|
| 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 |
|
#31
December 19th 03, 02:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"AZ Astrea" wrote in message ... "ME" wrote in message ... I agree with the fact that the pill should not be released OTC, it is too dangerous for that kind of availability. I do also agree, however, that the OTC release of it would lessen the number of abortions, unplanned pregnancies, teen pregnancy, and other matters of the sort. ----------------- This is NOT RU486! This is just a high dose birth control pill. It does not induce an abortion.---- I never said it did induce abortion......... ---------------------------- As for your point on men not having the choices...if we lived in a perfect world all woman would discuss the matter with the man first, but we don't. BUT... As for your 'plan B' for men....if we lived in a perfect world all men would actually pay their child support and be there for their children through all of their life, but they don't. ----------- In a perfect world the courts would order 50 50 shared legal and physical custody of the kids and no cs would be paid to mommy. I agree 100%--That would be great. My ex husband had that for a while but then his daughters mom moved to another school district so that didnt work any longer. But it was nice while it lasted. ------------------ A girl I know gets pregnant a week before her 17th birthday. Her boyfriend says the baby is not his and breaks it off with her immediatley, but he does vow that if blood test reveal he is the father he would support the child totally. She goes through the pregnancy without him. When the baby is 6 months old Mom needs a car to get a job, since she has now graduated high school. She works out a loan with her Aunt who tells her she won't loan her the money unless she takes the baby's father to court for child support. She does this. Dad requests blood tests. Dad tells the domestic relations hearing officer of all Mom's partners at the time of conception....although he was the only one she was with. Blood tests come back that he is indeed the daddy of the baby. $45 a week is ordered, yippy. Years go by, no support. ---------------------------- What, did she think that somehow a court order was going to turn this guy into your version of a responsible parent? Get real, as soon as he learned of her pregnancy he "says the baby is not his and breaks it off with her immediatley". Buy a clue. He may have said he would "support the child totally" maybe just to get her off his back but his actions speak, scream, louder than words. So Dad shouldn't be responsible for his actions? Let Dad off with nothing because he said it wasn't his from day 1? -------------------------- After 2 1/2 years she starts getting child support when Dad feels like paying it. He sees the child, then doesnt, then does, then doesnt ---------------------- Maybe when Dad feels like paying it is really when dad is ABLE to pay it. Dad is ABLE to pay....at least in this case --------------------- ....Baby is now 5 years old. Dad still doesn't pay child support like he is court ordered and Mom can't get any help from the courts. (Seems the enforcing officers just have too much to do with all the other cases....ya know the ones who owe more back support) Baby starts to see psychiatrists, therapists and any other 'ist' you can imagine. Baby is so emotionally disturbed he sees them 2-4 times a month depending on behavior and emotional outbursts. ------------------- And this is the fault of a person who isn't even there? I think it's more likely that it's the fault of the mother who IS there. You miss the point that Dad was there....then wasn't....then was....he would see Baby tell him see ya next weekend etc.then not call for 6 months, then see him one day a week for the next 6 months then not call for another few months....you don't think that would hurt a child? Especially one so young? ------------------- Dad doesn't bother to call, send a card, a letter, or send child support. (By the way, Dad owns his own business, and for the last 4 years sat in bars 6 days a week) ----------------- Why, oh why do people think that owning your own business equates with having lots of money?? It's generally closer to the truth that owning your own business equates to having lots of money problems. I agree, but he does have money in this case... And as far as his sitting in bars maybe that was the only escape he could afford. Unless he was sitting in them at some luxury resort. Only escape he could afford? Sure everyone needs a break now and then, or an escape...but $2 a beer (more on band nights plus $5 to get in) and he does this 6 days a week? But yet he can't afford to send child support, or at the very least send a card on the babys birthday? You need to escape to beer? Sure we all like to once in a while. But for $20 (or less) you can get a 30-pack of beer, invite a friend over and drink for half the price of going to the bar 6 days a week..... -------------------- Baby spends a week in the inpatient child psychiatry unit at 6 years old because he told Mom he wanted to kill himself. What came out in therapy sessions? Dad did this, Dad did that, Dad didn't do this, Dad didn't do that. ------------------- Puh-leeeze! the only thing that dad didn't do was pay mommy the money she felt she deserved. Daddy was never around right?! So how could he have done this and not do that, blah blah. More likely that mommy TOLD the poor kid a bunch of stuff to tweak his head. When baby started asking why dad isnt around all Mom said was 'because' She dialed the phone and let baby speak to Dad so HE could tell Baby why he doesnt bother. Mom never told baby anything bad (or good) about Dad. She thought it best to let baby make his own decision about Dad.. -------------------- To make this story as short as possible because I could go on forever, your PLAN B is often ignored by men also. Around here you have to give your arm and leg and possibly both to get something done about violating court orders, getting child support etc. ---------------- And everywhere you could give away everything and still never get anything done about violating visitation orders and false abuse allegations. ------------------- My point is this, although women may ignore the mans decisions in using birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption etc etc, men also ignore the fatherly rights they have. (child support, even seeing the child, providing clothes or moral support) Meanwhile mom struggles to survive because she chose LIFE and dad chose BAR, sports car etc etc etc. -------------- She chose, she chose! That's EXACTLY the point! SHE makes all of the choices. SHE can choose LIFE or ABORTION or ADOPTION or ABANDONMENT. All men can do is sit by and wait to see what she will choose. Men can choose to support their child, forget about child support payments. Take the kid to the park on the weekend. Send a card on birthday's. Call just to see how school went that day....All women can do is sit around and wait for dad to live up to his responsibilities as a father. ------------------- Sure, make a law that the Dad has to sign permission for birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption, or life ------------------------- No. Make a law giving men the SAME rights that women currently have. The right to decide to be a parent or not. While a man can't force a women to get an abortion he should be able to force her to live with her own choices. A man should be able to choose to 'sign off' from being a parent. Here a man can sign his parental rights away. This case, Dad refuses to do so. BUT mom does have to agree to let dad do it also. Like I said in a perfect world it would be a choice made together in the event a women got pregnant, but we don't live in a perfect world do we? -------------------- but then make a law that Dad also has to live up to his responsibilities of being a Dad. --------------- What, the current set of laws requiring men to pay outrageous amounts of cs to women who have made the choice to become a parent aren't enough for you? Maybe they should have a national registry where all the men in the country who are working are required to be listed so that the courts can easily garnish their paychecks and take their tax refunds. And maybe they should bring back the 'debtors prisons' and lock up men who are unable to pay their cs. And then they could take away the drivers and professional licenses of any man who gets behind on their cs. Oh wait, they already DO those things. Outrageous amounts of child support? How much do you think it takes to raise a child? Sit and think about it. Not everyone pays outrageous amounts of child support, and it is supposed to be based on the income of both parties. I know a girl who pays $15 a week, but I also know a guy who pays over $200 a week. $200 is outrageous but normally the amounts are not all that outrageous. $15 a week? come on.... --------------------- This argument could go on forever, and so could I. Women are in the wrong, men are in the wrong. Men shouldn't have to pay for the choices of women? Women pay for the choices of men each and every single day. ----------- No, men shouldn't have to pay for the choices of women. Men have no choices when it comes to having children so women don't pay for men's choices. And they don't pay for their own. They don't have to. ~AZ~ "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... In the interests of clarity, I should point out that this is not RU-486. It is a product known as an "emergency contraceptive," and is -- on my understanding -- a pepped-up dose of the ingredients of the birth control pill. It is not an abortion-inducing product. However, the basic point remains. This is yet another way of giving reproductive choices to women. Meantime, no one considers ways of giving post-conception reproductive choices to men. It would be very simple to say that men should not have to pay for decisions made unilaterally by women, and should be able to renounce their paternal rights and responsibilities. However, this doesn't get done, very largely because there is no special interest group representing heterosexual men. For men, "Plan B" consists of paying 18+ years of "child support" money to women who decide that they don't want to make use of all the post-conception choices U.S. law has given them. Kathi Kelly wrote: "Kenneth S." writes: But there is a definite possibility that the FDA WILL accept this proposal. A minority of U.S. states (as well as several European countries) ALREADY say that morning-after pills should be available to women on an over-the-counter basis. Kenneth, Bob and Mel all made good points about RU486. However, another point remains. RU486 is not a safe procedure for OTC release. There are and can be severe consequences. IMO, the FDA should not even consider this proposal. An MD should be supervising the use of RU486. To me, this is yet another example of the vocal minority getting their way to the detriment of society and health issues. It's just ridiculous. The interested readers can peruse these pages. http://pages.map.com/lroberge/ru486.htm http://www.feminist.org/action/action120f.htm#_edn1 N.B., the FM states only the "positive" and makes no mention of adverse side effects. The FM is working for their own political agenda. Women be damned as far as they are concerned. 
