A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old March 13th 06, 12:47 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.mens-rights,alt.support.divorce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)


"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:152Rf.24417$dg.13566@clgrps13...
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 ?


I think you missed my point. My point is, *nobody* can know for sure - so
it behooves *everybody* to grasp that, in the absence of a physical cause
for absolute infertility (like a hysterectomy, for example), ALL sexual
encounters bring some risk of pregnancy. Using birth control minimizes the
risk, it does not eliminate the risk. Therefore "an assurance that she's on
the pill" shouldn't give *either* party a sense of invulnerability. Both
parties should understand that every sexual encounter does carry a risk of
pregnancy, even with the pill. Even if the pill is taken 100% correctly.
For many people this brings the risk down to a level they find acceptable -
but the fact that there was a known, albeit small, risk means that IMO both
parties are equally culpable.

So are you saying that if the guy is too ignorant to know that even if she's
on the pill there is some risk of pregnancy then he shouldn't be "culpable"?
I'd disagree, because every sexually active adult really should know that
birth control isn't 100% reliable and you are accepting that risk when you
choose to have sex. The safest bet is to only have sex with somebody who
you know well enough to know they would handle a surprise pregnancy the same
way you would.



  #42  
Old March 13th 06, 01:12 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.mens-rights,alt.support.divorce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)


"Joy" wrote in message
news

"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:152Rf.24417$dg.13566@clgrps13...
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
?


I think you missed my point. My point is, *nobody* can know for sure - so
it behooves *everybody* to grasp that, in the absence of a physical cause
for absolute infertility (like a hysterectomy, for example), ALL sexual
encounters bring some risk of pregnancy. Using birth control minimizes
the risk, it does not eliminate the risk. Therefore "an assurance that
she's on the pill" shouldn't give *either* party a sense of
invulnerability. Both parties should understand that every sexual
encounter does carry a risk of pregnancy, even with the pill. Even if the
pill is taken 100% correctly. For many people this brings the risk down to
a level they find acceptable - but the fact that there was a known, albeit
small, risk means that IMO both parties are equally culpable.

And if they are equally culpable, don't you think they should have equal
choices as to what to do about the pregnancy? That's where the problem is
right now. Only a woman can decide that a child will result from a
pregnancy--and the man is given no choice bu to follow the woman's choice.
Equal responsibility should mean equal choice.

Now, I don't believe that a man should be able to impregnate a dozen women
and walk away scott free. There has to be some responsibility somewhere.
Perhaps he could pay the cost of an abortion for each child he creates but
doesn't want--even if the woman decides to keep the child. But he certainly
shouldn't face 2 decades of virtual servitude because of a decision made by
the woman.



  #43  
Old March 13th 06, 01:37 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.mens-rights,alt.support.divorce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)

I guess as long as there are those kinds of options there will always
be bad judgement. There will always be irresponsible people I suppose,
but why make it easy. At some point, maybe they will think twice.


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.



  #44  
Old March 13th 06, 01:41 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.mens-rights,alt.support.divorce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)

How can the government butt out? During the Supreme Court selection
process, how many times did you hear the word "abortion". How
important was the nominee's position on abortion? The government
doesn't really have a say in a person's contraception method, and it
hardly has any say in how many people a person can have sex with and
the risks surrounding it. In case you haven't noticed, people do as
they damned well please. I would dare to say that if the government
really had a say, there wouldn't be so many fatherless kids and single
mothers on welfare.


teachrmama wrote:
"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



  #45  
Old March 13th 06, 02:10 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.mens-rights,alt.support.divorce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)


"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Joy" wrote in message
news

"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:152Rf.24417$dg.13566@clgrps13...
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 ?


I think you missed my point. My point is, *nobody* can know for sure -
so it behooves *everybody* to grasp that, in the absence of a physical
cause for absolute infertility (like a hysterectomy, for example), ALL
sexual encounters bring some risk of pregnancy. Using birth control
minimizes the risk, it does not eliminate the risk. Therefore "an
assurance that she's on the pill" shouldn't give *either* party a sense
of invulnerability. Both parties should understand that every sexual
encounter does carry a risk of pregnancy, even with the pill. Even if
the pill is taken 100% correctly. For many people this brings the risk
down to a level they find acceptable - but the fact that there was a
known, albeit small, risk means that IMO both parties are equally
culpable.


And if they are equally culpable, don't you think they should have equal
choices as to what to do about the pregnancy? That's where the problem
is right now. Only a woman can decide that a child will result from a
pregnancy--and the man is given no choice bu to follow the woman's choice.
Equal responsibility should mean equal choice.

Both of them took the risk of pregnancy. The default position is that a
baby results. The end result is that if a woman does get an abortion, then
he's undeservedly off the hook. Kind of like the guy who gets pulled over
for speeding but only gets a warning. If he earned a ticket, then the cop
would have been well within his rights to give him a ticket. If he doesn't
give him a ticket, then the guy got lucky - but not because he deserved to
avoid facing the consequences of his actions. In this analogy, having a
baby is like getting a ticket - if you do the act that results in either a
baby or a ticket, then the natural consequences apply. Sometimes you get
unmerited pardon after the fact, but in no way are you entitled to it.

Now, I don't believe that a man should be able to impregnate a dozen women
and walk away scott free. There has to be some responsibility somewhere.
Perhaps he could pay the cost of an abortion for each child he creates but
doesn't want--even if the woman decides to keep the child. But he
certainly shouldn't face 2 decades of virtual servitude because of a
decision made by the woman.


