Pay someone for their decision?

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...


The sad thing is that the law has not really stopped the irresponsible
from
running around fathering children. The law does not even go after those
who
have absolutely no means to pay. It's not worth the money spent of
catching
them if they can't pay anyway. Many of those who are caught in the system
we now have do not want to abandon their children--they, in fact, want to
be
part of their children's lives, but are treated as visitors and walking
wallets. They see their children at the mother's whim. They are told not
to
start a new family until they have finished paying for current children.
Now, the mothers are not told to have no subsequent children, because the
men who father those children will be held responsible for them. But a
father paying child support gets no consideration for any child that is
not
on the support order. This may sound trivial to you, but would you want
to
spend 21 years of your life with no hope of a family, because you are
forced
to pay a lifestyle, rather than a needs, support for a child you rarely
get
to see? You need to look more deeply into the system rather than just
blowing off the concerns of people who have been caught up in it for
years.
They just may have something to say that is worth your while to hear.




The truly sad thing is that the guvmint has created the problem in the first
place. It started with the nanny guvmint telling unwed mothers that they
could not recieve welfare (not that they should be receiving it in the first
place) if the father was living in the house. The guvmint basically tried
to take over the role of breadwinner, and the ensuing mess has resulted.
But people like 'stealing for kids' and their socialist mentality are
slowing destroying this country.

Men are not "primarily" held financially responsible for the child.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
...
The only "victim" is the child.

Unilateral decision??? It takes 2 to tango, not one.

If you dont want a child then dont have sex. Its as simple as that.

The only person here that being portrayed as a "victim" is the male, who
somehow thinks he doesnt need to be responsible after the sperm hits the
egg
because its not happening in his body. There is no unilateral decision,
its
was a bilaterial decision when the two consenting adults (or children as
the
case may be) have sex. Thats the point of conception and point of
bilaterial decision.

All of you think its just a cut and dry situation, that if a woman has
sex
with a man and pregnancy occurs then the woman somehow "post conception"
is
soley responsible for the child.

You have also clumped "women" into this group of people who just have
children to trap men. Sorry, but the only one who trapped themselves
was
the man who stuck his penis into a women and there was a child
conceived.

Again, if you dont want children be respectful to your self and smart
about
what you do.

Your "post conception unilaterial argument" is stale and quite frankly
would
mean that no man would be responisble for any child born, because the
mother
would have made the unilaterial decision to keep the child. Sorry, it
just
doesnt fly.

I do agree with you that people who do not want to risk having children
would be wise to abstain from sex. It is too bad that the sanctity of
marriage has fallen by the wayside. However, the problem being spoken of
here is not just about the women having the right to choose whether to
carry
a pregnancy to term. It's about all that follows. The MAN is held to be
primarily financially responsible for the child, while the woman gets the
majority of rights to the child. How often do you see true shared
custody?
The child needs both parents to be in his life, a part of his life. Not
one
doing the nurturing, and the sother sending money. When a woman decides
to
carry a conception to birth, she is chosing 21 years of lifestyle support
from the father. HE has no choice about how much to pay. There is no
requirement that the father and mother sit down and discuss what is best
for
the cild. A JUDGE gets to decide that. And if the parents do, by chance,
come up with what they consider an equitable solution, the judge can
overrule them and insist that it be done by the book--as if the parents
have
no right to decide what is best for their child! Look a little more
closely
at the system. You might be surprised at what you find there.

"Paul Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
...
The only "victim" is the child.

Unilateral decision??? It takes 2 to tango, not one.

Sprry clueless......but it only takes ONE (and only one is allowed to)
make
the decision to birth a child

IT TAKES TWO TO MAKE A CHILD!!!


If you dont want a child then dont have sex. Its as simple as that.

Then the same MUST apply to women

Read my other post clueless


The only person here that being portrayed as a "victim" is the male, who
somehow thinks he doesnt need to be responsible after the sperm hits the
egg
because its not happening in his body. There is no unilateral decision,
its
was a bilaterial decision when the two consenting adults (or children as
the
case may be) have sex. Thats the point of conception and point of
bilaterial decision.

And after that point, a woman has a sole and unilateral choice to birtha
child or not, Women should be responsible for their sole and unilateral
choices......No amount of tap dancing will get arounf that fact.

Sorry, but you dont quite "get it".



All of you think its just a cut and dry situation, that if a woman has
sex
with a man and pregnancy occurs then the woman somehow "post conception"
is
soley responsible for the child.

Yes.

In many cases the woman finds out shes pregnant to far along for an
abortion, then what? There was No "Unilaterial decision" made.

You have also clumped "women" into this group of people who just have
children to trap men. Sorry, but the only one who trapped themselves
was
the man who stuck his penis into a women and there was a child
conceived.

Women as victims......how quaint

and you men in here are saying exactly what? All I here is "Im a
victim...", the only true victim is the children.


Again, if you dont want children be respectful to your self and smart
about
what you do.




Your "post conception unilaterial argument" is stale and quite frankly
would
mean that no man would be responisble for any child born, because the
mother
would have made the unilaterial decision to keep the child. Sorry, it
just
doesnt fly.

Only with the 'women as victims' crowd

Whatever the "men are victims" crowd is just as much to blame.

"Paul Fritz" wrote in message
...