|
|
#32
December 19th 03, 02:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"Mel Gamble" wrote in message ... Child Support is a man's "right"??????? Me has a few other goofy ideas also..... Child Support is BOTH parents responsibility.... ME wrote: I agree with the fact that the pill should not be released OTC, it is too dangerous for that kind of availability. I do also agree, however, that the OTC release of it would lessen the number of abortions, unplanned pregnancies, teen pregnancy, and other matters of the sort. As for your point on men not having the choices...if we lived in a perfect world all woman would discuss the matter with the man first, but we don't. BUT... As for your 'plan B' for men....if we lived in a perfect world all men would actually pay their child support and be there for their children through all of their life, but they don't. For "all" to do so, you first have to give "all" the ability.... Agreed A girl I know gets pregnant a week before her 17th birthday. Her boyfriend says the baby is not his and breaks it off with her immediatley, but he does vow that if blood test reveal he is the father he would support the child totally. She goes through the pregnancy without him. When the baby is 6 months old Mom needs a car to get a job, since she has now graduated high school. She works out a loan with her Aunt who tells her she won't loan her the money unless she takes the baby's father to court for child support. She does this. Dad requests blood tests. Dad breaks it off "immediatley" and she waits until the baby is 6 months old - sounds like dad has had at least a year to get on with his life and assume he wasn't a part of this kid's life..., then BINGO "I want money". Dad never called anything. Should he be let go scot free? Think of it like this. You are the custodial parent, situation is reversed and it is a woman looking at child support....what do you think then? Mom had no previous intentions of getting monetary child support, if you would read above she needed a car and her Aunt refused to give her money unless she took dad for child support. Maybe it was wrong but mom had to get a car, to get a job, to support herself and child .... if she didnt-this dicsussion might be about welfare moms that dont work....... Dad tells the domestic relations hearing officer of all Mom's partners at the time of conception....although he was the only one she was with. Blood tests come back that he is indeed the daddy of the baby. $45 a week is ordered, yippy. Years go by, no support. After 2 1/2 years she starts getting child support when Dad feels like paying it. He sees the child, then doesnt, then does, then doesnt.... And ME, of course, wants us to assume that the "doesnt" is by dad's choice - maybe, maybe not...but there's good evidence for "not" further down... Doesn't is by dads choice in this case. And I agree sometimes dad (in every case) cant, but here that is jsut not true. Baby is now 5 years old. Dad still doesn't pay child support like he is court ordered and Mom can't get any help from the courts. (Seems the enforcing officers just have too much to do with all the other cases....ya know the ones who owe more back support) Baby starts to see psychiatrists, therapists and any other 'ist' you can imagine. Baby is so emotionally disturbed he sees them 2-4 times a month depending on behavior and emotional outbursts. *MILLIONS* of children have been raised without fathers without ending up emotionally disturbed before they're in school. Sensible people will tell you that when a child is emotionally damaged to that extent, don't look at the adults who aren't there - look at those with regular contact. Read the other Reply I sent. Where dad was in and out of his life. That would emotionally disturb any child, any age. Dad doesn't bother to call, send a card, a letter, or send child support. Sounds like mom has been working to totally alienate the dad ... same as she's been doing to the child. By the way, when did mom start cashing in on the $400 monthly fee for selling her child's soul to the "ist"s? How do you figure mom is alienating dad? She doesnt do anything to alienate him at all, or baby for that matter. Selling a childs soul to the 'ists'??? What are you talking about, you can sell your soul to the devil, you can give your soul to GOD, you can get things off your chest to the 'ists' and when there is nowhere else to turnt o help your child you will pay whatever you have to...just to be sure the child is okay. It's called love....heard of it? Cashing in? Mom isn't cashing in on anything.... (By the way, Dad owns his own business, and for the last 4 years sat in bars 6 days a week) Looks like she's done a number on his life as well as the child's... Dads excuse now becomes 'I drink because my ex girlfriend got pregnant almost 7 years ago' Gimme a break. Baby spends a week in the inpatient child psychiatry unit at 6 years old because he told Mom he wanted to kill himself. What came out in therapy sessions? Dad did this, Dad did that, Dad didn't do this, Dad didn't do that. Now how would a 6-year-old know what Dad *DIDN'T* do unless somebody else was pounding it into his head??? Kids are smart. They hear phone calls etc. Nothing was pounded into this childs head. (Unless done so by the 'ists') To make this story as short as possible To make this story as short as possible, just take this poor kid away from that abusive bitch and place him with a good parent. Take him away from the loving home he has established (non abusive) and put him with his other parent?? the one who doesnt want him? The one who has never been there for him? Now that will do wonders for the childs emotional state. because I could go on forever, your PLAN B is often ignored by men also. Around here you have to give your arm and leg and possibly both to get something done about violating court orders, getting child support etc. My point is this, although women may ignore the mans decisions in using birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption etc etc, men also ignore the fatherly rights they have. (child support, even seeing the child, providing clothes or moral support) ME needs to learn the difference between a "right" and imposing "child support" on a father. Child support could mean just what it says.....emotional support of your child....not money, people see that weekly figure and go nuts...what about picking the child up even 1 day a month?? Take the child to the park....Take the child for a ride? That would be child support too, but Dad doesnt do anything of the sort. Meanwhile mom struggles to survive because she chose LIFE and Obviously, she chose *H*E*R* "LIFE" over everyone else's... How did she choose HER LIFE? A senior in high school ? Manages to finish high school and work at McDonalds for a while? The rest of HER life im not going into but all her choices ever made in her life were based on her child. If she chose HER LIFE she wouldve had an abortion and did allt he things she dreamed of, but she chose the love of a child.... Mel Gamble dad chose BAR, sports car etc etc etc. Sure, make a law that the Dad has to sign permission for birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption, or life but then make a law that Dad also has to live up to his responsibilities of being a Dad. This argument could go on forever, and so could I. Women are in the wrong, men are in the wrong. Men shouldn't have to pay for the choices of women? Women pay for the choices of men each and every single day. "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... In the interests of clarity, I should point out that this is not RU-486. It is a product known as an "emergency contraceptive," and is -- on my understanding -- a pepped-up dose of the ingredients of the birth control pill. It is not an abortion-inducing product. However, the basic point remains. This is yet another way of giving reproductive choices to women. Meantime, no one considers ways of giving post-conception reproductive choices to men. It would be very simple to say that men should not have to pay for decisions made unilaterally by women, and should be able to renounce their paternal rights and responsibilities. However, this doesn't get done, very largely because there is no special interest group representing heterosexual men. For men, "Plan B" consists of paying 18+ years of "child support" money to women who decide that they don't want to make use of all the post-conception choices U.S. law has given them. Kathi Kelly wrote: "Kenneth S." writes: But there is a definite possibility that the FDA WILL accept this proposal. A minority of U.S. states (as well as several European countries) ALREADY say that morning-after pills should be available to women on an over-the-counter basis. Kenneth, Bob and Mel all made good points about RU486. However, another point remains. RU486 is not a safe procedure for OTC release. There are and can be severe consequences. IMO, the FDA should not even consider this proposal. An MD should be supervising the use of RU486. To me, this is yet another example of the vocal minority getting their way to the detriment of society and health issues. It's just ridiculous. The interested readers can peruse these pages. http://pages.map.com/lroberge/ru486.htm http://www.feminist.org/action/action120f.htm#_edn1 N.B., the FM states only the "positive" and makes no mention of adverse side effects. The FM is working for their own political agenda. Women be damned as far as they are concerned.
