Choice for Men Entertainment

SpiderHam's comments below represent the typical feminist approach to
this issue. However, this approach fails to think the issue through. It is
crucial to make a distinction between PRE-conception reproductive choice and
POST-conception reproductive choice.

In the pre-conception situation, both sexes are approximately equal.
Both have access to the options of birth control or abstinence. However,
the feminist "pro-choice" line of argument has been to say that women must
have choices that are not confined to the pre-conception situation. For
decades U.S. feminists have argued that women must have POST-conception
rights in addition to their pre-conception rights. And in the U.S.
legislators and judges (the latter category having transformed themselves
into only another form of politician) have responded to this feminist
argument. By legislation and by court decisions these two groups of
politicians have given feminist women what they said they wanted -- as many
post-conception choices as possible. So, women have the abortion option.
Women have the new-born drop-off option. Women have the unilateral adoption
option. Every post-conception option -- up to and including infanticide via
the nauseating partial birth abortion procedure -- has been given to women.

Meantime, what post-conception options have been given to men?
Precisely none, nada, zilch. In fact, men's post-conception options have
been significantly NARROWED. The option that Mother Nature has given men,
that of walking away from unwanted pregnancies, is constantly being narrowed
in the U.S. by ever more rigorous "child support" (that is, mother support)
enforcement techniques.

As for the idea that "as a father you have every claim" to a child that
the mother wants to put up for adoption, that is complete nonsense -- as I
suspect SpiderHam knows very well. In the U.S. rules on adoption vary by
state, but my understanding is that most states give fathers only a very
limited window of opportunity to say that they want to raise the child, and
won't agree to an adoption. All the mother needs to do is tell the
authorities she doesn't know who the father is. Her ability to make a
unilateral decision in this matter can be enhanced by moving temporarily to
the state whose adoption rules are most favorable to the mother. And the
notion that a father could object to an adoption, take the child himself,
and then force the mother to pay child support is ludicrous. Does SpiderHam
know of one real-life situation where this has happened?

The central issue here is: why have women been given so many rights that
are denied to men? And a subsidiary issue is why so many women who very
actively support post-conception reproductive choices for women are just as
determined to deny similar choices to men. "Poor planning," as SpiderHam
calls it in his/her posting, is something of which both sexes can be guilty.
However, SpiderHam (black widow?) seems to think that only women should be
carefully protected against the results of their poor planning.

"SpiderHam77" wrote in message
oups.com...
I have to agree with charlotte on principle here. I only ever hear
the argument of having equal rights in this regard from men who have
been forced into fatherhood through a result of poor planning. I have
yet to hear from one father who wanted to be a father complain that
they were unable to force their partner to abort the pregancy.

I also have yet to hear from men who are not fathers, and are
responsible adults, they are being treated unfairly in this regard. So
far the only people I have ever heard complain about this part of life
are the ones who feel that were somehow screwed over. Yet they were
willing partner in the bedroom.

On the whole adoption issue though. If the mother does put the child
up for the adoption, she is right in saying that as a father you have
every claim to that child. And can even go as far as to making her pay
child support to help raise her child.

But the heart of the matter is simple to me. No sperm donation, no
pregnacy, no birth of a child that you are responsible for. And I have
had sex with women on birth control, and I knew they were as I was in
the room when she recieved their Depo shot. And I still chose to wear
a condom, and she also chose to use a diaphram.

Now we both understood that there was still a slim chance that a
child could be created as a result of our actions. Luckly none was as
we were both in College at the time. But part of the fun of sex is the
inate risk involved.

If you take the time to make responsible choices in reproductive
matters, i.e. not allowing your sperm to be given to anyone by any
means until your ready to part with it. Your not going to produce a
child that you don't want.

I might of missed the day in Bio Class that taught about a womaning
becoming pregnant without sperm. I know I was there for learning about
Worms having A-Sexual reproduction. But I didn't know women could do
it, and then just randomly pick the guy and have the DNA prove it was
them...

Hmm.. I might have to go back an re-read my Bio Books...

SpiderHam77

Well thanks for the little interlude there Kennth. But you have my
opinions on this all wrong. I do agree full heartedly with alot of you
that men ahould have more "Post-Conception" rights.

