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

"Joy" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Joy" wrote in message
news

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

"NewMan" wrote in message
...

Well perhaps with the advent of the birth control pill for men things
will change too! If men have the option to take "the pill", and no
women could "trick him" and get pregnant. Further, if a woman DID get
pregnant while he was on the pill, he would immediately challenge the
paternity of the child!


I know several children who were conceived while their mothers were on
the pill. Think about it - first of all, the pill isn't 100%
effective, even when used absolutely correctly. Second, there are
medications that interfere with the pill - for instance, some
antibiotics can render it ineffective or less effective. Third, the
mother could get sick - get a bout of the stomach/intestinal flu, for
instance - if she can't digest it, it is much the same as if she
hadn't taken it - a few days of the flu at the wrong time could leave
you fertile.

All things that most women *know* and should take into account if they
decide to have sex don't you think ? I know this may seem like I'm
trying to put the onus for contraception onto the woman, but
realistically, she's the one who knows her personal situation, whether
she's taking medication that interferes with the pill or whether she's
been sick and how that might effect her birth control efforts...if she
doesn't take these issues into account, can you reasonably and credibly
assert that any man who has been assured by her that she's "on the
pill" could possibly be "culpable" in an unwanted pregnancy under such
circumstances ?

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

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

Both of them took the risk of pregnancy. The default position is that a
baby results. The end result is that if a woman does get an abortion,
then he's undeservedly off the hook.

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

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

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


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

I'm not buying the "2 decades of virtual servitude" bit - to call that
loaded language would be a gross understatement. Supporting your child is
a natural consequence of having one.

You know what, Joy. If all the father had to do is meet the NEEDS of the
child, it wouldn't be so unfair. If the father had equal parenting time, it
wouldn't be so unfair. But that isn't how it is. Look at the support
levels required--in some states it is 50% of take-home pay for one child!!
It's 20% of take-home where we are. And my husband was told (when he found
out he had an almost-13-year-old daughter) that SHE was the only child that
mattered--that our 2 children were irrelevant. He was charged 2 years of
back child support--that put him in the felony category of arrearages! He
could have been arrested at any time, just on the say-so of a judge. If
he lost his job, his child support would still be due. They could take the
house that I help pay for--just rip it out from under us and put
us--ourselved and our children--out on the street. Do not tell me it is not
servitude!! A lost job--an illness--an accident--all beyond his
control--can give what we have worked so hard for to a woman who has never
worked a day in her life!! And she is raising her flock of illegitimate
children to be the same way.

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


Having a child is a natural consequence
of having sex. Having sex is a choice. A smart person is careful about
who he or she has sex with, and limits it to partners who have the same
response to the non-zero risk of pregnancy that they do. A foolish person
isn't careful about this, and ends up facing the consequences.

You keep saying "person." You really mean "man." Because the woman never
has to spend one dime of her money on the child--not so long as the father
is paying lifestyle child support, and she only needs to provide enough to
keep child and family services from her door.

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

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

But let's make it so BOTH learn to think twice--not just one of them, like
it is now.



You're talking about using good judgement. Obviously, there are times
when
good judgement has not been selected by either participant. IF poor
judgement is used and a pregnancy occurs, don't you think that both the
man
and the woman should have the same choices as to how to proceed from
there?



Kenneth S. wrote:
"Casey" wrote in message
news:wGEQf.53077$Dh.45044@dukeread04...
R said
I think we're missing the point of this. What is being asked of the
court is a man who had no interest in fathering and parenting a
child
was duped by a woman who is forcing this man into parenting a child
via
child support. The woman named in the suit had a choice; She could
have
aborted the pregnancy, put the child up for adoption, or in this
case,
kept the baby. The man however, had no choice. He was ordered by
the
court to parent the child via child support. This, according to the
suit, is unconstitutional. I agree with this argument. The other
thoughts or opinions that have been discussed so far here are
irrelevant. If the woman has a choice, so should the man

Seems to me that the man made a choice as well - women don't
generally
become pregnant all by themselves.


Casey

Casey's comment above is either deliberately disingenuous or just
plain
obtuse. I'll be charitable and assume it's obtuse. So I'll try to
explain
the situation in simple terms.

Yes, the man made a choice, and yes, women don't become pregnant
all
by
themselves. However, the point here is that in the U.S. at the
present
time
there is the most obvious and unjustifiable disparity in the way the
two
sexes are treated in this context.

Both sexes have preconception choice. However, when it comes to
POST-conception choice, there is grotesque bias against men. For
years,
legislators and judges have bent over backwards to find more and more
post-conception choices for women. There's abortion. There's the
unilateral ability to have the child adopted. And now more and more
states
are legislating to give women the ability to drop off newborns at
places
like hospitals and fire stations, no questions asked. Meantime, the
post-conception choices available to men are being reduced -- most
notably
through the law interfering with the choice Mother Nature gave men,
that
of
walking away from unwanted pregnancies.