|
|
#33
December 19th 03, 02:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"Mel Gamble" wrote in message ... Child Support is a man's "right"??????? Me has a few other goofy ideas also..... Child Support is BOTH parents responsibility.... ME wrote: I agree with the fact that the pill should not be released OTC, it is too dangerous for that kind of availability. I do also agree, however, that the OTC release of it would lessen the number of abortions, unplanned pregnancies, teen pregnancy, and other matters of the sort. As for your point on men not having the choices...if we lived in a perfect world all woman would discuss the matter with the man first, but we don't. BUT... As for your 'plan B' for men....if we lived in a perfect world all men would actually pay their child support and be there for their children through all of their life, but they don't. For "all" to do so, you first have to give "all" the ability.... Agreed A girl I know gets pregnant a week before her 17th birthday. Her boyfriend says the baby is not his and breaks it off with her immediatley, but he does vow that if blood test reveal he is the father he would support the child totally. She goes through the pregnancy without him. When the baby is 6 months old Mom needs a car to get a job, since she has now graduated high school. She works out a loan with her Aunt who tells her she won't loan her the money unless she takes the baby's father to court for child support. She does this. Dad requests blood tests. Dad breaks it off "immediatley" and she waits until the baby is 6 months old - sounds like dad has had at least a year to get on with his life and assume he wasn't a part of this kid's life..., then BINGO "I want money". Dad never called anything. Should he be let go scot free? Think of it like this. You are the custodial parent, situation is reversed and it is a woman looking at child support....what do you think then? Mom had no previous intentions of getting monetary child support, if you would read above she needed a car and her Aunt refused to give her money unless she took dad for child support. Maybe it was wrong but mom had to get a car, to get a job, to support herself and child .... if she didnt-this dicsussion might be about welfare moms that dont work....... Dad tells the domestic relations hearing officer of all Mom's partners at the time of conception....although he was the only one she was with. Blood tests come back that he is indeed the daddy of the baby. $45 a week is ordered, yippy. Years go by, no support. After 2 1/2 years she starts getting child support when Dad feels like paying it. He sees the child, then doesnt, then does, then doesnt.... And ME, of course, wants us to assume that the "doesnt" is by dad's choice - maybe, maybe not...but there's good evidence for "not" further down... Doesn't is by dads choice in this case. And I agree sometimes dad (in every case) cant, but here that is jsut not true. Baby is now 5 years old. Dad still doesn't pay child support like he is court ordered and Mom can't get any help from the courts. (Seems the enforcing officers just have too much to do with all the other cases....ya know the ones who owe more back support) Baby starts to see psychiatrists, therapists and any other 'ist' you can imagine. Baby is so emotionally disturbed he sees them 2-4 times a month depending on behavior and emotional outbursts. *MILLIONS* of children have been raised without fathers without ending up emotionally disturbed before they're in school. Sensible people will tell you that when a child is emotionally damaged to that extent, don't look at the adults who aren't there - look at those with regular contact. Read the other Reply I sent. Where dad was in and out of his life. That would emotionally disturb any child, any age. Dad doesn't bother to call, send a card, a letter, or send child support. Sounds like mom has been working to totally alienate the dad ... same as she's been doing to the child. By the way, when did mom start cashing in on the $400 monthly fee for selling her child's soul to the "ist"s? How do you figure mom is alienating dad? She doesnt do anything to alienate him at all, or baby for that matter. Selling a childs soul to the 'ists'??? What are you talking about, you can sell your soul to the devil, you can give your soul to GOD, you can get things off your chest to the 'ists' and when there is nowhere else to turnt o help your child you will pay whatever you have to...just to be sure the child is okay. It's called love....heard of it? Cashing in? Mom isn't cashing in on anything.... (By the way, Dad owns his own business, and for the last 4 years sat in bars 6 days a week) Looks like she's done a number on his life as well as the child's... Dads excuse now becomes 'I drink because my ex girlfriend got pregnant almost 7 years ago' Gimme a break. Baby spends a week in the inpatient child psychiatry unit at 6 years old because he told Mom he wanted to kill himself. What came out in therapy sessions? Dad did this, Dad did that, Dad didn't do this, Dad didn't do that. Now how would a 6-year-old know what Dad *DIDN'T* do unless somebody else was pounding it into his head??? Kids are smart. They hear phone calls etc. Nothing was pounded into this childs head. (Unless done so by the 'ists') To make this story as short as possible To make this story as short as possible, just take this poor kid away from that abusive bitch and place him with a good parent. Take him away from the loving home he has established (non abusive) and put him with his other parent?? the one who doesnt want him? The one who has never been there for him? Now that will do wonders for the childs emotional state. because I could go on forever, your PLAN B is often ignored by men also. Around here you have to give your arm and leg and possibly both to get something done about violating court orders, getting child support etc. My point is this, although women may ignore the mans decisions in using birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption etc etc, men also ignore the fatherly rights they have. (child support, even seeing the child, providing clothes or moral support) ME needs to learn the difference between a "right" and imposing "child support" on a father. Child support could mean just what it says.....emotional support of your child....not money, people see that weekly figure and go nuts...what about picking the child up even 1 day a month?? Take the child to the park....Take the child for a ride? That would be child support too, but Dad doesnt do anything of the sort. Meanwhile mom struggles to survive because she chose LIFE and Obviously, she chose *H*E*R* "LIFE" over everyone else's... How did she choose HER LIFE? A senior in high school ? Manages to finish high school and work at McDonalds for a while? The rest of HER life im not going into but all her choices ever made in her life were based on her child. If she chose HER LIFE she wouldve had an abortion and did allt he things she dreamed of, but she chose the love of a child.... Mel Gamble dad chose BAR, sports car etc etc etc. Sure, make a law that the Dad has to sign permission for birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption, or life but then make a law that Dad also has to live up to his responsibilities of being a Dad. This argument could go on forever, and so could I. Women are in the wrong, men are in the wrong. Men shouldn't have to pay for the choices of women? Women pay for the choices of men each and every single day. "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... In the interests of clarity, I should point out that this is not RU-486. It is a product known as an "emergency contraceptive," and is -- on my understanding -- a pepped-up dose of the ingredients of the birth control pill. It is not an abortion-inducing product. However, the basic point remains. This is yet another way of giving reproductive choices to women. Meantime, no one considers ways of giving post-conception reproductive choices to men. It would be very simple to say that men should not have to pay for decisions made unilaterally by women, and should be able to renounce their paternal rights and responsibilities. However, this doesn't get done, very largely because there is no special interest group representing heterosexual men. For men, "Plan B" consists of paying 18+ years of "child support" money to women who decide that they don't want to make use of all the post-conception choices U.S. law has given them. Kathi Kelly wrote: "Kenneth S." writes: But there is a definite possibility that the FDA WILL accept this proposal. A minority of U.S. states (as well as several European countries) ALREADY say that morning-after pills should be available to women on an over-the-counter basis. Kenneth, Bob and Mel all made good points about RU486. However, another point remains. RU486 is not a safe procedure for OTC release. There are and can be severe consequences. IMO, the FDA should not even consider this proposal. An MD should be supervising the use of RU486. To me, this is yet another example of the vocal minority getting their way to the detriment of society and health issues. It's just ridiculous. The interested readers can peruse these pages. http://pages.map.com/lroberge/ru486.htm http://www.feminist.org/action/action120f.htm#_edn1 N.B., the FM states only the "positive" and makes no mention of adverse side effects. The FM is working for their own political agenda. Women be damned as far as they are concerned.