The problem I look at is that in everyday life. The group of men who
care enough about this issue to want to change it make up such a small
portion of the population that it will never get enough support from
the genral population.

Next question is, when these laws were in fact being created to
favour women as your group puts it, where was this group. Why was
there no press on the this issue then in genral media. Again simple
explanation. Not enough interest from the population at large to fight
against it.

One of the reasons such laws were created to give women rights in
this regard is because there was a huge interest from about half the
population. The woman half. And well with that kind of pressure going
at the gov, and courts.. they pretty much have to listen.

But again this whole group of men who feel they are at some major
disadvantage I willing to bet only make up about 10-20% of all men out
there.. And thats being very generous.

Think about how many children are born each year. Get your stats
together and research it. I believe right now the average is about 1
child ever 2-5 min. But we'll go on the 5 min mark. So that would
approximate to 105,120 children born in any given year.

That means 105,120 times in which conception occured. So if this
group who feel they need to represent the majority of men out there,
would have to find at least 52,560 different times in which a man was
forced into fatherhood against their will.

So when the group can come back with these kind of figures you might
start to peak the interest of law makers. However I know this is not
possible, as that number does not exsist.

And even if you did manage to find this number of cases to support
your case. Then you have to factor the number of men out there this
actually represents, compared to the actual male population.

So my suggestion is instead of arguing a battle you really have no
hope in hell of winning, try a different approach.

Cut them off at the legs and these nasty women who have all these
nasty rights over us weak men. Deny them the one substance they need
to infact gain control over our lives. SPERM. It's really that
simple.

I'm all for equal rights of the sexes. And the country as a whole
decided that women shall have the right to decide what to do with their
body. But by virtue of being half the equation in creating a child we
can simply remove the ingredient they need. You can't bake a cake
without flour type thing.

The Central issue is why there are so many of you that seem hell bent
on trying to change something that most of popluation doesn't care
enough about. My father taught to fight the battles I can win.

And well we can win this battle, just need to try a different
approach, education of our youth to ensure they don't make the mistakes
we did. Teach them the nasty nature of the system.. Warn them. Show
them what can happen if they are dumb enough to spread their seed if
they're not ready.

Sure there will always be the dummies who don't listen, but we will
catch the vast majority, and we can turn this tide back into our favour
of having no child born without our explicit consent.

I don't know how to make this simpler. It has nothing to do with me
being a feminist. It has nothing to do with feeling that the Women are
bringing the man down. It has to do with that the support you all need
to infct change this is not there.

SpiderHam77

Whether or nor you accept it, the law of the land is that women do not have
to accept responsibility for their actions that result in pregnancy yet men
do *if* the mother decides to give birth *and* inform him of the birth,
sometimes years later.

So women don't ever have to pay child support? Women, the majority of
the time get placement, where as the father typically pays support. We
both know the support rewarded is typically only a minor amount of what
it takes to rear a child. 17% gross for a single child, and the mother
isn't picking up the slack of the remaining amount required? The vast
majority of women do accept responsibility of their actions, and
unfortunately, judging from how many dead beat fathers there are, they
are taking a far greater responsibility then men.

I was married for nine years and have two children by my ex. He pays
25% of his gross. A lousy 800 dollars a month. My rent ALONE is 885.
My utilities are another 400 dollars, groceries are 800, lets not count
transportation, clothing, insurance, school costs, or the myriad of
other bills of mine. His support is pretty minor compared to what I
shell out every month. I know my situation is the norm when it comes
to child support being a minimal ammount of total bills, so why am I
hearing that women do not have to accept responsibility for their
pregnancy?

As far as the case in which women do not inform the fathers for years,
I agree that its a unethical occurance. Every child deserves to have
both parents as long as both are fit. I would agree to a law in which
women could not acrue back-support for their children if they
deliberately did not inform the father of the child's existence. How
this could be implemented though is beyond me. Considering that it
could be claimed the father was unlocatable.

You fail the simple logic test.......the only reason a birth occurs is
because of the sole and unilateral choices made by the woman. Woman should
be responsible for their sole and unilateral choices.