I'm not buying the "2 decades of virtual servitude" bit - to call that
loaded language would be a gross understatement. Supporting your child is a
natural consequence of having one. Having a child is a natural consequence
of having sex. Having sex is a choice. A smart person is careful about who
he or she has sex with, and limits it to partners who have the same response
to the non-zero risk of pregnancy that they do. A foolish person isn't
careful about this, and ends up facing the consequences.




  #46  
Old March 13th 06, 02:11 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.mens-rights,alt.support.divorce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)


"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:lwOQf.8381$z82.5563@fed1read07...
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:ySHQf.8347$z82.5212@fed1read07...
"Tiffany" wrote in message
news:Q4GQf.704$%e1.273@trnddc05...

It is stated in this case that the man was told the women he was
banging couldn't get pregnant. So he made a choice to have sex with
someone he couldn't get knocked up. A pretty good choice, to bad it
back fired.

So if you make a choice to drive a car that you were told was safe and
later on it turned out it had a manufacturing defect and you get
seriously injured as a result of this defect, is that backfiring as
well?

If you were driving a car that you were told was safe and it turned out
that it had a manufacturing defect and you were seriously injured, you
wouldn't have to pay the manufacturer 20%+ of your income for 2 decades!


OK, I am not sure if you are agreeing with I said or disagreeing. Do you
think it is right for a woman to deceive a man into having a child with
him and then making him responsible for 20 years for child support.


Absolutely not!!



Did me or Teach say that??? Heck, no.

T


  #47  
Old March 13th 06, 02:14 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.mens-rights,alt.support.divorce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)


"John Smith" wrote in message
news:ySHQf.8347$z82.5212@fed1read07...
"Tiffany" wrote in message
news:Q4GQf.704$%e1.273@trnddc05...

It is stated in this case that the man was told the women he was banging
couldn't get pregnant. So he made a choice to have sex with someone he
couldn't get knocked up. A pretty good choice, to bad it back fired.


So if you make a choice to drive a car that you were told was safe and
later on it turned out it had a manufacturing defect and you get seriously
injured as a result of this defect, is that backfiring as well?


That would be a serious accident and I can assure you that the car
manufacture would be paying for it dearly. What is your point?

T


  #48  
Old March 13th 06, 02:17 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.mens-rights,alt.support.divorce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)

Maybe one day the world will be a perfect place and no one will be immoral
but until that day.....

lol

T

"tonita" wrote in message
oups.com...
I guess as long as there are those kinds of options there will always
be bad judgement. There will always be irresponsible people I suppose,
but why make it easy. At some point, maybe they will think twice.


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.




  #49  
Old March 13th 06, 02:38 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.mens-rights,alt.support.divorce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)

"Tiffany" wrote in message
news:WH3Rf.386$Km6.20@trnddc01...

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:ySHQf.8347$z82.5212@fed1read07...
"Tiffany" wrote in message
news:Q4GQf.704$%e1.273@trnddc05...

It is stated in this case that the man was told the women he was banging
couldn't get pregnant. So he made a choice to have sex with someone he
couldn't get knocked up. A pretty good choice, to bad it back fired.


So if you make a choice to drive a car that you were told was safe and
later on it turned out it had a manufacturing defect and you get
seriously injured as a result of this defect, is that backfiring as well?


That would be a serious accident and I can assure you that the car
manufacture would be paying for it dearly. What is your point?

T


My point is that this women lied to this man by assuring him that she was
incapable of having a child and then later on she got pregnant and had a
child. I juxtapose this with the car example. So I don't think this man
should be forced to pay CS, although he should because the child is his too,
but there has to be some accountability for the mother.


  #50  
Old March 13th 06, 02:43 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.mens-rights,alt.support.divorce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)


"John Smith" wrote in message
news:g14Rf.8499$z82.8078@fed1read07...
"Tiffany" wrote in message
news:WH3Rf.386$Km6.20@trnddc01...

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:ySHQf.8347$z82.5212@fed1read07...
"Tiffany" wrote in message
news:Q4GQf.704$%e1.273@trnddc05...

It is stated in this case that the man was told the women he was
banging couldn't get pregnant. So he made a choice to have sex with
someone he couldn't get knocked up. A pretty good choice, to bad it
back fired.

So if you make a choice to drive a car that you were told was safe and
later on it turned out it had a manufacturing defect and you get
seriously injured as a result of this defect, is that backfiring as
well?


That would be a serious accident and I can assure you that the car
manufacture would be paying for it dearly. What is your point?

T


My point is that this women lied to this man by assuring him that she was
incapable of having a child and then later on she got pregnant and had a
child. I juxtapose this with the car example. So I don't think this man
should be forced to pay CS, although he should because the child is his
too, but there has to be some accountability for the mother.


I don't disagree with that. I think that he was lied to pre-conception
should let him off the hook. One would hope that MAYBE he like to be a
father but I don't think that is the issue. Money is always the issue.

Maybe I wasn't clear in my reply. I think this man was doing a 'good' thing
in that he was sleeping with someone whom he was told couldn't get pregnant.

Let this be a lesson.... ppl lie. Ppl lie all the time. Men will lie and say
they are fixed... women will lie and say they can't get pregnant.

T


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NFJA Position Statement: Child Support Enforcement Funding Dusty Child Support 0 March 2nd 06 01:49 AM
AL: Court issues history-making decision in child custody case Dusty Child Support 1 August 3rd 05 01:07 AM
Child Support Policy and the Welfare of Women and Children Dusty Child Support 0 May 13th 04 12:46 AM
Kids should work. ChrisScaife Foster Parents 16 December 7th 03 05:27 AM
So much for the claims about Sweden Kane Spanking 10 November 5th 03 07:31 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.