|
| 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 |
|
#102
December 23rd 03, 02:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"AZ Astrea" wrote in message ... "ME" wrote in message ... Because children have the right to make their own decisions without one parent telling them things about the other parent...The child has this right and it should not be influenced by talk from the other parent. Let the child make their own decision of the absent parent and then talk to them about it. I didn't say anything about giving the child a biased opinion of dad--I asked why she didn't redirect the child's attention to something else. Noone said she didn't. -------------- So she's doing everything 'right' and he is still so screwed up by the age of six?!! WTF? I wonder how all the other kids without dads managed to at least survive till puberty? It's a fact that single mother households produce more screwed up kids but this one really pushes things. -------------- Do any parents do everything 'right'? No....Have you read the other threads on this because it seems you missed some things...The child has behavioral disorders as well. And the child is 'surviving' as you said, he just wants his dad in his life. WHY is this child, who has never had dad full time in his life, so focussed on what he DOESN'T have? Because he sees all of his cousins, friends, neighborhood children, school children who's fathers are taking them to games, the park, for ice cream, playing with the outside---and the child wants to know why his dad doesnt do these things. Is that so hard of a concept to grasp? He sees what he doesnt have. If he sees his friend with a trampoline he wants to know why he doesnt have one. And if he wants one, is it immediately given to him? If he doesn't get exactly what he wants, does he go into fits over it? No if he wants something it is not immediatley given to him. And sometimes their are fits...as I am sure you see in your classroom wiht ADHD ODD children As you say he is focused on what he doesnt have by seeing others that have it....children do that. Yes, children do that--that is how children--and adults with credit cards--are. OUCH MY EARS--Credit Cards scare me LOL (sorry had to add that bit of humor) But the answer is sometimes "no--can't do that." And children need to learn to accept that. Yes they do ---------------- And accepting that dad is not there is something they have to learn to accept. ------------ Yes This child eventually needs to understand that he has no power over the situation. Or is he given everything he wants by mom, so he thinks he should be obeyed by dad, too? By far isnt given everything.... There is way more to this story than poor, helpless mom doing all she can to help poor helpless baby deal with hateful, nasty dad. I never said dad was nasty---he is absent and irresponsible... Is there an underlying diagnosis that you are not sharing, such as childhood schizophrenia or something? no schizophrenia, diagnosis of ADHD and ODD Ah, now that helps to understand the situation. Do you think that dad's presence would "cure" him of these problems? No it would definitly not ------------------- Dads NOT being there caused the problems and dads being there would NOT cure him. Sounds like a no win to me. --------------------- Dad NOT being there DIDNT help anything either...I never said dad being there would cure him, in fact look up --- I said dads presence would not cure his problems but it may make the child feel better to have his dad in his life---some of the people responding to this thread are not reading everything, or are simply blinded by some of the facts because you are so hell bent on bashing Mom right now. I have had many such children in my classroom over the years. Dad's unending presence in his life will not fix him--he needs to learn to control his behavior--and he needs help doing that. I am assuming that he is taking some sort of medication to help him. Different meds have been tried. Yes they are helping some. He gets little special help at school, specifically on those 'bad days' And getting special help at school. Solid, 2-parent families struggle to help their ADHD, ODD children. There is no magical setting or situation that can make it all better. Yes, I know. snip for length 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. All women can do is sit around and wait for a man to give them money? NO to live up to the responsibility of being a father---didnt you see i said before that forget about child support payments --- parental responsibilities of the mother OR father is much more than child support in form of money You very plainly said that all women can do is sit around and wait for dad to live up to his responsibilities. What do widowed women do? now that is way off the subject...most widowed women dont have children living at home that need their PARENTS (not saying their arent some)...this is about parents of small children. ------------------- I don't think she is talking little old lady widows. There are lots of widows with young children to raise. Think 9/11 firefighters for instance. NOTICE I said most widows---I know there are plenty out there that are young and have kids--- ---------------- Sit around and wait for another man? A home with both a mother and a father is the ideal thing for children--but it is not always possible. And "sitting around waiting" doesn't fix that. I didnt mean sitting around waiting literally. Figure of speech. ----------- Figure of speech and maybe a mindset as well? and what exactly does that mean? havent you ever used a figure of speech before without meaning it literaly? Oh, sorry, I forgot you are perfect in every way. ------------ What? Women can't work and earn money? Sure they can--did I say that? NO But lets just let absent parent off without helping to support his/her children--- Two different topics. Sure, both parents SHOULD be involved in their children's lives. But, if that isn't happening, "sitting around waiting" is not going to fix things. No matter what SHOULD be happening, the parent with the child MUST do what needs to be done, because "sitting around waiting" is not a viable option. again you took sitting around waiting too literrally.... Women can't take children on outings? of course they can.... So is Baby's mom taking him to the park, ball games, etc, like the other kids' fathers are? Instead of sitting around waiting