|
|
#34
December 19th 03, 02:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"Mel Gamble" wrote in message ... Another point... ME wrote: I agree with the fact that the pill should not be released OTC, it is too dangerous for that kind of availability. I do also agree, however, that the OTC release of it would ************************************************** ************ lessen the number of abortions, unplanned pregnancies, teen pregnancy, and other matters of the sort. ************************************************** ************ "Plan B" has been stated to be only a little over 80% effective - when used correctly and on time. It's existence could result in young women having more sex without using the current BC methods, relying on being able to "undo an oops" with a quick trip to Rite-Aid. The increase in unimpeded conception combined with the failure rate could actually result in MORE pregnancies...AND STD's. I havent thought of it like that and that is a good point...scary really... Mel Gamble As for your point on men not having the choices...if we lived in a perfect world all woman would discuss the matter with the man first, but we don't. BUT... As for your 'plan B' for men....if we lived in a perfect world all men would actually pay their child support and be there for their children through all of their life, but they don't. A girl I know gets pregnant a week before her 17th birthday. Her boyfriend says the baby is not his and breaks it off with her immediatley, but he does vow that if blood test reveal he is the father he would support the child totally. She goes through the pregnancy without him. When the baby is 6 months old Mom needs a car to get a job, since she has now graduated high school. She works out a loan with her Aunt who tells her she won't loan her the money unless she takes the baby's father to court for child support. She does this. Dad requests blood tests. Dad tells the domestic relations hearing officer of all Mom's partners at the time of conception....although he was the only one she was with. Blood tests come back that he is indeed the daddy of the baby. $45 a week is ordered, yippy. Years go by, no support. After 2 1/2 years she starts getting child support when Dad feels like paying it. He sees the child, then doesnt, then does, then doesnt....Baby is now 5 years old. Dad still doesn't pay child support like he is court ordered and Mom can't get any help from the courts. (Seems the enforcing officers just have too much to do with all the other cases....ya know the ones who owe more back support) Baby starts to see psychiatrists, therapists and any other 'ist' you can imagine. Baby is so emotionally disturbed he sees them 2-4 times a month depending on behavior and emotional outbursts. Dad doesn't bother to call, send a card, a letter, or send child support. (By the way, Dad owns his own business, and for the last 4 years sat in bars 6 days a week) Baby spends a week in the inpatient child psychiatry unit at 6 years old because he told Mom he wanted to kill himself. What came out in therapy sessions? Dad did this, Dad did that, Dad didn't do this, Dad didn't do that. To make this story as short as possible because I could go on forever, your PLAN B is often ignored by men also. Around here you have to give your arm and leg and possibly both to get something done about violating court orders, getting child support etc. My point is this, although women may ignore the mans decisions in using birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption etc etc, men also ignore the fatherly rights they have. (child support, even seeing the child, providing clothes or moral support) Meanwhile mom struggles to survive because she chose LIFE and dad chose BAR, sports car etc etc etc. Sure, make a law that the Dad has to sign permission for birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption, or life but then make a law that Dad also has to live up to his responsibilities of being a Dad. This argument could go on forever, and so could I. Women are in the wrong, men are in the wrong. Men shouldn't have to pay for the choices of women? Women pay for the choices of men each and every single day. "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... In the interests of clarity, I should point out that this is not RU-486. It is a product known as an "emergency contraceptive," and is -- on my understanding -- a pepped-up dose of the ingredients of the birth control pill. It is not an abortion-inducing product. However, the basic point remains. This is yet another way of giving reproductive choices to women. Meantime, no one considers ways of giving post-conception reproductive choices to men. It would be very simple to say that men should not have to pay for decisions made unilaterally by women, and should be able to renounce their paternal rights and responsibilities. However, this doesn't get done, very largely because there is no special interest group representing heterosexual men. For men, "Plan B" consists of paying 18+ years of "child support" money to women who decide that they don't want to make use of all the post-conception choices U.S. law has given them. Kathi Kelly wrote: "Kenneth S." writes: But there is a definite possibility that the FDA WILL accept this proposal. A minority of U.S. states (as well as several European countries) ALREADY say that morning-after pills should be available to women on an over-the-counter basis. Kenneth, Bob and Mel all made good points about RU486. However, another point remains. RU486 is not a safe procedure for OTC release. There are and can be severe consequences. IMO, the FDA should not even consider this proposal. An MD should be supervising the use of RU486. To me, this is yet another example of the vocal minority getting their way to the detriment of society and health issues. It's just ridiculous. The interested readers can peruse these pages. http://pages.map.com/lroberge/ru486.htm http://www.feminist.org/action/action120f.htm#_edn1 N.B., the FM states only the "positive" and makes no mention of adverse side effects. The FM is working for their own political agenda. Women be damned as far as they are concerned.
|
|
#35
December 19th 03, 02:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"Mel Gamble" wrote in message ... Another point... ME wrote: I agree with the fact that the pill should not be released OTC, it is too dangerous for that kind of availability. I do also agree, however, that the OTC release of it would ************************************************** ************ lessen the number of abortions, unplanned pregnancies, teen pregnancy, and other matters of the sort. ************************************************** ************ "Plan B" has been stated to be only a little over 80% effective - when used correctly and on time. It's existence could result in young women having more sex without using the current BC methods, relying on being able to "undo an oops" with a quick trip to Rite-Aid. The increase in unimpeded conception combined with the failure rate could actually result in MORE pregnancies...AND STD's. I havent thought of it like that and that is a good point...scary really... Mel Gamble As for your point on men not having the choices...if we lived in a perfect world all woman would discuss the matter with the man first, but we don't. BUT... As for your 'plan B' for men....if we lived in a perfect world all men would actually pay their child support and be there for their children through all of their life, but they don't. A girl I know gets pregnant a week before her 17th birthday. Her boyfriend says the baby is not his and breaks it off with her immediatley, but he does vow that if blood test reveal he is the father he would support the child totally. She goes through the pregnancy without him. When the baby is 6 months old Mom needs a car to get a job, since she has now graduated high school. She works out a loan with her Aunt who tells her she won't loan her the money unless she takes the baby's father to court for child support. She does this. Dad requests blood tests. Dad tells the domestic relations hearing officer of all Mom's partners at the time of conception....although he was the only one she was with. Blood tests come back that he is indeed the daddy of the baby. $45 a week is ordered, yippy. Years go by, no support. After 2 1/2 years she starts getting child support when Dad feels like paying it. He sees the child, then doesnt, then does, then doesnt....Baby is now 5 years old. Dad still doesn't pay child support like he is court ordered and Mom can't get any help from the courts. (Seems the enforcing officers just have too much to do with all the other cases....ya know the ones who owe more back support) Baby starts to see psychiatrists, therapists and any other 'ist' you can imagine. Baby is so emotionally disturbed he sees them 2-4 times a month depending on behavior and emotional outbursts. Dad doesn't bother to call, send a card, a letter, or send child support. (By the way, Dad owns his own business, and for the last 4 years sat in bars 6 days a week) Baby spends a week in the inpatient child psychiatry unit at 6 years old because he told Mom he wanted to kill himself. What came out in therapy sessions? Dad did this, Dad did that, Dad didn't do this, Dad didn't do that. To make this story as short as possible because I could go on forever, your PLAN B is often ignored by men also. Around here you have to give your arm and leg and possibly both to get something done about violating court orders, getting child support etc. My point is this, although women may ignore the mans decisions in using birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption etc etc, men also ignore the fatherly rights they have. (child support, even seeing the child, providing clothes or moral support) Meanwhile mom struggles to survive because she chose LIFE and dad chose BAR, sports car etc etc etc. Sure, make a law that the Dad has to sign permission for birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption, or life but then make a law that Dad also has to live up to his responsibilities of being a Dad. This argument could go on forever, and so could I. Women are in the wrong, men are in the wrong. Men shouldn't have to pay for the choices of women? Women pay for the choices of men each and every single day. "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... In the interests of clarity, I should point out that this is not RU-486. It is a product known as an "emergency contraceptive," and is -- on my understanding -- a pepped-up dose of the ingredients of the birth control pill. It is not an abortion-inducing product. However, the basic point remains. This is yet another way of giving reproductive choices to women. Meantime, no one considers ways of giving post-conception reproductive choices to men. It would be very simple to say that men should not have to pay for decisions made unilaterally by women, and should be able to renounce their paternal rights and responsibilities. However, this doesn't get done, very largely because there is no special interest group representing heterosexual men. For men, "Plan B" consists of paying 18+ years of "child support" money to women who decide that they don't want to make use of all the post-conception choices U.S. law has given them. Kathi Kelly wrote: "Kenneth S." writes: But there is a definite possibility that the FDA WILL accept this proposal. A minority of U.S. states (as well as several European countries) ALREADY say that morning-after pills should be available to women on an over-the-counter basis. Kenneth, Bob and Mel all made good points about RU486. However, another point remains. RU486 is not a safe procedure for OTC release. There are and can be severe consequences. IMO, the FDA should not even consider this proposal. An MD should be supervising the use of RU486. To me, this is yet another example of the vocal minority getting their way to the detriment of society and health issues. It's just ridiculous. The interested readers can peruse these pages. http://pages.map.com/lroberge/ru486.htm http://www.feminist.org/action/action120f.htm#_edn1 N.B., the FM states only the "positive" and makes no mention of adverse side effects. The FM is working for their own political agenda. Women be damned as far as they are concerned.
