The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)

"Phil" wrote in message link.net...

"Bill in Co." wrote in message
nk.net...
Werebat wrote:
Bill in Co. wrote:
Joy wrote:

"DB" wrote in message
. net...

"tonita" wrote in

consequences. Don't have sex with someone you wouldn't want to become
a parent with.

Ever hear of Beer?

If only we could all live in a perfect world and be as smart as you!

So is it right to sentence a man to death if is can't pay the
extortionate
CS rates?

Responsible people don't drink so much beer that they have irresponsible
sex.

Responsible people don't do (many) irresponsible things, but alas, The
Greatest Generation is nearly all dead now.

Oh, blow it out your pompous ass.

Pray tell, which was this Greatest Generation? Give me dates.

- Ron ^*^

I guess you're still a bit too young to know, if you have to ask that.

Well, perhaps Tom Brokaw can enlighten you in that regard, since he used the
term a fair amount during his "tenure".

But then again, perhaps not......
I'll leave the light on for ya, but I won't wait up.


Being nearly 60, I am unfamiliar with the term. The fact that you appear to get your information from one of the
approved newtworks speaks volumes.

Actually it's a book.

Reading.

It's fundamental.

Phil #3

Moon Shyne wrote:
"Phil" wrote in message
link.net...

"Bill in Co." wrote in message
nk.net...
Werebat wrote:
Bill in Co. wrote:
Joy wrote:

"DB" wrote in message
. net...

"tonita" wrote in

consequences. Don't have sex with someone you wouldn't want to
become a parent with.

Ever hear of Beer?

If only we could all live in a perfect world and be as smart as you!

So is it right to sentence a man to death if is can't pay the
extortionate CS rates?

Responsible people don't drink so much beer that they have
irresponsible
sex.

Responsible people don't do (many) irresponsible things, but alas, The
Greatest Generation is nearly all dead now.

Oh, blow it out your pompous ass.

Pray tell, which was this Greatest Generation? Give me dates.

- Ron ^*^

I guess you're still a bit too young to know, if you have to ask that.

Well, perhaps Tom Brokaw can enlighten you in that regard, since he used
the
term a fair amount during his "tenure".

But then again, perhaps not......
I'll leave the light on for ya, but I won't wait up.

Being nearly 60, I am unfamiliar with the term. The fact that you appear
to
get your information from one of the approved newtworks speaks volumes.

No, apparently the "volumes spoken" have been lost on you. (Want to try
again)? Hint: some further info was provided below, hopefully for your
enlightenment (if that is even possible)

Actually it's a book.

Reading.

It's fundamental.

Phil #3

I hope they win. The father and the mother each have equal say in
deciding to participate int he actions that lead to procreation, so
each of them should have equal say in what happens as a result of their
mutual decision.

Well, all the more reason for men to step up and back off. There is no
law that says a man must have sex with fertile females just for the fun
of it. Make a committment, get married and raise a family. Otherwise,
have a vasectomy and mess around all you want. And yes, it is that
simple. It's that simple for women, too.


Kenneth S. wrote:
"Casey" wrote in message
news:wGEQf.53077$Dh.45044@dukeread04...
R said
I think we're missing the point of this. What is being asked of the
court is a man who had no interest in fathering and parenting a child
was duped by a woman who is forcing this man into parenting a child via
child support. The woman named in the suit had a choice; She could have
aborted the pregnancy, put the child up for adoption, or in this case,
kept the baby. The man however, had no choice. He was ordered by the
court to parent the child via child support. This, according to the
suit, is unconstitutional. I agree with this argument. The other
thoughts or opinions that have been discussed so far here are
irrelevant. If the woman has a choice, so should the man

Seems to me that the man made a choice as well - women don't generally
become pregnant all by themselves.


Casey

Casey's comment above is either deliberately disingenuous or just plain
obtuse. I'll be charitable and assume it's obtuse. So I'll try to explain
the situation in simple terms.

Yes, the man made a choice, and yes, women don't become pregnant all by
themselves. However, the point here is that in the U.S. at the present time
there is the most obvious and unjustifiable disparity in the way the two
sexes are treated in this context.

