds out he is/was "expecting." Now on this I agree... a man should not be held liable for child support payments retroactive for a child he didn't know to be his. Upon proving the child is his.. from that day forward he should responsible for child support. It's the men who feel they were somehow robbed of their sperm, and are now being screwed over by the system that are complaining. I'm a father. Proud one at that. I'm complaining and I am not even a man. Well all the men I know... Responsible men that is... Men who accept the consquenses of actions they make.. After discussing this topic with a few of them. They don't see what the issue is... If they don't want a child, they will not have sex, or make sure they got Fort Knox security going on down there. But a child being created is part of the risk of having sex. If you don't fully understand that... and are not willing to live up to the consequences as a result (This goes for both sexes) don't have sex. I agree with you that people should take precautions to ensure that a child they do not want is created. I assume you disagree with Roe v Wade? After all, shouldn't a woman also be expected to take proper precautions? I agree with Roe Vs Wade on the princple that the state should not be able to tell somone they cannot do something to their body. Do I agree with abortion? Personally no. However that said, I would never stand in the way of a person having an abortion. I have a friend who was pregnant and wanted the baby. The father of the baby did not... so he punched her so hard in the stomach as to cause a miscarriage. He never spent a day in jail as this was his first offense and the miscarriage was not considered murder. Is THIS how you would like to see it? Or would his ability to tell the woman that he intends not to be a father be a much better alternative? Just as in pre-Roe v Wade days, there are going to be people so desperate for an "out" that they are going to do whatever it takes. Are you sure you want to endanger women this way? A civilized society can handle male reproductive choice which cannot force a woman to have an unwanted child; rather, it does not force a man to have one either while giving the woman all the reproductive rights that she currently enjoys. One thought I had to the Male Reproductive Rights.. if this type of law was passed, I could see this having an abnormal effect on 2 different fronts. The sales of condoms may dramatically drop. Reason - as a guy, who is clean, knowing my partner is clean, only reason I would use a condom is to ward off an unwanted pregancy. And well if it is in my right as a man to say... Woa... no I don't want that child I just had a hand in creating... why would I spend the time, effort and money in purchasing a condom, when most men will tell you sex without a condom is much more enjoyable. Next effect, abortions. Wouldn't this infact just increase the number of abortions. If a woman knowing that the guy has just walked away.. doesn't think they will be able to give the baby up for adoption, and also knows they will not be able to care for it on their own.. whats the alternative... Abortion.... Also on the idea of abortions. One of the only ways I could see this idea working, is having the entire country believe 1 moral code. All the anti abortion people would have to put down their signs and agree that in all fairness to everyone, because the man wants nothing to do with the child, the woman should be allowed to have an abortion with no arguments. Or if abortion is not the key.. ensure all women who are not fincially able to raise a child on their own, are strong willed enough to give the child up for adoption. Otherwise this child raising becomes a burden on the welfare system still, and is still going to cost me money due to an increase of taxes. On both these fronts I see losing battle. If this is all about CS, my proposal, and I have listed it in the group before awhile ago is a cap. No more then 30% of the NCP's take home income can be deducted for CS. And there also has to be a Min income before the 30% is applied. If you only make 1000 a month take home... being expected to pay 300 a month in support is outrageous. But you take home say 10,000 a month. 3,000 a month in support is not an outrageous figure.. where the lines are drawn is up for debate.. This would ensure that NCP's are still able to make a decent living, and the CP's cannot take them for every cent they are worth. Anything above that 30% is up to the discretion of the NCP... New bike... New Clothes.. whatever... SpderHam77 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Male Reproductive Choice - thoughts?
"Beverly" wrote in message ... On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 20:16:40 -0800, "teachrmama" wrote: So are you saying that, since the system we have is, in your opinion, fairly serving the majority, the "small number" that are being treated unfairly by the system should just "take it"? I'm interested in hearing how you think my ideas would have affected your husband. Either he would have been notified much sooner or would have been liable for child support only after he was notified. Would this not have been much more fair to him? He also would have had the right to say he was not now going to be the father of a half grown child, although I suspect he would have taken responsibility. He should have never been hit with the arrears, IMO, though. I absolutely agree that nobody should be held accountable for arrears for the years before they even knew the child existed. That is unbelievably unfair in my opinion. I think that a man confronted with a half grown--or even a very young--child he did not know about should have the freedom to say "The mother had a choice to give the child both a mother and a father, and she chose to be a single mother." and walk away. I also think that the father should be given information about the true cost of raising a child in the area the child lives in--not the cost of living nonsense the courts spew out--and choose how much he wants to pay. From half the actual cost of the child's needs, to however much he wants to pay--if he chooses to be a father. My husband has a family to support--and taking the amount they do out of his check each month makes finances a bit tight. His child and her mother live in a very low cost of living area. The amount taken from his paycheck is what some bread-winners earn in that area, because we live in a high cost of living area so the salaries *look* high. The man who was dreadfully wronged by having his child kept from him for all those years should have the right to balance his responsibilities toward his newly discovered child (should he choose to be a father to the child) and his present circumstances. And I, personally, feel that he should have the right to sue the woman who kept his child a secret from him! |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Male Reproductive Choice - thoughts?