for dad to do so? do you always take things so literally? Yes mom does such things and more with the child but dad doesnt....the point is Child Support cut out of picture--pretend it doesnt even exist in monetary form--why doesnt Dad (in this case) bother to 'spend time' with the child....yes mom spends time--why doesnt dad? ---------------- You answer your own question one sentence from here. ----------------- Sure mom can and does do these things, but wouldnt it be nice to have dad there too? Yes it would, but dad doesnt WANT to be there.... You keep saying the Dad doesn't want to spend time with the kid. Has NEVER wanted to be a dad. Dad doesn't WANT to be there. What in the world makes you think he is going to change?? I NEVER SAID I THOUGHT HE WOULD CHANGE-but when a child in a situation such as this, when a child turns 'of age' and knows the truth, the child is going to have some negative feelings toward the absent parent, in this case the father. From the start he has wanted absolutely nothing to do with the kid and yet there is all this, oh, "but wouldn't it be nice to have a dad there too?" I said the father was there for short periods of time through the years. Well, wouldn't it be nice if mommy had chosen more carefully who she was going to spread for instead of having the courts force parenthood down this guys throat? So--guys can have sex with anyone, take the chance of getting them pregnant, no matter what precautions were taken there is still that chance, but in the event she does get pregnant unplanned it is her fault and he has parenthood shoved down his throat? I don't think so, grow up. Maybe he should be more careful if he knows he doesnt want to be a father. And this girl, wasnt supposed to sleep with her boyfriend of 4 years? I don't know where you live but it must be neverland. Forced parenthood would apply to rape, molestation etc....not two people who had consensual sex and then one decided he/she doesnt want to be a father/mother. --------------- Women can't keep their children;s lives too full for moping? You just read too much into what I was saying---children need both parents -- wether they are together or seperated...absent parents dont have to spend time with children is what you see, to say. Yes, they certainly need both parents. They need both parents fully involved in their day to day lives--not one as the real parent, and the other as a paying visitor. But sometimes that just doesn't happen. And sitting around waiting isn't going to make it happen. again taken too literrally--you make it sound as if Mom is sitting on the couch watching out the window every day for Dad to appear....that isnt the case--- --------- Again, it can very well be a state of mind. ----------- Women can't point their children to the bright side of things? Women are so dependent on men that their children end up in psyciiatric hospitals if men don't do what women think they should? You are painting a very grim picture of women here. No I am not, you are by reading more into this than there is. I never said any of those things. The presence of dad may have helped the issues. I never even thought those things. You are the one painting the bad picture for women....or any custodial parent out there. Let's see--Dad doesn't visit regularly, kid ends up in psychiatric hospital, Dad may have helped had he been there. Sure dad may have helped....had he been there from the beginning and had an influence on the child maybe things wouldve been different, maybe not. But when the problems started coming up dad couldve helped by being there MORALLY EMOTIONALLY (phone calls maybe?) ------------------ Dad has obviously said over and over again that he does NOT want to be a dad. How many different ways does he have to say it?? He never 'said' he doesnt want to be a dad. He shows it but never said it. So the father who made this child, this childs flesh and blood, should jsut be excused from parenthood for being a jerk? ----------------- Ya know, when Mom called Dad to tell him child was in hospital Dad's mom hung up the phone saying 'sucks to be him' .... about a 6 year old kid?!?! Her own blood...Now you tell me that something wasn't going on in Dad's household to make him not bother. Oh thats right, alot of you reading this think Mom is to blame...Sorry I forgot. ------------ Apparantly his mom understands that he doesn't want to be a dad why can't the kids mom?? Because maybe she feels the child deserves both parents-- ------------- Women are stuck with sitting around waiting for dad to do the right thing. how about alot of Custodial Parents are wondering wether or not the Non Custodial Parent will ever do the right thing (earlier referred to as sitting around waiting).....I guess I must explain every statement I make because you are taking everything too darn literally. ------------------ "The right thing" in the custodial parents eyes anyway. Why should a man who never wanted to be a parent, and has stated as much since the beginning, be held accountable for the womans decision to be a mommy? BECAUSE HE WAS RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH TO HAVE SEX HE NEEDS TO BE RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH TO BE A DAD--You heard of if you do the crime, do the time? Your responsible enough to commit a deed or act of any kind then be responsible enough to give it your time. Seems to me you think the child doesnt deserve a father because mom picked someone who isnt ready to be a father. Wah Wah Wah, Mom has to raise child alone Wah Wah Wah, Dad has to pay child support Anyone think of the child here? Everyone is too busy crying over the adults feelings inthe situation, what about the childs feelings? ~AZ~ 
|
|
#103