As a former student of logic, I have had the misfortune to sit through
far too many vinn diagram sessions. But in this case, I'm glad I had
the misfortune because logic does support the argument that it requires
male and female to bring forth a child. It seems as if you want to
consistently forget the act of conception, the foundation for which
birth even becomes a possibility.

1. Sex occurs between man and woman: conception
2. Woman gestates resulting JOINT conceived zygote/embryo/fetus
3. Woman gives birth to fetus

Numbers two and three are constigent upon number one. The Male is the
middle term of this equation and hence, it is ILLOGICAL to say a woman
has "sole, unilateral" choice in bringing forth a child.

A meaningless point, since rape victims have been forced to pay child
support.

Just like female victims of rape have reared the product of the event.


Maybe you should pick up a book on logical thinking.

And maybe you should stop trying to sweep the willfull and consentual
act of conception under the rug so that you can demonize all women as
the trappers of males in cases of unwanted pregnancy.

There is no such thing as "birth control" for men......only women have that
option,

Oh sure there is, birth control is literally a catch term for any
implement that would control the act of conception/birth. Hence,
condoms are birth control, and can be used solely by men Spermicidal
lubricant is another birth control men can utilize.

and then
demand that a pregnancy which results from their willfull negligence
be terminated simply because they all of a sudden have to pay.

Nobody said anything about demanding pregnancy termination.......you arrived
at that conclusion through your own ignorance.

I didn't arrive at this through ignorance, I carefully read many posts
in which YOU yourself said that it was the "sole unilateral" choice of
a woman to "give birth" because they did not relinquish nor abort the
fetus they were carrying. You think it is unfair that a man has to pay
support for a child they did not want, you think it is unfair that a
woman has access to post conception options, where as a man does not.
Its almost as if you are railing against biology itself. Men can not
gestate, hence, why would men have post-conception options? Unless you
make it law for a man to either impose his will on the gestating woman,
or to abandon his child. And that's percisely what you want to do.
Give the option to the man to neglect his child financially because he
was denied post-conception options.

Women have the sole and unilateral choice in determining whether a
conception results in a birth. Why do you not think women should be
responsible for their sole and unilateral choices?

Your idea that a woman has a sole and unilateral choice in determining
a conception results in birth completely makes flippant of the hardship
women face in such a dillema. For some, there is no "choice". For the
anti-abortionist who believes she will committ a mortal sin, abortion
is not an option. For the woman who finds out she has conceived beyond
the second trimester, there is no choice. For the woman who can not
psychologically handle the trauma of relinquishing her child for
adoption, there is no choice. I am not saying by any means that women
should not be responsible for their choices, what I am saying is that
conception resulting in birth is not necessarily the "sole and
unilateral choice" you make it out to be.

Then you are anti abortion?

Not at all, I'm vehemently pro-choice. But we are talking about the
ceasing of a potential life here, hence, it is optimum to exercise
responsibilty PRIOR to conception. Options such as adoption and
abortion should be last resorts, considering there are far more less
invasive and traumatic means to avoid birth.

Not what I said, is it?
I said "wome do no have to accept responsibility for their actions that
result in pregnancy...."
Try addressing the words stated instead of the words you wishi I'd said.
You may believe that C$ is less than cost, but I know better.
Whether the women accept the consequences of their action or not is hardly
the point; the point is that they do not *have* to.
As far as how many "dead-beat" fathers there are, care to venture your
authoritative guess?
You seem totally unaware that when it comes to paying support when ordered,
mothers have a far worst track record than fathers.
YOUR expenses have absolutely nothing to do with the costs of children,
yours, mine or Homer Simpson's. Your desire to control your ex by means of
grabbing his income also has nothing to do with the norm. The difference
between what you claim to shell out and what you legally extract from his
gross income is that you are under no obligation to spend anything above
that necessary to barely feed, clothe and shelter the children while he has
to give you a set amount whether needed or not or face the possibility of
all sorts of punitive actions that are guaranteed to make it even more
difficult to pay. Even at that, he has effectively lost his children and
your complaint? Money. How typical.

