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.

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.

Sex with "somebody?" And how exactly does a man get to decide how to
handle a pregnancy?
He's at the mercy of the woman, who in the U.S. has been given the ability
to make all the post-pregnancy choices. So far as men are concerned, the
progress has been in the opposite direction. The law has been changing in
the direction of finding more and more ways of denying men the choice given
to them by Mother Nature -- that of walking away from unwanted pregnancies.

If we're talking about "safe bets," we're talking about the way things
ARE, as distinct from the way things OUGHT TO BE. There's a very sharp
distinction between these two ways of talking about situations. Years ago,
in the days of the Jim Crow laws, the "safest bet" for blacks was to stay in
their own neighborhoods, away from whites. By doing that they could reduce
the risks of being lynched. I don't remember that any respectable body of
opinion urged blacks to adopt the "safest bet" principle when deciding what
they should do.

"Joy" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

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.

Then you must feel that she, too, is undeservedly off the hook, right?

Sure.

It follows that you are against abortion; unless you believe that one ought
to be entitled to that which they do not deserve.



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.

Then there should be NO ABORTION. Otherwise women are undeservedly off
the hook by their choice, and men only by the woman's choice. The
ticket
is given by an objective outsider--the choice to keep the child is made
by
an interested party in the decision.


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.

You know what, Joy. If all the father had to do is meet the NEEDS of
the
child, it wouldn't be so unfair. If the father had equal parenting
time,
it wouldn't be so unfair. But that isn't how it is. Look at the
support
levels required--in some states it is 50% of take-home pay for one
child!!
It's 20% of take-home where we are. And my husband was told (when he
found out he had an almost-13-year-old daughter) that SHE was the only
child that mattered--that our 2 children were irrelevant. He was
charged
2 years of back child support--that put him in the felony category of
arrearages! He could have been arrested at any time, just on the say-so
of a judge. If he lost his job, his child support would still be due.
They could take the house that I help pay for--just rip it out from
under
us and put us--ourselved and our children--out on the street.

Is there any way to protect your home by either titling it in your name
alone, or by selling it to a trusted relative (who will "rent" it to you
for
exactly the amount of the house payment?).

Do not tell me it is not
servitude!! A lost job--an illness--an accident--all beyond his
control--can give what we have worked so hard for to a woman who has
never
worked a day in her life!! And she is raising her flock of illegitimate
children to be the same way.

You are confusing two separate things. One is whether or not both parents
should be responsible for the child, and as a separate issue the other is
how much is paid in child support. Look at it this way - I'm assuming
that
you wouldn't have any problems if your husband was only ordered to pay a
very small amount, like $10/month. If that is the case, then your issue
isn't really whether or not he has any responsibility to the child - your
issue is how much and how it is enforced. This is not the issue I've been
addressing. The only issue I've been addressing is the first one - the
issue of whether or not both parents are responsible.

Do you think it is right for a woman to get 20% of 7 men's incomes, and
never have to work to support herself? Where is the equal responsibility
in that?

She sounds like low-life trash (and IMO any woman with 7 kids by 7
different
fathers should be evaluated for fitness as a parent). Did your husband
know
she was low-life trash when he slept with her? Did you know he had been
sleeping with low-life trash when you married him?

Better question: Did HE know he had been sleeping with such trash at the
time?


This is exactly what I was getting at when I said a responsible person is
careful about who he or she sleeps with - it prevents this kind of problem
from developing in the first place. Sex really isn't without
consequences.
I wish our educational system would let guys like your husband talk to
teenagers and let them hear what the consequences of their actions might
be - it might help some of them avoid becoming parents with the wrong
person.

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.

You keep saying "person." You really mean "man." Because the woman
never
has to spend one dime of her money on the child--

I'd disagree with that "never" and "man". Please don't confuse your
husbands trashy co-parent with "womankind". I know lots of women spending
all kinds of their own money on their children. I do it myself, in fact.

not so long as the father
is paying lifestyle child support, and she only needs to provide enough
to
keep child and family services from her door.

I provide way more than "only enough to keep child and family services
from
[my] door", as does every other single mother I know, so don't tell me
that
the "woman" doesn't ever do that. I suspect it has a lot to do with the
quality of the woman involved - and the bottom line is, your husband made
the wrong choice - he picked the wrong woman to screw, found a leech to
impregnate, and the consequences have been horrible. Tough as it is, and
I'm more sympathetic than you might think, that doesn't mean he shouldn't
have any responsibility for the child.

The point is that, if both are equally responsible for the pregnancy,
both
should have equal choices about what to do about it. Of child support
is
deemed to be necessary, take it from both parents--not just the father.
I
bet you get a HUGE outcry about THAT!!

Why? I'm a mother that supported my kids - why would I think there was
anything odd about mothers as well as fathers supporting their families?
Of course I think both parents should be responsible.

"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.

Nice dodge to the question below.



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 in message
oups.com...
Each gender has a choice.

Just not EQUAL 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
oups.com...
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.

Cotrarily, it is the government which is the CATALYST for such arrangement.



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

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 12:29:47 -0600, Casey
wrote:

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

You normally get these knee-jerk reactions in your near catatonic
state? So did she, and she has a nice long list of post-coital
choices.

A jury is 12 individuals who decides who has the best lawyer.
- Mark Twain

"Chris" wrote in message
news:tghRf.571$5F1.555@fed1read08...

"Joy" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

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.

Then you must feel that she, too, is undeservedly off the hook, right?

Sure.

It follows that you are against abortion; unless you believe that one
ought
to be entitled to that which they do not deserve.

I think that the opinions expressed in this discussion may be convincing
many
men that the best options are celibacy or masturbation.
Might make life a little less satisfying for the women of the world.
Wouldn't *that* be a bite in the ass!

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:lI5Rf.87501$bF.39023@dukeread07...


You know, there is really nothing I can say here that can illustrate what
kind of a sad little person you are that will be more effective than the
response you just gave (including the notable absence of a rebuttal to any
of my points). Congratulations, I guess.


....and it took you *how* long to figure that out?

"YooperBoyka" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:tghRf.571$5F1.555@fed1read08...

"Joy" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

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.

Then you must feel that she, too, is undeservedly off the hook, right?

Sure.

It follows that you are against abortion; unless you believe that one
ought
to be entitled to that which they do not deserve.

I think that the opinions expressed in this discussion may be convincing
many
men that the best options are celibacy or masturbation.
Might make life a little less satisfying for the women of the world.
Wouldn't *that* be a bite in the ass!



You don't think women can masturbate too??

T

"Tiffany" wrote in message
news:T4kRf.22777$_f4.6764@trnddc03...

"YooperBoyka" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:tghRf.571$5F1.555@fed1read08...

"Joy" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

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.

Then you must feel that she, too, is undeservedly off the hook,
right?

Sure.

It follows that you are against abortion; unless you believe that one
ought
to be entitled to that which they do not deserve.

I think that the opinions expressed in this discussion may be convincing
many
men that the best options are celibacy or masturbation.
Might make life a little less satisfying for the women of the world.
Wouldn't *that* be a bite in the ass!



You don't think women can masturbate too??

Well,...if that's what you want out of life...
Have at it.