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

You really think that? Then why don't they just take the babies from the
moms at birth, and force both parents to pay child support until one or both
can work out a way to support the child together? Instead, they supplement
the mother while going after the father for every penny that is paid to mom
and child for welfare. If they really supported 2-parent families, they
wouldn't have made it so easy to divorce, and for dad to supplement mom for
years after.


teachrmama wrote:
"tonita" wrote in message
oups.com...
Each gender has a choice. People can choose to be more responsible,
but they don't so everyone wants laws and procedures in place to clean
up the mess.

Actually what would be nice would be if government would butt out of
family
affairs. But if they choose not to do that, there should be equal
choices
for both genders.


SpiderHam77 wrote:
I agree with R here. If the woman does have a choice.. then so
should the man. However the only large problem I can see here is that
ROE vs WADE was never ment to be used as the ability to force men in
CS.

R vs W was never meant to be anything more then declaring that women
have the right to choose for themselves if an operation can be
conducted on them. It has nothing to do with Parental rights... It
has
nothing to do deciding paternity ect.. all the way down the line.

So I applaud the efforts of such a case. However I don't think it
will honestly have much of an effect as the Courts will probably come
up with a ruling that will clarify such things. And that stuff like
CS
has be decided in the Legislature, not the courts.

To me the only way we can protect my fellow men from such an unfair
thing at this juncture in the game is education. Start teaching our
men from an early age. Drill it into them that these women are evil,
and want something from you. And we as men need to protect our sperm
like it's a rare comdity.

SpiderHam77

Werebat wrote:
Bill in Co. wrote:

Moon Shyne wrote:

"Phil" wrote in message
link.net...

"Bill in Co." wrote in message
nk.net...

Werebat wrote:

Bill in Co. wrote:

Joy wrote:

"DB" wrote in message
. net...

"tonita" wrote in

consequences. Don't have sex with someone you wouldn't want to
become a parent with.

Ever hear of Beer?

If only we could all live in a perfect world and be as smart as
you!

So is it right to sentence a man to death if is can't pay the
extortionate CS rates?

Responsible people don't drink so much beer that they have
irresponsible sex.

Responsible people don't do (many) irresponsible things, but alas,
The
Greatest Generation is nearly all dead now.

Oh, blow it out your pompous ass.

Pray tell, which was this Greatest Generation? Give me dates.

- Ron ^*^

I guess you're still a bit too young to know, if you have to ask that.

Well, perhaps Tom Brokaw can enlighten you in that regard, since he
used
the term a fair amount during his "tenure".

But then again, perhaps not......
I'll leave the light on for ya, but I won't wait up.

Being nearly 60, I am unfamiliar with the term. The fact that you
appear to
get your information from one of the approved newtworks speaks volumes.

No, apparently the "volumes spoken" have been lost on you. (Want to try
again)? Hint: some further info was provided below, hopefully for
your
enlightenment (if that is even possible)

You really are a pompous ass.

ROFL!! (Look who is talking). Got a mirror handy?
"The things we hate most about others are the things that we deny exist
within ourselves". (cogitate on that for awhile, if you're up to it)

And you're too lazy to provide simple information, too.

I'm not going to do all your work for you, grasshopper.

From School Library Journal:
"YA-Brokaw defines "the greatest generation" as American citizens who
came of age during the Great Depression and the Second World War and
went on to build modern America."

Now you could have simply told me that when I asked, but no, you had to
pretend to be some kind of an enigmatic sage. Fine.

That's right. Now you're learning.
(good first step)

Well, all the more reason for men to step up and back off. There is no
law that says a man must have sex with fertile females just for the fun
of it. Make a committment, get married and raise a family. Otherwise,
have a vasectomy and mess around all you want. And yes, it is that
simple. It's that simple for women, too.

Irresponsability has nothing to do with it.
Who was the deciever has nothing to do with it.
vasectomy...? OMG what about hysterectomy? (Who's making the choice for
men AGAIN?)
This is about CHOICE... PERIOD

Women have it. Men don't

It's archaiac

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

Both of them took the risk of pregnancy. The default position is that a
baby results. The end result is that if a woman does get an abortion,
then he's undeservedly off the hook.

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

Sure.


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

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


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

I'm not buying the "2 decades of virtual servitude" bit - to call that
loaded language would be a gross understatement. Supporting your child
is a natural consequence of having one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Having a child is a natural consequence
of having sex. Having sex is a choice. A smart person is careful about
who he or she has sex with, and limits it to partners who have the same
response to the non-zero risk of pregnancy that they do. A foolish
person isn't careful about this, and ends up facing the consequences.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill in Co. wrote:
Werebat wrote:

Bill in Co. wrote:


Moon Shyne wrote:


"Phil" wrote in message
arthlink.net...