----- Original Message -----
From: "SpiderHam77" Newsgroups: alt.child-support Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 5:31 PM Subject: Male Reproductive Choice - thoughts? Beverly wrote: The notification aspect is quite important... even to men who want children. There are numerous men who find out they are fathers years after the birth of the child. Then, the courts order child support and include an arrearage that could be thousands of dollars which can ruin a man's credit. Is it fair that women will always know when a baby is coming and men won't? Child support should never be retroactive past when the father finds out he is/was "expecting." Now on this I agree... a man should not be held liable for child support payments retroactive for a child he didn't know to be his. Upon proving the child is his.. from that day forward he should responsible for child support. It's the men who feel they were somehow robbed of their sperm, and are now being screwed over by the system that are complaining. I'm a father. Proud one at that. I'm complaining and I am not even a man. Well all the men I know... Responsible men that is... Men who accept the consquenses of actions they make.. After discussing this topic with a few of them. They don't see what the issue is... If they don't want a child, they will not have sex, or make sure they got Fort Knox security going on down there. But a child being created is part of the risk of having sex. If you don't fully understand that... and are not willing to live up to the consequences as a result (This goes for both sexes) don't have sex. Then you go for 50/50 custody and each parent is required to provide 50% of the $$ for the child's *needs* and 50% of the parenting. A parent who is involved with a child is a better parent than one who is forced to be an ATM and have very little contact with the child. None of this "the woman chooses to bring the child into the world and keep it so the man has to pay for it" nonsense. Let them be equal parents, each providing for the child on their own dime. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Male Reproductive Choice - thoughts?
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 00:22:49 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote: "Beverly" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 20:16:40 -0800, "teachrmama" wrote: So are you saying that, since the system we have is, in your opinion, fairly serving the majority, the "small number" that are being treated unfairly by the system should just "take it"? I'm interested in hearing how you think my ideas would have affected your husband. Either he would have been notified much sooner or would have been liable for child support only after he was notified. Would this not have been much more fair to him? He also would have had the right to say he was not now going to be the father of a half grown child, although I suspect he would have taken responsibility. He should have never been hit with the arrears, IMO, though. I absolutely agree that nobody should be held accountable for arrears for the years before they even knew the child existed. That is unbelievably unfair in my opinion. I think that a man confronted with a half grown--or even a very young--child he did not know about should have the freedom to say "The mother had a choice to give the child both a mother and a father, and she chose to be a single mother." and walk away. I also think that the father should be given information about the true cost of raising a child in the area the child lives in--not the cost of living nonsense the courts spew out--and choose how much he wants to pay. From half the actual cost of the child's needs, to however much he wants to pay--if he chooses to be a father. My husband has a family to support--and taking the amount they do out of his check each month makes finances a bit tight. His child and her mother live in a very low cost of living area. The amount taken from his paycheck is what some bread-winners earn in that area, because we live in a high cost of living area so the salaries *look* high. The man who was dreadfully wronged by having his child kept from him for all those years should have the right to balance his responsibilities toward his newly discovered child (should he choose to be a father to the child) and his present circumstances. And I, personally, feel that he should have the right to sue the woman who kept his child a secret from him! If he did and won, it would set a precedent that might make women think twice about how quickly they should tell the father and/or whether courts would be willing to set child support retroactive to birth. I'm sure not many have thought of this, but retroactive support during a period of time a woman CHOSE to be a single parent can be construed as monetary damages... the key ingredient for a civil suit. It would really have nothing to do with lost time with the child (which cannot be measured in dollars) as much as it would be a financial burden placed upon a man unknowingly which may have affected financial decisions he made during the period of secrecy. If your husband could prove that the mother of his child did or should have known of his whereabouts during gestation and shortly after childbirth, then a decision she made unilaterally to be a single parent (even though she changed her mind later when deciding to sue for support) had repercussions on your husband that would have influenced his decisions had he known. Heck, YOU made decisions you may not have otherwise should this not have been kept a secret. Of course, suing a single mother while she is trying to raise a child about the money USED to "support the child" is likely to cause outrage; however, if it could be done as to not harm the child (i.e. once the child reaches majority or a judgment that does not commence until the child reaches majority), it may be effective in sending a message that her decision of secrecy caused this man to get in over his head financially which would not have been the case should he have known. Family court is a very unfriendly place for fathers, but civil court is a different animal altogether. It is not that he is/was unwilling to support his child. It is the effect that her secrecy had on his future decisions. "If not for [her (in)actions], he would not have [entered into similar long-term obligations such as having more children]." People's (in)actions that have caused another harm have a long precedent in favor of the injured in civil court. He DOES have a right to sue, but the case would need to be phrased in a very particular way for any chance of winning. It would be handled by a different kind of lawyer (possibly a personal injury attorney) whose fees are often contingent. The attorney would have to be a good spin-doctor in order to convince the judge that it is not about the child and his responsibility to support the child; rather, it is how the secrecy caused him to make future decisions he may otherwise not have made if not for her secrecy. Beverly |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Choice for Men FAQ | Kingsley G. Morse Jr. (Delete the D) | Child Support | 0 | November 16th 04 10:02 AM |
Male birth control | Tiffany | Child Support | 36 | July 30th 04 06:41 PM |
Choice for Men FAQ | Delete the D | Child Support | 0 | July 16th 04 10:55 AM |
Choice for Men FAQ | Delete the D | Child Support | 0 | June 16th 04 10:55 AM |
Choice for Men Entertainment | Delete the D | Child Support | 2 | February 19th 04 05:17 PM |