FINALLY!! Men's Rights Group Eyes Child Support Stay

"Chris" wrote in message
news:gqEQf.501$5F1.261@fed1read08...

"JayR" wrote in message
...
Werebat wrote:


wrote:

Werebat wrote:

R wrote:


Men's Rights Group Eyes Child Support Stay By DAVID CRARY, AP
National
Writer
Wed Mar 8, 5:20 PM ET

"Roe is based on an extreme intrusion by the government - literally
to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want," Brown
said.
"There's nothing equivalent for men. They have the same ability as
women to use contraception, to get sterilized."


Weak argument. Yes, women have the ability to use contraception and
get
sterilized, but if those methods were enough, there'd be no need for
Roe
v Wade. How would this woman like the government telling her that
she
can't get an abortion, but not to be concerned because she has the
options of contraception and sterilization? Ha.

- Ron ^*^



It may not be fair, but this suit has a 0% chance of making it. What
will occur is that the court will claim that societies interest
outweighs the hardship placed on the man and that financial burdens
are
not the same as physical ones. The Supreme Court will never even hear
it.

I think a bet suit would also focus on equal protection because of the
laws allowing women to abandon children with no consequences. Perhaps
that argument may have the same flaw, but I think it is the stronger
of
the two.


Agreed. I was just discussing this with my GF last night.

- Ron ^*^


Aren't most legal abandonment statutes written with gender-neutral
language, basically extending the right to abandon to both women and men?

In the media and elsewhere, I have always heard about a "mother's" right
to
abandon. Maybe someone can provide the actual texts of such laws.

I doubt whether a study of the text of newborn drop-off laws will
provide much additional insight into what actually happens as a practical
matter -- any more than the laws on adoption of newborns would provide any
light on this matter.

In both cases, whatever the law may stipulate, all mothers need to do is
to say that they don't know who the father is. Then the decision of whether
to abandon the child at a fire station or a hospital, or to give the child
up for adoption, becomes exclusively a matter for the mother. And that's
the way the drafters of these laws intended things should be. They weren't
concerned about choices for men. They were concerned about enlarging the
range of options available to women.

I would be interested to hear of ANY situation in the U.S. where a
father successfully challenged a mother's decision to abandon a newborn
child, or put it up for adoption. Everyone involved in these matters knows
what the score is. Whatever the wording of the laws on the subject, this is
a decision that is given solely to the mother. The father will have nothing
to say, and all concerned will conspire to ensure that there will be no way
that he can prevent the mother from doing what she wants. Can you picture a
father being allowed to say that he wants to raise the child, and being
allowed to do so -- particularly if he says that the mother should pay him
child support for 18+ years? Just to imagine such a situation is to
understand how, in the current state of U.S. laws and practices, such an
outcome is totally impossible.

"Chris" wrote in message
news:gqEQf.501$5F1.261@fed1read08...

"JayR" wrote in message
...
Werebat wrote:


wrote:

Werebat wrote:

R wrote:


Men's Rights Group Eyes Child Support Stay By DAVID CRARY, AP
National
Writer
Wed Mar 8, 5:20 PM ET

"Roe is based on an extreme intrusion by the government - literally
to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want," Brown
said.
"There's nothing equivalent for men. They have the same ability as
women to use contraception, to get sterilized."


Weak argument. Yes, women have the ability to use contraception and
get
sterilized, but if those methods were enough, there'd be no need for
Roe
v Wade. How would this woman like the government telling her that
she
can't get an abortion, but not to be concerned because she has the
options of contraception and sterilization? Ha.

- Ron ^*^



It may not be fair, but this suit has a 0% chance of making it. What
will occur is that the court will claim that societies interest
outweighs the hardship placed on the man and that financial burdens
are
not the same as physical ones. The Supreme Court will never even hear
it.

I think a bet suit would also focus on equal protection because of
the
laws allowing women to abandon children with no consequences. Perhaps
that argument may have the same flaw, but I think it is the stronger
of
the two.


Agreed. I was just discussing this with my GF last night.

- Ron ^*^


Aren't most legal abandonment statutes written with gender-neutral
language, basically extending the right to abandon to both women and
men?

In the media and elsewhere, I have always heard about a "mother's" right
to
abandon. Maybe someone can provide the actual texts of such laws.

Here is the Oregon statute and the legal interpretation of what it means:

http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/asafepl...idelines.shtml

Chris is correct the law is written stating "parents" can drop off babies at
approved locations. This law caused quite a stir when it first went into
effect. The way it is written implies baby drop-offs can be done at any
time. Rural volunteer fire departments struggled with the need to have
EMT's on duty 24/7 ready to accept babies. Somehow that got worked out
through the AG or someone in state government making a determination of how
they should handle the requirements in the law.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Since when did "marriage with a planned pregnancy" become the definition
of family?

Isn't the present CS laws is what this is all really about, to prevent Daddy
from dumping his 3 kid family to go live with sexy Suzie while the family
struggles to put food on the table?

That's a pretty ignorant reply... IF "Daddy" went off to live with
Suzie, it would mean that he has ALREADY accepted the responsability
for supporting his children by living with them. I tell ya. Sometimes
the brilliance in this group is blinding

"DB" wrote in message ...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Since when did "marriage with a planned pregnancy" become the definition of family?

Isn't the present CS laws is what this is all really about, to prevent Daddy from dumping his 3 kid family to go live
with sexy Suzie while the family struggles to put food on the table?