Too bad you conviently forgot the fact that conception DOES NOT equal
birth

Actually it depends on what side of the fence you sit on. Some individuals
in this country, male and female, believe the second contreceptions occurs
that a child has been made and aborting one would be considered murder.
There is no other alternative to them but to have the child.

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
news
Men are not "primarily" held financially responsible for the child.
==
You really don't know much do you? We paid over 60% of the state's indicated
"support need."
That's "primarily responsible." You do the math.
==
==

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
The sad thing is that the law has not really stopped the irresponsible
from
running around fathering children....

The only true "victim" is the child. The mother and father are more
concerned and wrapped up in playing games most of the time that the child
gets ignored. BOTH parents are guilty of neglecting their children.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

The sad thing is that the law has not really stopped the irresponsible
from running around fathering children....

And the other sad part is that the law has really not stopped the
irresponsible from running around getting "knocked up" and burdening the
taxpayer ( and their recreational sex partners) with the tab for those choices.


I really find it offensive at hell the gall at attacking men because some
woman has had 19 children by 23 different fathers! It's all men's fault and
the poor innocent women are victims. I want to puke!

There is only one thing that makes me more violently ill that the liars who
claim that; "it's all men's fault" and that is the idiots who believe them when
they make that claim.

"gini52" wrote in message
...

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
...

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...


Again, the answer to this is so OBVIOUS, that it hardly needs to be
pointed out. But I'll point it out anyway.

Obvious only to serve your own agenda maybe, but to many your obviously
not
reading things and going to sex education classes.

In the U.S. no one tells women that, if they don't want to become
pregnant, they shouldn't have sex. Quite the reverse -- huge changes
have been inflicted upon society, through such things as free access
to
abortion, to give women post-conception reproductive choice, as it is
called.

In the US great emphasis is placed on women not having sex because if a
child results she is the one that will be left to take care of the
child,
that the father will run out on her, and that he most likely wont pay
support. This woman will be left to take care of a child, that two
people
made, on her own.

-----------------
Ha this is a joke! There is no emphasis on women not having sex because she
will be left to care for the child. Not with this huge cs machine in place
to grind every man down, (whether they are the biological father or not),
and give huge lifestyle awards to women via the state, (can't forget about
those federal funds!).

If a women can't take care of a child on her own then the father should get
custody. And if neither of them can, give it up for adoption.
--------------------
As far as this "free access to abortion" what planet are you living on.
Ive
never seen free access to an abortion clinic, most of the time its
extremely
expensive to get an abortion done.
-------------------------
I think "extremely expensive" is pushing it. Yeah it costs some, ($200 to
$300 here), but you can't even begin to compare it with the costs of having
a baby.

"Extremely expensive", bah!
------------------------
IT boils down to this, women and men
when they have sex are not guaranteed that they are not going to
conceive
a
child. If they do, then that child is the responsibility of BOTH
parents.
Why should a man get to just say, "I dont want a child" then be release
of
his duties as a parent.
==
Umm...because the mother does?
==
-----------------------------
Yanno Gini she or he is another one who is going to refuse to "get it" no
matter what. A man should get to say "I don't want a child" and then be
released of his duties as a parent because women already have this right.
To say if you don't want to be a father then keep your dick in your pants
while not saying (nearly) the same thing to women is just more proof of the
unilateral 'rights' women have.

To me a woman "oopsing" a man is no better than one who falsly cries rape.
It makes all women look bad. And both should be held accountable for their
crimnal actions.

I believe that protection should always be used but if something happens,
like the condom breaks, it is not murder if the woman goes the next day to a
clinic and gets the morning after pill. All it does is immediately bring on
your period.

I don't like the idea of being marked a victim just because some other women
can't make it on their own.

~AZ~


==

"AZ Astrea" wrote in message
...

-----------------
Ha this is a joke! There is no emphasis on women not having sex because
she
will be left to care for the child. Not with this huge cs machine in
place
to grind every man down, (whether they are the biological father or not),
and give huge lifestyle awards to women via the state, (can't forget about
those federal funds!).

If a women can't take care of a child on her own then the father should
get
custody. And if neither of them can, give it up for adoption.
--------------------
Lifesyle support? What do you think the average support award is? It sure
isnt enough to support a "lifestyle" or even a life in most cases.
-------------------------
I think "extremely expensive" is pushing it. Yeah it costs some, ($200 to
$300 here), but you can't even begin to compare it with the costs of
having
a baby.

"Extremely expensive", bah!
------------------------
I guess that depends on how much money you have at your finger tips, for
most people abortion is not somthing they can afford.

"Kenpangborn" wrote in message
...

The sad thing is that the law has not really stopped the irresponsible
from running around fathering children....

And the other sad part is that the law has really not stopped the
irresponsible from running around getting "knocked up" and burdening the
taxpayer ( and their recreational sex partners) with the tab for those
choices.

Takes two. .so its ok for men to go run around and knock them up, but they
get blamed for having the children? Two way street.



I really find it offensive at hell the gall at attacking men because
some
woman has had 19 children by 23 different fathers! It's all men's fault
and
the poor innocent women are victims. I want to puke!

Yeah and I bet the 23 different fathers have multiple children by multiple
women too. The men are just as bad. Takes two to tango.


There is only one thing that makes me more violently ill that the
liars who
claim that; "it's all men's fault" and that is the idiots who believe them
when
they make that claim.

Its not "all the men's fault", no one has said that here. It takes TWO.
Its the men and womens fault if they have a child that neither one wants.
The only "victim" is the child that results.