Now, what I was addressing was the fact that women have gained additional
legal remedies for their plight when finding themselves preganant
unintentionally: in addition to abstinence that is naturally afforded to men
as well (at least most of the time), women have the option of abortion as
post conception birth control, adopting the child out, abandoning the child
in one of the many states that allow such actions and keeping the child. The
only way this can be untrue is that if 1) women do not have these remedies,
which they do; 2) men also have these remedies, which they do not.
Phil #3


wrote in message
ups.com...
Whether or nor you accept it, the law of the land is that women do not
have
to accept responsibility for their actions that result in pregnancy yet
men
do *if* the mother decides to give birth *and* inform him of the birth,
sometimes years later.

So women don't ever have to pay child support? Women, the majority of
the time get placement, where as the father typically pays support. We
both know the support rewarded is typically only a minor amount of what
it takes to rear a child. 17% gross for a single child, and the mother
isn't picking up the slack of the remaining amount required? The vast
majority of women do accept responsibility of their actions, and
unfortunately, judging from how many dead beat fathers there are, they
are taking a far greater responsibility then men.

I was married for nine years and have two children by my ex. He pays
25% of his gross. A lousy 800 dollars a month. My rent ALONE is 885.
My utilities are another 400 dollars, groceries are 800, lets not count
transportation, clothing, insurance, school costs, or the myriad of
other bills of mine. His support is pretty minor compared to what I
shell out every month. I know my situation is the norm when it comes
to child support being a minimal ammount of total bills, so why am I
hearing that women do not have to accept responsibility for their
pregnancy?

As far as the case in which women do not inform the fathers for years,
I agree that its a unethical occurance. Every child deserves to have
both parents as long as both are fit. I would agree to a law in which
women could not acrue back-support for their children if they
deliberately did not inform the father of the child's existence. How
this could be implemented though is beyond me. Considering that it
could be claimed the father was unlocatable.

wrote in message
ups.com...
Whether or nor you accept it, the law of the land is that women do not
have
to accept responsibility for their actions that result in pregnancy yet
men
do *if* the mother decides to give birth *and* inform him of the birth,
sometimes years later.

So women don't ever have to pay child support? Women, the majority of
the time get placement, where as the father typically pays support. We
both know the support rewarded is typically only a minor amount of what
it takes to rear a child. 17% gross for a single child,

***I'm very interested where you come up with the figure you mention above.
Child support only covers 17% of a child's expenses? Can you post a cite
for where you got that information?***



and the mother
isn't picking up the slack of the remaining amount required? The vast
majority of women do accept responsibility of their actions, and
unfortunately, judging from how many dead beat fathers there are, they
are taking a far greater responsibility then men.

I was married for nine years and have two children by my ex. He pays
25% of his gross. A lousy 800 dollars a month. My rent ALONE is 885.
My utilities are another 400 dollars, groceries are 800, lets not count
transportation, clothing, insurance, school costs, or the myriad of
other bills of mine. His support is pretty minor compared to what I
shell out every month. I know my situation is the norm when it comes
to child support being a minimal ammount of total bills, so why am I
hearing that women do not have to accept responsibility for their
pregnancy?

As far as the case in which women do not inform the fathers for years,
I agree that its a unethical occurance. Every child deserves to have
both parents as long as both are fit. I would agree to a law in which
women could not acrue back-support for their children if they
deliberately did not inform the father of the child's existence. How
this could be implemented though is beyond me. Considering that it
could be claimed the father was unlocatable.

Now, what I was addressing was the fact that women have gained additional
legal remedies for their plight when finding themselves preganant
unintentionally: in addition to abstinence that is naturally afforded to men
as well (at least most of the time), women have the option of abortion as
post conception birth control, adopting the child out, abandoning the child
in one of the many states that allow such actions and keeping the child. The
only way this can be untrue is that if 1) women do not have these remedies,
which they do; 2) men also have these remedies, which they do not.
Phil #3


My whole argument in all of this. By a show of hands. How many men
out there really care that they do not have these rights aforded to
them. I mean I have to say as a man, one of the things I'm glad I will
never have to go through is the whole Pregnacy, and child birthing
thing.

And what more do we as men need to ensure that a women does not bear
a child with our DNA attached to it. Very simple as you put it,
abstinence. Or simply ensuring that we take all the needed measures to
ensure our sperm is not given to anyone at anytime until we say they
can have it.