As far as I'm aware, no. That is not what the CS laws are about.

Feel like answering my question this time? Since when did "marriage with a planned pregnancy" become the definition of
family?

"R" wrote in message
oups.com...
That's a pretty ignorant reply...

WHAT reply?

IF "Daddy" went off to live with
Suzie, it would mean that he has ALREADY accepted the responsability
for supporting his children by living with them. I tell ya. Sometimes
the brilliance in this group is blinding

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"DB" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Since when did "marriage with a planned pregnancy" become the
definition of family?

Isn't the present CS laws is what this is all really about, to prevent
Daddy from dumping his 3 kid family to go live
with sexy Suzie while the family struggles to put food on the table?

As far as I'm aware, no. That is not what the CS laws are about.

Aint' THAT the truth!


Feel like answering my question this time? Since when did "marriage with
a planned pregnancy" become the definition of
family?

Better question: Since when did "marriage with a planned pregnancy" become
NOT the definition of family?

"Chris" wrote in message news:Lj7Rf.555$5F1.545@fed1read08...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"DB" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Since when did "marriage with a planned pregnancy" become the
definition of family?

Isn't the present CS laws is what this is all really about, to prevent
Daddy from dumping his 3 kid family to go live
with sexy Suzie while the family struggles to put food on the table?

As far as I'm aware, no. That is not what the CS laws are about.

Aint' THAT the truth!


Feel like answering my question this time? Since when did "marriage with
a planned pregnancy" become the definition of
family?

Better question: Since when did "marriage with a planned pregnancy" become
NOT the definition of family?

Why on earth would that be a "better question"?

Please try to follow along, Chris.

"DB" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Since when did "marriage with a planned pregnancy" become the definition
of family?

Isn't the present CS laws is what this is all really about, to prevent
Daddy from dumping his 3 kid family to go live with sexy Suzie while the
family struggles to put food on the table?

The above comment represents what many people think typically happens in
divorce. However, it is based on a completely mistaken assumption.

The vast majority of divorces in the U.S. today (roughly 75 percent, by
averaging the results of various studies) are initiated by wives.
Furthermore, that doesn't just mean that the wives filed the papers. What
it means is that the wives wanted the divorces and the husbands didn't. In
addition, interviews with divorced people, by Sanford Braver and others,
indicate that wives typically initiate divorces, not because of the
traditional fault causes for divorce, like adultery or desertion, but
because of touchy-feely considerations by the wife, such as "we just grew
apart."

There's a far stronger case to be made for saying that the so-called
"child support" system ultimately is part of the overall trend of the last
30-40 years to find ways of enlarging women's options. Where necessary, the
process of enlarging women's options has been accomplished at the expense of
men and children. The primary role of CS is to enable mothers to have the
option of breaking up two-parent families without suffering the financial
consequences of their own actions.

Correspondingly, one of the strongest arguments for reform of the "child
support" system is to remove the incentives for family breakups initiated by
wives.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news

"Chris" wrote in message
news:gqEQf.501$5F1.261@fed1read08...

"JayR" wrote in message
...
Werebat wrote:


wrote:

Werebat wrote:

R wrote:


Men's Rights Group Eyes Child Support Stay By DAVID CRARY, AP
National
Writer
Wed Mar 8, 5:20 PM ET

"Roe is based on an extreme intrusion by the government -
literally
to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want," Brown
said.
"There's nothing equivalent for men. They have the same ability
as
women to use contraception, to get sterilized."


Weak argument. Yes, women have the ability to use contraception
and
get
sterilized, but if those methods were enough, there'd be no need
for
Roe
v Wade. How would this woman like the government telling her that
she
can't get an abortion, but not to be concerned because she has the
options of contraception and sterilization? Ha.

- Ron ^*^



It may not be fair, but this suit has a 0% chance of making it.
What
will occur is that the court will claim that societies interest
outweighs the hardship placed on the man and that financial burdens
are
not the same as physical ones. The Supreme Court will never even
hear
it.

I think a bet suit would also focus on equal protection because of
the
laws allowing women to abandon children with no consequences.
Perhaps
that argument may have the same flaw, but I think it is the
stronger
of
the two.


Agreed. I was just discussing this with my GF last night.

- Ron ^*^


Aren't most legal abandonment statutes written with gender-neutral
language, basically extending the right to abandon to both women and
men?

In the media and elsewhere, I have always heard about a "mother's" right
to
abandon. Maybe someone can provide the actual texts of such laws.

Here is the Oregon statute and the legal interpretation of what it means:

http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/asafepl...idelines.shtml

Chris is correct the law is written stating "parents" can drop off babies
at
approved locations. This law caused quite a stir when it first went into
effect. The way it is written implies baby drop-offs can be done at any
time. Rural volunteer fire departments struggled with the need to have
EMT's on duty 24/7 ready to accept babies. Somehow that got worked out
through the AG or someone in state government making a determination of
how
they should handle the requirements in the law.

For what it's worth:

Feminists will argue that because the mother has physical custody (actual
possession) of the newborn at birth, that it stands to reason that she would
most likely be the one to dispose of her infant at such facility; especially
when the father is not informed about the birth. Thus the father would
probably not be in such a position simply because of the biological
arrangement; even though the law affords him this same right. But let a
father's biology allow him to simply (and literally) walk away from the
infant, and somehow that's not ok. What's up with that?