|
|
#36
December 19th 03, 02:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"Kenneth S." wrote in message ... ME: Your long message below sidesteps the basic question. If so much attention in the U.S. is given to ensuring that women have as many post-conception choices as possible, why can't men have post-conception choices (or in this case, post-intercourse choices)? True---I said in another posting that men should have choices too---I also said that in a perfect world the woman and man would discuss the choices (post-conception, post-intercourse, you name it, of course they should discuss it before ONE of them makes a decision) It would be perfectly possible for men to be allowed to make a legal disclaimer of their paternal rights and responsibilities in situations where they did not want to be forced into fatherhood by the unilateral decision of the woman involved. That's not something that could be done only in a perfect world. Men can sign away their parental rights, as can women, but the other party has to agree also. To me, discussions about this issue often are characterized by two factors: (1) The determination of so many women to cling to the status of being the victims of men, although in reality it is women who are making the choices and imposing their choices on men. It is not always one way or the other...lets say its 50-50--50% women 'screw' the men but also 50% the men 'screw' the women----the problem?? we only ever hear of when the woman is the victim of the man, not vice versa---take the story i told and reverse the rolls....say Dad had custody and Mom was in the bar all the time and so on....i bet alot of people would have a different opinion on the subject then.... (2) The disparity in the application of the principle that "life isn't fair." That principle is supposed to be the end of the argument that men should have equal rights. However, for decades, the drive towards giving women more choices hasn't been held back by the consideration that THEY mustn't expect life to be fair. True...but what is fair? What does fair mean? Fair--mom and dad make a decision together BUT they had different views to begin with so the decision made is FAIR to one and not to the other do you see what im saying? Is anything in life really fair at all? MEN SHOULD HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS IN THIS DECISION I agree with that, I wasnt trying to put men down, like I said that story could have reverse roles!! No matter what---RU-486 is release OTC or isn't ---- either way the decison will never be made 'FAIR'....in alot of cases anyway.... Your comments exemplify both of these factors. ME wrote: I agree with the fact that the pill should not be released OTC, it is too dangerous for that kind of availability. I do also agree, however, that the OTC release of it would lessen the number of abortions, unplanned pregnancies, teen pregnancy, and other matters of the sort. As for your point on men not having the choices...if we lived in a perfect world all woman would discuss the matter with the man first, but we don't. BUT... As for your 'plan B' for men....if we lived in a perfect world all men would actually pay their child support and be there for their children through all of their life, but they don't. A girl I know gets pregnant a week before her 17th birthday. Her boyfriend says the baby is not his and breaks it off with her immediatley, but he does vow that if blood test reveal he is the father he would support the child totally. She goes through the pregnancy without him. When the baby is 6 months old Mom needs a car to get a job, since she has now graduated high school. She works out a loan with her Aunt who tells her she won't loan her the money unless she takes the baby's father to court for child support. She does this. Dad requests blood tests. Dad tells the domestic relations hearing officer of all Mom's partners at the time of conception....although he was the only one she was with. Blood tests come back that he is indeed the daddy of the baby. $45 a week is ordered, yippy. Years go by, no support. After 2 1/2 years she starts getting child support when Dad feels like paying it. He sees the child, then doesnt, then does, then doesnt....Baby is now 5 years old. Dad still doesn't pay child support like he is court ordered and Mom can't get any help from the courts. (Seems the enforcing officers just have too much to do with all the other cases....ya know the ones who owe more back support) Baby starts to see psychiatrists, therapists and any other 'ist' you can imagine. Baby is so emotionally disturbed he sees them 2-4 times a month depending on behavior and emotional outbursts. Dad doesn't bother to call, send a card, a letter, or send child support. (By the way, Dad owns his own business, and for the last 4 years sat in bars 6 days a week) Baby spends a week in the inpatient child psychiatry unit at 6 years old because he told Mom he wanted to kill himself. What came out in therapy sessions? Dad did this, Dad did that, Dad didn't do this, Dad didn't do that. To make this story as short as possible because I could go on forever, your PLAN B is often ignored by men also. Around here you have to give your arm and leg and possibly both to get something done about violating court orders, getting child support etc. My point is this, although women may ignore the mans decisions in using birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption etc etc, men also ignore the fatherly rights they have. (child support, even seeing the child, providing clothes or moral support) Meanwhile mom struggles to survive because she chose LIFE and dad chose BAR, sports car etc etc etc. Sure, make a law that the Dad has to sign permission for birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption, or life but then make a law that Dad also has to live up to his responsibilities of being a Dad. This argument could go on forever, and so could I. Women are in the wrong, men are in the wrong. Men shouldn't have to pay for the choices of women? Women pay for the choices of men each and every single day. "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... In the interests of clarity, I should point out that this is not RU-486. It is a product known as an "emergency contraceptive," and is -- on my understanding -- a pepped-up dose of the ingredients of the birth control pill. It is not an abortion-inducing product. However, the basic point remains. This is yet another way of giving reproductive choices to women. Meantime, no one considers ways of giving post-conception reproductive choices to men. It would be very simple to say that men should not have to pay for decisions made unilaterally by women, and should be able to renounce their paternal rights and responsibilities. However, this doesn't get done, very largely because there is no special interest group representing heterosexual men. For men, "Plan B" consists of paying 18+ years of "child support" money to women who decide that they don't want to make use of all the post-conception choices U.S. law has given them. Kathi Kelly wrote: "Kenneth S." writes: But there is a definite possibility that the FDA WILL accept this proposal. A minority of U.S. states (as well as several European countries) ALREADY say that morning-after pills should be available to women on an over-the-counter basis. Kenneth, Bob and Mel all made good points about RU486. However, another point remains. RU486 is not a safe procedure for OTC release. There are and can be severe consequences. IMO, the FDA should not even consider this proposal. An MD should be supervising the use of RU486. To me, this is yet another example of the vocal minority getting their way to the detriment of society and health issues. It's just ridiculous. The interested readers can peruse these pages. http://pages.map.com/lroberge/ru486.htm http://www.feminist.org/action/action120f.htm#_edn1 N.B., the FM states only the "positive" and makes no mention of adverse side effects. The FM is working for their own political agenda. Women be damned as far as they are concerned.