Both sexes have preconception choice. However, when it comes to
POST-conception choice, there is grotesque bias against men. For years,
legislators and judges have bent over backwards to find more and more
post-conception choices for women. There's abortion. There's the
unilateral ability to have the child adopted. And now more and more states
are legislating to give women the ability to drop off newborns at places
like hospitals and fire stations, no questions asked. Meantime, the
post-conception choices available to men are being reduced -- most notably
through the law interfering with the choice Mother Nature gave men, that of
walking away from unwanted pregnancies.

Each gender has a choice. People can choose to be more responsible,
but they don't so everyone wants laws and procedures in place to clean
up the mess.

SpiderHam77 wrote:
I agree with R here. If the woman does have a choice.. then so
should the man. However the only large problem I can see here is that
ROE vs WADE was never ment to be used as the ability to force men in
CS.

R vs W was never meant to be anything more then declaring that women
have the right to choose for themselves if an operation can be
conducted on them. It has nothing to do with Parental rights... It has
nothing to do deciding paternity ect.. all the way down the line.

So I applaud the efforts of such a case. However I don't think it
will honestly have much of an effect as the Courts will probably come
up with a ruling that will clarify such things. And that stuff like CS
has be decided in the Legislature, not the courts.

To me the only way we can protect my fellow men from such an unfair
thing at this juncture in the game is education. Start teaching our
men from an early age. Drill it into them that these women are evil,
and want something from you. And we as men need to protect our sperm
like it's a rare comdity.

SpiderHam77

"tonita" wrote in message
ups.com...
Well, all the more reason for men to step up and back off. There is no
law that says a man must have sex with fertile females just for the fun
of it. Make a committment, get married and raise a family. Otherwise,
have a vasectomy and mess around all you want. And yes, it is that
simple. It's that simple for women, too.

You're talking about using good judgement. Obviously, there are times when
good judgement has not been selected by either participant. IF poor
judgement is used and a pregnancy occurs, don't you think that both the man
and the woman should have the same choices as to how to proceed from there?



Kenneth S. wrote:
"Casey" wrote in message
news:wGEQf.53077$Dh.45044@dukeread04...
R said
I think we're missing the point of this. What is being asked of the
court is a man who had no interest in fathering and parenting a child
was duped by a woman who is forcing this man into parenting a child
via
child support. The woman named in the suit had a choice; She could
have
aborted the pregnancy, put the child up for adoption, or in this case,
kept the baby. The man however, had no choice. He was ordered by the
court to parent the child via child support. This, according to the
suit, is unconstitutional. I agree with this argument. The other
thoughts or opinions that have been discussed so far here are
irrelevant. If the woman has a choice, so should the man

Seems to me that the man made a choice as well - women don't generally
become pregnant all by themselves.


Casey

Casey's comment above is either deliberately disingenuous or just
plain
obtuse. I'll be charitable and assume it's obtuse. So I'll try to
explain
the situation in simple terms.

Yes, the man made a choice, and yes, women don't become pregnant all
by
themselves. However, the point here is that in the U.S. at the present
time
there is the most obvious and unjustifiable disparity in the way the two
sexes are treated in this context.

Both sexes have preconception choice. However, when it comes to
POST-conception choice, there is grotesque bias against men. For years,
legislators and judges have bent over backwards to find more and more
post-conception choices for women. There's abortion. There's the
unilateral ability to have the child adopted. And now more and more
states
are legislating to give women the ability to drop off newborns at places
like hospitals and fire stations, no questions asked. Meantime, the
post-conception choices available to men are being reduced -- most
notably
through the law interfering with the choice Mother Nature gave men, that
of
walking away from unwanted pregnancies.

tonita wrote:
Well, all the more reason for men to step up and back off. There is no
law that says a man must have sex with fertile females just for the fun
of it. Make a committment, get married and raise a family. Otherwise,
have a vasectomy and mess around all you want. And yes, it is that
simple. It's that simple for women, too.

Wrong generation for THOSE values, Tonita. That particular train left
the station a LONG, LONG time ago.

Kenneth S. wrote:
"Casey" wrote in message
news:wGEQf.53077$Dh.45044@dukeread04...
R said
I think we're missing the point of this. What is being asked of the
court is a man who had no interest in fathering and parenting a child
was duped by a woman who is forcing this man into parenting a child via
child support. The woman named in the suit had a choice; She could have
aborted the pregnancy, put the child up for adoption, or in this case,
kept the baby. The man however, had no choice. He was ordered by the
court to parent the child via child support. This, according to the
suit, is unconstitutional. I agree with this argument. The other
thoughts or opinions that have been discussed so far here are
irrelevant. If the woman has a choice, so should the man

Seems to me that the man made a choice as well - women don't generally
become pregnant all by themselves.