"Bill in Co." wrote in message
rthlink.net...


Werebat wrote:


Bill in Co. wrote:


Joy wrote:


"DB" wrote in message
.prodigy.net...


"tonita" wrote in


consequences. Don't have sex with someone you wouldn't want to
become a parent with.

Ever hear of Beer?

If only we could all live in a perfect world and be as smart as

you!

So is it right to sentence a man to death if is can't pay the
extortionate CS rates?

Responsible people don't drink so much beer that they have
irresponsible sex.

Responsible people don't do (many) irresponsible things, but alas,

The

Greatest Generation is nearly all dead now.

Oh, blow it out your pompous ass.

Pray tell, which was this Greatest Generation? Give me dates.

- Ron ^*^

I guess you're still a bit too young to know, if you have to ask that.

Well, perhaps Tom Brokaw can enlighten you in that regard, since he

used

the term a fair amount during his "tenure".

But then again, perhaps not......
I'll leave the light on for ya, but I won't wait up.

Being nearly 60, I am unfamiliar with the term. The fact that you

appear to

get your information from one of the approved newtworks speaks volumes.

No, apparently the "volumes spoken" have been lost on you. (Want to try
again)? Hint: some further info was provided below, hopefully for

your

enlightenment (if that is even possible)

You really are a pompous ass.


ROFL!! (Look who is talking). Got a mirror handy?
"The things we hate most about others are the things that we deny exist
within ourselves". (cogitate on that for awhile, if you're up to it)


And you're too lazy to provide simple information, too.


I'm not going to do all your work for you, grasshopper.


From School Library Journal:
"YA-Brokaw defines "the greatest generation" as American citizens who
came of age during the Great Depression and the Second World War and
went on to build modern America."

Now you could have simply told me that when I asked, but no, you had to
pretend to be some kind of an enigmatic sage. Fine.


That's right. Now you're learning.
(good first step)

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

- Ron ^*^

"DB" wrote in message
om...

How is this for your laws lady, I immigrated here 3 years ago to find out
that I owe $52,000 in CS arrearages and face a possible 4 years in State
prison. I'm currently earning about 10 bucks an hour and haven't a hope in
hell of paying this extortionate amount of money plus the $500 monthly
payments they want too!!!!!!!!!

Whoa! How did you end up in this situation?

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

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

You really think that? Then why don't they just take the babies from the
moms at birth, and force both parents to pay child support until one or
both can work out a way to support the child together? Instead, they
supplement the mother while going after the father for every penny that is
paid to mom and child for welfare. If they really supported 2-parent
families, they wouldn't have made it so easy to divorce, and for dad to
supplement mom for years after.

That day is coming. They are already in our bedroom, now they are in your
wombs, and in the future they will be in your heads also. Just an Orwellian
prediction.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

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

R wrote:
I think we're missing the point of this. What is being asked of the
court is a man who had no interest in fathering and parenting a child
was duped by a woman who is forcing this man into parenting a child via
child support. The woman named in the suit had a choice; She could have
aborted the pregnancy, put the child up for adoption, or in this case,
kept the baby. The man however, had no choice. He was ordered by the
court to parent the child via child support. This, according to the
suit, is unconstitutional. I agree with this argument. The other
thoughts or opinions that have been discussed so far here are
irrelevant. If the woman has a choice, so should the man

I agree with R here. If the woman does have a choice.. then so
should the man. However the only large problem I can see here is that
ROE vs WADE was never ment to be used as the ability to force men in
CS.

R vs W was never meant to be anything more then declaring that women
have the right to choose for themselves if an operation can be
conducted on them. It has nothing to do with Parental rights... It has
nothing to do deciding paternity ect.. all the way down the line.

So I applaud the efforts of such a case. However I don't think it
will honestly have much of an effect as the Courts will probably come
up with a ruling that will clarify such things. And that stuff like CS
has be decided in the Legislature, not the courts.

To me the only way we can protect my fellow men from such an unfair
thing at this juncture in the game is education. Start teaching our
men from an early age. Drill it into them that these women are evil,
and want something from you. And we as men need to protect our sperm
like it's a rare comdity.

How about if the courts force both parents to pay into a child support
fund
for the child. Using financials provided by the custodial parent (with
proof of course), an amount is set for housing, food, etc, per month for
the child. ALL the rest of the money may be used ONLY WITH PROOF that it
is
being spent directly on the child--not for the upkeep of the household,
which is the CP's responsibility. So "but the child will swim in the
pool,
too" does not rate as a way to spend CS funds. Ten different sports per
year that the child drops out of one after another also does not rate. A
new car does not rate, because the car is the CP's responsibility, just as
the NCPs car is his responsibility. In other words, garnish the CP's
wages,
too. Then listen to the "it's just too much money--how will I live"
screeching that goes on.

How about if the courts keep their nose out of what's NOT their business?