|
|
#37
December 19th 03, 02:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"Kenneth S." wrote in message ... ME: Your long message below sidesteps the basic question. If so much attention in the U.S. is given to ensuring that women have as many post-conception choices as possible, why can't men have post-conception choices (or in this case, post-intercourse choices)? True---I said in another posting that men should have choices too---I also said that in a perfect world the woman and man would discuss the choices (post-conception, post-intercourse, you name it, of course they should discuss it before ONE of them makes a decision) It would be perfectly possible for men to be allowed to make a legal disclaimer of their paternal rights and responsibilities in situations where they did not want to be forced into fatherhood by the unilateral decision of the woman involved. That's not something that could be done only in a perfect world. Men can sign away their parental rights, as can women, but the other party has to agree also. To me, discussions about this issue often are characterized by two factors: (1) The determination of so many women to cling to the status of being the victims of men, although in reality it is women who are making the choices and imposing their choices on men. It is not always one way or the other...lets say its 50-50--50% women 'screw' the men but also 50% the men 'screw' the women----the problem?? we only ever hear of when the woman is the victim of the man, not vice versa---take the story i told and reverse the rolls....say Dad had custody and Mom was in the bar all the time and so on....i bet alot of people would have a different opinion on the subject then.... (2) The disparity in the application of the principle that "life isn't fair." That principle is supposed to be the end of the argument that men should have equal rights. However, for decades, the drive towards giving women more choices hasn't been held back by the consideration that THEY mustn't expect life to be fair. True...but what is fair? What does fair mean? Fair--mom and dad make a decision together BUT they had different views to begin with so the decision made is FAIR to one and not to the other do you see what im saying? Is anything in life really fair at all? MEN SHOULD HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS IN THIS DECISION I agree with that, I wasnt trying to put men down, like I said that story could have reverse roles!! No matter what---RU-486 is release OTC or isn't ---- either way the decison will never be made 'FAIR'....in alot of cases anyway.... Your comments exemplify both of these factors. ME wrote: I agree with the fact that the pill should not be released OTC, it is too dangerous for that kind of availability. I do also agree, however, that the OTC release of it would lessen the number of abortions, unplanned pregnancies, teen pregnancy, and other matters of the sort. As for your point on men not having the choices...if we lived in a perfect world all woman would discuss the matter with the man first, but we don't. BUT... As for your 'plan B' for men....if we lived in a perfect world all men would actually pay their child support and be there for their children through all of their life, but they don't. A girl I know gets pregnant a week before her 17th birthday. Her boyfriend says the baby is not his and breaks it off with her immediatley, but he does vow that if blood test reveal he is the father he would support the child totally. She goes through the pregnancy without him. When the baby is 6 months old Mom needs a car to get a job, since she has now graduated high school. She works out a loan with her Aunt who tells her she won't loan her the money unless she takes the baby's father to court for child support. She does this. Dad requests blood tests. Dad tells the domestic relations hearing officer of all Mom's partners at the time of conception....although he was the only one she was with. Blood tests come back that he is indeed the daddy of the baby. $45 a week is ordered, yippy. Years go by, no support. After 2 1/2 years she starts getting child support when Dad feels like paying it. He sees the child, then doesnt, then does, then doesnt....Baby is now 5 years old. Dad still doesn't pay child support like he is court ordered and Mom can't get any help from the courts. (Seems the enforcing officers just have too much to do with all the other cases....ya know the ones who owe more back support) Baby starts to see psychiatrists, therapists and any other 'ist' you can imagine. Baby is so emotionally disturbed he sees them 2-4 times a month depending on behavior and emotional outbursts. Dad doesn't bother to call, send a card, a letter, or send child support. (By the way, Dad owns his own business, and for the last 4 years sat in bars 6 days a week) Baby spends a week in the inpatient child psychiatry unit at 6 years old because he told Mom he wanted to kill himself. What came out in therapy sessions? Dad did this, Dad did that, Dad didn't do this, Dad didn't do that. To make this story as short as possible because I could go on forever, your PLAN B is often ignored by men also. Around here you have to give your arm and leg and possibly both to get something done about violating court orders, getting child support etc. My point is this, although women may ignore the mans decisions in using birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption etc etc, men also ignore the fatherly rights they have. (child support, even seeing the child, providing clothes or moral support) Meanwhile mom struggles to survive because she chose LIFE and dad chose BAR, sports car etc etc etc. Sure, make a law that the Dad has to sign permission for birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption, or life but then make a law that Dad also has to live up to his responsibilities of being a Dad. This argument could go on forever, and so could I. Women are in the wrong, men are in the wrong. Men shouldn't have to pay for the choices of women? Women pay for the choices of men each and every single day. "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... In the interests of clarity, I should point out that this is not RU-486. It is a product known as an "emergency contraceptive," and is -- on my understanding -- a pepped-up dose of the ingredients of the birth control pill. It is not an abortion-inducing product. However, the basic point remains. This is yet another way of giving reproductive choices to women. Meantime, no one considers ways of giving post-conception reproductive choices to men. It would be very simple to say that men should not have to pay for decisions made unilaterally by women, and should be able to renounce their paternal rights and responsibilities. However, this doesn't get done, very largely because there is no special interest group representing heterosexual men. For men, "Plan B" consists of paying 18+ years of "child support" money to women who decide that they don't want to make use of all the post-conception choices U.S. law has given them. Kathi Kelly wrote: "Kenneth S." writes: But there is a definite possibility that the FDA WILL accept this proposal. A minority of U.S. states (as well as several European countries) ALREADY say that morning-after pills should be available to women on an over-the-counter basis. Kenneth, Bob and Mel all made good points about RU486. However, another point remains. RU486 is not a safe procedure for OTC release. There are and can be severe consequences. IMO, the FDA should not even consider this proposal. An MD should be supervising the use of RU486. To me, this is yet another example of the vocal minority getting their way to the detriment of society and health issues. It's just ridiculous. The interested readers can peruse these pages. http://pages.map.com/lroberge/ru486.htm http://www.feminist.org/action/action120f.htm#_edn1 N.B., the FM states only the "positive" and makes no mention of adverse side effects. The FM is working for their own political agenda. Women be damned as far as they are concerned.
|
|
#38
December 19th 03, 03:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
ME:
It must be emphasized again that the proposal before the FDA is not to allow RU486 to be sold over the counter. The drug in question is Barr Laboratories' so-called Plan B. This is an emergency contraceptive, not an abortion-inducing drug like RU486. As for the rest of what you say, there is a crucial difference between the choice to sign away parental rights and responsibilities and the choice to have a baby or not to have it. At present in the U.S., if a man wants to sign away his parental responsibilities, the woman has to agree to it, or it doesn't happen. Furthermore, in the child support context, if the woman goes on welfare, it is very likely that the welfare authorities will go after the father, even if he HAS signed away his paternal rights and the mother HAS agreed. By contrast, the post-conception choices that are given to women are unilateral and unfettered. Only in the case of a post-birth decision to give up a child for adoption is the father supposed to have a say in the matter. And even in that case the requirement for paternal consent is very easily evaded. The woman can say she doesn't know who the father is, or doesn't know how to get in touch with him. However, I agree with you that we very, very seldom hear of situations where men have been victimized by women. That's because for decades, even centuries, Western society has assigned the role of victim to women. Furthermore, the feminist movement today knows the enormous value of being able to cling to the victim role, even if it hasn't been appropriate for years. The U.S. media, which overwhelmingly reflects the feminist point of view in its coverage, perpetuates the misleading image. ME wrote: "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... ME: Your long message below sidesteps the basic question. If so much attention in the U.S. is given to ensuring that women have as many post-conception choices as possible, why can't men have post-conception choices (or in this case, post-intercourse choices)? True---I said in another posting that men should have choices too---I also said that in a perfect world the woman and man would discuss the choices (post-conception, post-intercourse, you name it, of course they should discuss it before ONE of them makes a decision) It would be perfectly possible for men to be allowed to make a legal disclaimer of their paternal rights and responsibilities in situations where they did not want to be forced into fatherhood by the unilateral decision of the woman involved. That's not something that could be done only in a perfect world. Men can sign away their parental rights, as can women, but the other party has to agree also. To me, discussions about this issue often are characterized by two factors: (1) The determination of so many women to cling to the status of being the victims of men, although in reality it is women who are making the choices and imposing their choices on men. It is not always one way or the other...lets say its 50-50--50% women 'screw' the men but also 50% the men 'screw' the women----the problem?? we only ever hear of when the woman is the victim of the man, not vice versa---take the story i told and reverse the rolls....say Dad had custody and Mom was in the bar all the time and so on....i bet alot of people would have a different opinion on the subject then.... (2) The disparity in the application of the principle that "life isn't fair." That principle is supposed to be the end of the argument that men should have equal rights. However, for decades, the drive towards giving women more choices hasn't been held back by the consideration that THEY mustn't expect life to be fair. True...but what is fair? What does fair mean? Fair--mom and dad make a decision together BUT they had different views to begin with so the decision made is FAIR to one and not to the other do you see what im saying? Is anything in life really fair at all? MEN SHOULD HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS IN THIS DECISION I agree with that, I wasnt trying to put men down, like I said that story could have reverse roles!! No matter what---RU-486 is release OTC or isn't ---- either way the decison will never be made 'FAIR'....in alot of cases anyway.... Your comments exemplify both of these factors. ME wrote: I agree with the fact that the pill should not be released OTC, it is too dangerous for that kind of availability. I do also agree, however, that the OTC release of it would lessen the number of abortions, unplanned pregnancies, teen pregnancy, and other matters of the sort. As for your point on men not having the choices...if we lived in a perfect world all woman would discuss the matter with the man first, but we don't. BUT... As for your 'plan B' for men....if we lived in a perfect world all men would actually pay their child support and be there for their children through all of their life, but they don't. A girl I know gets pregnant a week before her 17th birthday. Her boyfriend says the baby is not his and breaks it off with her immediatley, but he does vow that if blood test reveal he is the father he would support the child totally. She goes through the pregnancy without him. When the baby is 6 months old Mom needs a car to get a job, since she has now graduated high school. She works out a loan with her Aunt who tells her she won't loan her the money unless she takes the baby's father to court for child support. She does this. Dad requests blood tests. Dad tells the domestic relations hearing officer of all Mom's partners at the time of conception....although he was the only one she was with. Blood tests come back that he is indeed the daddy of the baby. $45 a week is