Casey

Casey's comment above is either deliberately disingenuous or just
plain
obtuse. I'll be charitable and assume it's obtuse. So I'll try to
explain
the situation in simple terms.

Yes, the man made a choice, and yes, women don't become pregnant all
by
themselves. However, the point here is that in the U.S. at the present
time
there is the most obvious and unjustifiable disparity in the way the two
sexes are treated in this context.

Both sexes have preconception choice. However, when it comes to
POST-conception choice, there is grotesque bias against men. For years,
legislators and judges have bent over backwards to find more and more
post-conception choices for women. There's abortion. There's the
unilateral ability to have the child adopted. And now more and more
states
are legislating to give women the ability to drop off newborns at places
like hospitals and fire stations, no questions asked. Meantime, the
post-conception choices available to men are being reduced -- most
notably
through the law interfering with the choice Mother Nature gave men, that
of
walking away from unwanted pregnancies.

"tonita" wrote in message
oups.com...
Each gender has a choice. People can choose to be more responsible,
but they don't so everyone wants laws and procedures in place to clean
up the mess.

Actually what would be nice would be if government would butt out of family
affairs. But if they choose not to do that, there should be equal choices
for both genders.


SpiderHam77 wrote:
I agree with R here. If the woman does have a choice.. then so
should the man. However the only large problem I can see here is that
ROE vs WADE was never ment to be used as the ability to force men in
CS.

R vs W was never meant to be anything more then declaring that women
have the right to choose for themselves if an operation can be
conducted on them. It has nothing to do with Parental rights... It has
nothing to do deciding paternity ect.. all the way down the line.

So I applaud the efforts of such a case. However I don't think it
will honestly have much of an effect as the Courts will probably come
up with a ruling that will clarify such things. And that stuff like CS
has be decided in the Legislature, not the courts.

To me the only way we can protect my fellow men from such an unfair
thing at this juncture in the game is education. Start teaching our
men from an early age. Drill it into them that these women are evil,
and want something from you. And we as men need to protect our sperm
like it's a rare comdity.

SpiderHam77

SpiderHam77 wrote:

I mean if no other reason then pregancy.. Condoms are quite effective
at stopping pregancy from happening. 99% I believe... I would be
ensuring that unless I was 100% positive that she could not become
prego I would be using my own form of protection.

SpiderHam77


It's not 99%. Even when used PERFECTLY (rarely happens) I don't believe
condoms are 99% effective.

But let's say it is 99%. A sexually active couple having sex, say,
three times a week, would have sex about 156 times a year. If 1 in
every 100 acts of sex results in a baby, the guy in this relationship is
on the hook for one to two unplanned babies PER YEAR.

So much for the "he shoulda wrapped his rascal" argument.

Joy wrote:

"NewMan" wrote in message
...

Well perhaps with the advent of the birth control pill for men things
will change too! If men have the option to take "the pill", and no
women could "trick him" and get pregnant. Further, if a woman DID get
pregnant while he was on the pill, he would immediately challenge the
paternity of the child!


I know several children who were conceived while their mothers were on the
pill. Think about it - first of all, the pill isn't 100% effective, even
when used absolutely correctly. Second, there are medications that
interfere with the pill - for instance, some antibiotics can render it
ineffective or less effective. Third, the mother could get sick - get a
bout of the stomach/intestinal flu, for instance - if she can't digest it,
it is much the same as if she hadn't taken it - a few days of the flu at the
wrong time could leave you fertile.

All things that most women *know* and should take into account if they
decide to have sex don't you think ? I know this may seem like I'm
trying to put the onus for contraception onto the woman, but
realistically, she's the one who knows her personal situation, whether
she's taking medication that interferes with the pill or whether she's
been sick and how that might effect her birth control efforts...if she
doesn't take these issues into account, can you reasonably and credibly
assert that any man who has been assured by her that she's "on the pill"
could possibly be "culpable" in an unwanted pregnancy under such
circumstances ?

....Ken