To me this seems like a simple point of view. Maybe I'm a little
simple minded. But as my father always taught me. KISS - KEEP IT
SIMPLE STUPID. If you don't want a child. Then don't give your sperm
to anyone.

Make sure that if you have intercourse you are ready for the
consequences. If you don't know what will happen as a result of sex.
Then maybe you need to re-attend the Sex Ed classes in highschool, I
recall this being covered.

And one of the key elements in conceiving a child is a man's sperm.
Can't be done without it. Well maybe science has figured out a way for
A-Sexual reproduction in women, and giving them the ability to randomly
select the man who's DNA will be present in the child.

If this is the case, please direct me to the info sources which prove
this, because it would be an interesting read. I would love to see
exaclty how they accomplished this.

SpiderHam77

"SpiderHam77" wrote in message
oups.com...


Now, what I was addressing was the fact that women have gained
additional
legal remedies for their plight when finding themselves preganant
unintentionally: in addition to abstinence that is naturally afforded
to men
as well (at least most of the time), women have the option of abortion
as
post conception birth control, adopting the child out, abandoning the
child
in one of the many states that allow such actions and keeping the
child. The
only way this can be untrue is that if 1) women do not have these
remedies,
which they do; 2) men also have these remedies, which they do not.
Phil #3


My whole argument in all of this. By a show of hands. How many men
out there really care that they do not have these rights aforded to
them.


I mean I have to say as a man, one of the things I'm glad I will
never have to go through is the whole Pregnacy, and child birthing
thing.

Non sequitar


And what more do we as men need to ensure that a women does not bear
a child with our DNA attached to it. Very simple as you put it,
abstinence. Or simply ensuring that we take all the needed measures to
ensure our sperm is not given to anyone at anytime until we say they
can have it.

Doesn't matter......case law is alreadt established that male victims of
rape have been ordered to pay CS


To me this seems like a simple point of view. Maybe I'm a little
simple minded.

quite possible.

But as my father always taught me. KISS - KEEP IT
SIMPLE STUPID. If you don't want a child. Then don't give your sperm
to anyone.

Make sure that if you have intercourse you are ready for the
consequences. If you don't know what will happen as a result of sex.
Then maybe you need to re-attend the Sex Ed classes in highschool, I
recall this being covered.

And one of the key elements in conceiving a child is a man's sperm.
Can't be done without it. Well maybe science has figured out a way for
A-Sexual reproduction in women, and giving them the ability to randomly
select the man who's DNA will be present in the child.

If this is the case, please direct me to the info sources which prove
this, because it would be an interesting read. I would love to see
exaclty how they accomplished this.

SpiderHam77

wrote in message
oups.com...
You fail the simple logic test.......the only reason a birth occurs is
because of the sole and unilateral choices made by the woman. Woman
should
be responsible for their sole and unilateral choices.

As a former student of logic, I have had the misfortune to sit through
far too many vinn diagram sessions. But in this case, I'm glad I had
the misfortune because logic does support the argument that it requires
male and female to bring forth a child. It seems as if you want to
consistently forget the act of conception, the foundation for which
birth even becomes a possibility.

1. Sex occurs between man and woman: conception
2. Woman gestates resulting JOINT conceived zygote/embryo/fetus
3. Woman gives birth to fetus

Numbers two and three are constigent upon number one. The Male is the
middle term of this equation and hence, it is ILLOGICAL to say a woman
has "sole, unilateral" choice in bringing forth a child.

You could not be more wrong. But considering your viewpoint.....it is
not surprising.

Women have the sole and unilateral choice of whether conception will
result in a birth or not.....and all the tap dancing in the worlf will not
change that FACT.



A meaningless point, since rape victims have been forced to pay child
support.

Just like female victims of rape have reared the product of the event.

No, not just like that.......the female rape victims made that CHOICE.

Are you really that clueless.........



Maybe you should pick up a book on logical thinking.

And maybe you should stop trying to sweep the willfull and consentual
act of conception under the rug so that you can demonize all women as
the trappers of males in cases of unwanted pregnancy.

LMAO.........typical feminitwit response. The conception need not be
willful of consentual......

Now provide the proof that I have "demonized all women as the trappers of
men"

What a mar00n.