ordered, yippy. Years go by, no support. After 2 1/2 years she starts getting child support when Dad feels like paying it. He sees the child, then doesnt, then does, then doesnt....Baby is now 5 years old. Dad still doesn't pay child support like he is court ordered and Mom can't get any help from the courts. (Seems the enforcing officers just have too much to do with all the other cases....ya know the ones who owe more back support) Baby starts to see psychiatrists, therapists and any other 'ist' you can imagine. Baby is so emotionally disturbed he sees them 2-4 times a month depending on behavior and emotional outbursts. Dad doesn't bother to call, send a card, a letter, or send child support. (By the way, Dad owns his own business, and for the last 4 years sat in bars 6 days a week) Baby spends a week in the inpatient child psychiatry unit at 6 years old because he told Mom he wanted to kill himself. What came out in therapy sessions? Dad did this, Dad did that, Dad didn't do this, Dad didn't do that. To make this story as short as possible because I could go on forever, your PLAN B is often ignored by men also. Around here you have to give your arm and leg and possibly both to get something done about violating court orders, getting child support etc. My point is this, although women may ignore the mans decisions in using birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption etc etc, men also ignore the fatherly rights they have. (child support, even seeing the child, providing clothes or moral support) Meanwhile mom struggles to survive because she chose LIFE and dad chose BAR, sports car etc etc etc. Sure, make a law that the Dad has to sign permission for birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption, or life but then make a law that Dad also has to live up to his responsibilities of being a Dad. This argument could go on forever, and so could I. Women are in the wrong, men are in the wrong. Men shouldn't have to pay for the choices of women? Women pay for the choices of men each and every single day. "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... In the interests of clarity, I should point out that this is not RU-486. It is a product known as an "emergency contraceptive," and is -- on my understanding -- a pepped-up dose of the ingredients of the birth control pill. It is not an abortion-inducing product. However, the basic point remains. This is yet another way of giving reproductive choices to women. Meantime, no one considers ways of giving post-conception reproductive choices to men. It would be very simple to say that men should not have to pay for decisions made unilaterally by women, and should be able to renounce their paternal rights and responsibilities. However, this doesn't get done, very largely because there is no special interest group representing heterosexual men. For men, "Plan B" consists of paying 18+ years of "child support" money to women who decide that they don't want to make use of all the post-conception choices U.S. law has given them. Kathi Kelly wrote: "Kenneth S." writes: But there is a definite possibility that the FDA WILL accept this proposal. A minority of U.S. states (as well as several European countries) ALREADY say that morning-after pills should be available to women on an over-the-counter basis. Kenneth, Bob and Mel all made good points about RU486. However, another point remains. RU486 is not a safe procedure for OTC release. There are and can be severe consequences. IMO, the FDA should not even consider this proposal. An MD should be supervising the use of RU486. To me, this is yet another example of the vocal minority getting their way to the detriment of society and health issues. It's just ridiculous. The interested readers can peruse these pages. http://pages.map.com/lroberge/ru486.htm http://www.feminist.org/action/action120f.htm#_edn1 N.B., the FM states only the "positive" and makes no mention of adverse side effects. The FM is working for their own political agenda. Women be damned as far as they are concerned.
|
|
#39
December 19th 03, 03:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
ME:
It must be emphasized again that the proposal before the FDA is not to allow RU486 to be sold over the counter. The drug in question is Barr Laboratories' so-called Plan B. This is an emergency contraceptive, not an abortion-inducing drug like RU486. As for the rest of what you say, there is a crucial difference between the choice to sign away parental rights and responsibilities and the choice to have a baby or not to have it. At present in the U.S., if a man wants to sign away his parental responsibilities, the woman has to agree to it, or it doesn't happen. Furthermore, in the child support context, if the woman goes on welfare, it is very likely that the welfare authorities will go after the father, even if he HAS signed away his paternal rights and the mother HAS agreed. By contrast, the post-conception choices that are given to women are unilateral and unfettered. Only in the case of a post-birth decision to give up a child for adoption is the father supposed to have a say in the matter. And even in that case the requirement for paternal consent is very easily evaded. The woman can say she doesn't know who the father is, or doesn't know how to get in touch with him. However, I agree with you that we very, very seldom hear of situations where men have been victimized by women. That's because for decades, even centuries, Western society has assigned the role of victim to women. Furthermore, the feminist movement today knows the enormous value of being able to cling to the victim role, even if it hasn't been appropriate for years. The U.S. media, which overwhelmingly reflects the feminist point of view in its coverage, perpetuates the misleading image. ME wrote: "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... ME: Your long message below sidesteps the basic question. If so much attention in the U.S. is given to ensuring that women have as many post-conception choices as possible, why can't men have post-conception choices (or in this case, post-intercourse choices)? True---I said in another posting that men should have choices too---I also said that in a perfect world the woman and man would discuss the choices (post-conception, post-intercourse, you name it, of course they should discuss it before ONE of them makes a decision) It would be perfectly possible for men to be allowed to make a legal disclaimer of their paternal rights and responsibilities in situations where they did not want to be forced into fatherhood by the unilateral decision of the woman involved. That's not something that could be done only in a perfect world. Men can sign away their parental rights, as can women, but the other party has to agree also. To me, discussions about this issue often are characterized by two factors: (1) The determination of so many women to cling to the status of being the victims of men, although in reality it is women who are making the choices and imposing their choices on men. It is not always one way or the other...lets say its 50-50--50% women 'screw' the men but also 50% the men 'screw' the women----the problem?? we only ever hear of when the woman is the victim of the man, not vice versa---take the story i told and reverse the rolls....say Dad had custody and Mom was in the bar all the time and so on....i bet alot of people would have a different opinion on the subject then.... (2) The disparity in the application of the principle that "life isn't fair." That principle is supposed to be the end of the argument that men should have equal rights. However, for decades, the drive towards giving women more choices hasn't been held back by the consideration that THEY mustn't expect life to be fair. True...but what is fair? What does fair mean? Fair--mom and dad make a decision together BUT they had different views to begin with so the decision made is FAIR to one and not to the other do you see what im saying? Is anything in life really fair at all? MEN SHOULD HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS IN THIS DECISION I agree with that, I wasnt trying to put men down, like I said that story could have reverse roles!! No matter what---RU-486 is release OTC or isn't ---- either way the decison will never be made 'FAIR'....in alot of cases anyway.... Your comments exemplify both of these factors. ME wrote: I agree with the fact that the pill should not be released OTC, it is too dangerous for that kind of availability. I do also agree, however, that the OTC release of it would lessen the number of abortions, unplanned pregnancies, teen pregnancy, and other matters of the sort. As for your point on men not having the choices...if we lived in a perfect world all woman would discuss the matter with the man first, but we don't. BUT... As for your 'plan B' for men....if we lived in a perfect world all men would actually pay their child support and be there for their children through all of their life, but they don't. A girl I know gets pregnant a week before her 17th birthday. Her boyfriend says the baby is not his and breaks it off with her immediatley, but he does vow that if blood test reveal he is the father he would support the child totally. She goes through the pregnancy without him. When the baby is 6 months old Mom needs a car to get a job, since she has now graduated high school. She works out a loan with her Aunt who tells her she won't loan her the money unless she takes the baby's father to court for child support. She does this. Dad requests blood tests. Dad tells the domestic relations hearing officer of all Mom's partners at the time of conception....although he was the only one she was with. Blood tests come back that he is indeed the daddy of the baby. $45 a week is ordered, yippy. Years go by, no support. After 2 1/2 years she starts getting child support when Dad feels like paying it. He sees the child, then doesnt, then does, then doesnt....Baby is now 5 years old. Dad still doesn't pay child support like he is court ordered and Mom can't get any help from the courts. (Seems the enforcing officers just have too much to do with all the other cases....ya know the ones who owe more back support) Baby starts to see psychiatrists, therapists and any other 'ist' you can imagine. Baby is so emotionally disturbed he sees them 2-4 times a month depending on behavior and emotional outbursts. Dad doesn't bother to call, send a card, a letter, or send child support. (By the way, Dad owns his own business, and for the last 4 years sat in bars 6 days a week) Baby spends a week in the inpatient child psychiatry unit at 6 years old because he told Mom he wanted to kill himself. What came out in therapy sessions? Dad did this, Dad did that, Dad didn't do this, Dad didn't do that. To make this story as short as possible because I could go on forever, your PLAN B is often ignored by men also. Around here you have to give your arm and leg and possibly both to get something done about violating court orders, getting child support etc. My point is this, although women may ignore the mans decisions in using birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption etc etc, men also ignore the fatherly rights they have. (child support, even seeing the child, providing clothes or moral support) Meanwhile mom struggles to survive because she chose LIFE and dad chose BAR, sports car etc etc etc. Sure, make a law that the Dad has to sign permission for birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption, or life but then make a law that Dad also has to live up to his responsibilities of being a Dad. This argument could go on forever, and so could I. Women are in the wrong, men are in the wrong. Men shouldn't have to pay for the choices of women? Women pay for the choices of men each and every single day. "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... In the interests of clarity, I should point out that this is not RU-486. It is a product known as an "emergency contraceptive," and is -- on my understanding -- a pepped-up dose of the ingredients of the birth control pill. It is not an abortion-inducing product. However, the basic point remains. This is yet another way of giving reproductive choices to women. Meantime, no one considers ways of giving post-conception reproductive choices to men. It would be very simple to say that men should not have to pay for decisions made unilaterally by women, and should be able to renounce their paternal rights and responsibilities. However, this doesn't get done, very largely because there is no special interest group representing heterosexual men. For men, "Plan B" consists of paying 18+ years of "child support" money to women who decide that they don't want to make use of all the post-conception choices U.S. law has given them. Kathi Kelly wrote: "Kenneth S." writes: But there is a definite possibility that the FDA WILL accept this proposal. A minority of U.S. states (as well as several European countries) ALREADY say that morning-after pills should be available to women on an over-the-counter basis. Kenneth, Bob and Mel all made good points about RU486. However, another point remains. RU486 is not a safe procedure for OTC release. There are and can be severe consequences. IMO, the FDA should not even consider this proposal. An MD should be supervising the use of RU486. To me, this is yet another example of the vocal minority getting their way to the detriment of society and health issues. It's just ridiculous. The interested readers can peruse these pages. http://pages.map.com/lroberge/ru486.htm http://www.feminist.org/action/action120f.htm#_edn1 N.B., the FM states only the "positive" and makes no mention of adverse side effects. The FM is working for their own political agenda. Women be damned as far as they are concerned.
|
|
#40
December 20th 03, 03:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
If you know "many" men with custody of their children, and who are
supposed to be getting child support, ME, you must live in an extremely odd part of the world. Figures of fathers with custody of their children vary in different areas. However, in more than 10 years of tracking these issues, the highest percentage I have ever seen for the U.S. is 15. So fifty percent of parents are fathers, but at most only 15 percent are custodial parents. And, of that 15 percent, I'll bet only a very, very small percentage have child support awards, and an even smaller percentage of them are actually getting the money. In truth, child support money is a one-way flow of money -- from men to women. Knowing that principle is fundamental to understanding what goes on in the CS system. But perhaps you live in Saudi Arabia. ME wrote: "Werebat" wrote in message ... I find your story incredibly hard to believe, but it may just be because I was recently imprisoned after dutifully paying my CS for well over two years, ever since it was ordered. This guy owned a BUSINESS? Seems like he'd be painfully easy to track down if you ask me! Sure he is easy to track down, if the courts wanted to. But they don't want to, at least not around here. The courts around here do not see that when two people take the responsibility to sleep together that they should both take the responsibility of the consequences. If the payor (often women are paying too, not just men--I know many men with custody of their children) sends something, anything at all, they won't do or say much of anything to him/her. And the child wanted to KILL himself at 6 years old? This was not due to absence of the father -- I'd look to see if Mommy Dearest was sexually abusing him out of anger at the father and an inability to deal with the real world. Mom was not sexually abusing Baby, or abusing him in any way. I know you will reply back saying, YEAH RIGHT, or something of the sort but it's the truth. - Ron ^*^ ME wrote: I agree with the fact that the pill should not be released OTC, it is too dangerous for that kind of availability. I do also agree, however, that the OTC release of it would lessen the number of abortions, unplanned pregnancies, teen pregnancy, and other matters of the sort. As for your point on men not having the choices...if we lived in a perfect world all woman would discuss the matter with the man first, but we don't. BUT... As for your 'plan B' for men....if we lived in a perfect world all men would actually pay their child support and be there for their children through all of their life, but they don't. A girl I know gets pregnant a week before her 17th birthday. Her boyfriend says the baby is not his and breaks it off with her immediatley, but he does vow that if blood test reveal he is the father he would support the child totally. She goes through the pregnancy without him. When the baby is 6 months old Mom needs a car to get a job, since she has now graduated high school. She works out a loan with her Aunt who tells her she won't loan her the money unless she takes the baby's father to court for child support. She does this. Dad requests blood tests. Dad tells the domestic relations hearing officer of all Mom's partners at the time of conception....although he was the only one she was with. Blood tests come back that he is indeed the daddy of the baby. $45 a week is ordered, yippy. Years go by, no support. After 2 1/2 years she starts getting child support when Dad feels like paying it. He sees the child, then doesnt, then does, then doesnt....Baby is now 5 years old. Dad still doesn't pay child support like he is court ordered and Mom can't get any help from the courts. (Seems the enforcing officers just have too much to do with all the other cases....ya know the ones who owe more back support) Baby starts to see psychiatrists, therapists and any other 'ist' you can imagine. Baby is so emotionally disturbed he sees them 2-4 times a month depending on behavior and emotional outbursts. Dad doesn't bother to call, send a card, a letter, or send child support. (By the way, Dad owns his own business, and for the last 4 years sat in bars 6 days a week) Baby spends a week in the inpatient child psychiatry unit at 6 years old because he told Mom he wanted to kill himself. What came out in therapy sessions? Dad did this, Dad did that, Dad didn't do this, Dad didn't do that. To make this story as short as possible because I could go on forever, your PLAN B is often ignored by men also. Around here you have to give your arm and leg and possibly both to get something done about violating court orders, getting child support etc. My point is this, although women may ignore the mans decisions in using birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption etc etc, men also ignore the fatherly rights they have. (child support, even seeing the child, providing clothes or moral support) Meanwhile mom struggles to survive because she chose LIFE and dad chose BAR, sports car etc etc etc. Sure, make a law that the Dad has to sign permission for birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption, or life but then make a law that Dad also has to live up to his responsibilities of being a Dad. This argument could go on forever, and so could I. Women are in the wrong, men are in the wrong. Men shouldn't have to pay for the choices of women? Women pay for the choices of men each and every single day. "Kenneth S." wrote in message .. In the interests of clarity, I should point out that this is not RU-486. It is a product known as an "emergency contraceptive," and is -- on my understanding -- a pepped-up dose of the ingredients of the birth control pill. It is not an abortion-inducing product. However, the basic point remains. This is yet another way of giving reproductive choices to women. Meantime, no one considers ways of giving post-conception reproductive choices to men. It would be very simple to say that men should not have to pay for decisions made unilaterally by women, and should be able to renounce their paternal rights and responsibilities. However, this doesn't get done, very largely because there is no special interest group representing heterosexual men. For men, "Plan B" consists of paying 18+ years of "child support" money to women who decide that they don't want to make use of all the post-conception choices U.S. law has given them. Kathi Kelly wrote: "Kenneth S." writes: But there is a definite possibility that the FDA WILL accept this proposal. A minority of U.S. states (as well as several European countries) ALREADY say that morning-after pills should be available to women on an over-the-counter basis. Kenneth, Bob and Mel all made good points about RU486. However, another point remains. RU486 is not a safe procedure for OTC release. There are and can be severe consequences. IMO, the FDA should not even consider this proposal. An MD should be supervising the use of RU486. To me, this is yet another example of the vocal minority getting their way to the detriment of society and health issues. It's just ridiculous. The interested readers can peruse these pages. http://pages.map.com/lroberge/ru486.htm http://www.feminist.org/action/action120f.htm#_edn1 N.B., the FM states only the "positive" and makes no mention of adverse side effects. The FM is working for their own political agenda. Women be damned as far as they are concerned.
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