December 23rd 03, 02:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"AZ Astrea" wrote in message ... "ME" wrote in message ... Because children have the right to make their own decisions without one parent telling them things about the other parent...The child has this right and it should not be influenced by talk from the other parent. Let the child make their own decision of the absent parent and then talk to them about it. I didn't say anything about giving the child a biased opinion of dad--I asked why she didn't redirect the child's attention to something else. Noone said she didn't. -------------- So she's doing everything 'right' and he is still so screwed up by the age of six?!! WTF? I wonder how all the other kids without dads managed to at least survive till puberty? It's a fact that single mother households produce more screwed up kids but this one really pushes things. -------------- Do any parents do everything 'right'? No....Have you read the other threads on this because it seems you missed some things...The child has behavioral disorders as well. And the child is 'surviving' as you said, he just wants his dad in his life. WHY is this child, who has never had dad full time in his life, so focussed on what he DOESN'T have? Because he sees all of his cousins, friends, neighborhood children, school children who's fathers are taking them to games, the park, for ice cream, playing with the outside---and the child wants to know why his dad doesnt do these things. Is that so hard of a concept to grasp? He sees what he doesnt have. If he sees his friend with a trampoline he wants to know why he doesnt have one. And if he wants one, is it immediately given to him? If he doesn't get exactly what he wants, does he go into fits over it? No if he wants something it is not immediatley given to him. And sometimes their are fits...as I am sure you see in your classroom wiht ADHD ODD children As you say he is focused on what he doesnt have by seeing others that have it....children do that. Yes, children do that--that is how children--and adults with credit cards--are. OUCH MY EARS--Credit Cards scare me LOL (sorry had to add that bit of humor) But the answer is sometimes "no--can't do that." And children need to learn to accept that. Yes they do ---------------- And accepting that dad is not there is something they have to learn to accept. ------------ Yes This child eventually needs to understand that he has no power over the situation. Or is he given everything he wants by mom, so he thinks he should be obeyed by dad, too? By far isnt given everything.... There is way more to this story than poor, helpless mom doing all she can to help poor helpless baby deal with hateful, nasty dad. I never said dad was nasty---he is absent and irresponsible... Is there an underlying diagnosis that you are not sharing, such as childhood schizophrenia or something? no schizophrenia, diagnosis of ADHD and ODD Ah, now that helps to understand the situation. Do you think that dad's presence would "cure" him of these problems? No it would definitly not ------------------- Dads NOT being there caused the problems and dads being there would NOT cure him. Sounds like a no win to me. --------------------- Dad NOT being there DIDNT help anything either...I never said dad being there would cure him, in fact look up --- I said dads presence would not cure his problems but it may make the child feel better to have his dad in his life---some of the people responding to this thread are not reading everything, or are simply blinded by some of the facts because you are so hell bent on bashing Mom right now. I have had many such children in my classroom over the years. Dad's unending presence in his life will not fix him--he needs to learn to control his behavior--and he needs help doing that. I am assuming that he is taking some sort of medication to help him. Different meds have been tried. Yes they are helping some. He gets little special help at school, specifically on those 'bad days' And getting special help at school. Solid, 2-parent families struggle to help their ADHD, ODD children. There is no magical setting or situation that can make it all better. Yes, I know. snip for length 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. All women can do is sit around and wait for a man to give them money? NO to live up to the responsibility of being a father---didnt you see i said before that forget about child support payments --- parental responsibilities of the mother OR father is much more than child support in form of money You very plainly said that all women can do is sit around and wait for dad to live up to his responsibilities. What do widowed women do? now that is way off the subject...most widowed women dont have children living at home that need their PARENTS (not saying their arent some)...this is about parents of small children. ------------------- I don't think she is talking little old lady widows. There are lots of widows with young children to raise. Think 9/11 firefighters for instance. NOTICE I said most widows---I know there are plenty out there that are young and have kids--- ---------------- Sit around and wait for another man? A home with both a mother and a father is the ideal thing for children--but it is not always possible. And "sitting around waiting" doesn't fix that. I didnt mean sitting around waiting literally. Figure of speech. ----------- Figure of speech and maybe a mindset as well? and what exactly does that mean? havent you ever used a figure of speech before without meaning it literaly? Oh, sorry, I forgot you are perfect in every way. ------------ What? Women can't work and earn money? Sure they can--did I say that? NO But lets just let absent parent off without helping to support his/her children--- Two different topics. Sure, both parents SHOULD be involved in their children's lives. But, if that isn't happening, "sitting around waiting" is not going to fix things. No matter what SHOULD be happening, the parent with the child MUST do what needs to be done, because "sitting around waiting" is not a viable option. again you took sitting around waiting too literrally.... Women can't take children on outings? of course they can.... So is Baby's mom taking him to the park, ball games, etc, like the other kids' fathers are? Instead of sitting around waiting for dad to do so? do you always take things so literally? Yes mom does such things and more with the child but dad doesnt....the point is Child Support cut out of picture--pretend it doesnt even exist in monetary form--why doesnt Dad (in this case) bother to 'spend time' with the child....yes mom spends time--why doesnt dad? ---------------- You answer your own question one sentence from here. ----------------- Sure mom can and does do these things, but wouldnt it be nice to have dad there too? Yes it would, but dad doesnt WANT to be there.... You keep saying the Dad doesn't want to spend time with the kid. Has NEVER wanted to be a dad. Dad doesn't WANT to be there. What in the world makes you think he is going to change?? I NEVER SAID I THOUGHT HE WOULD CHANGE-but when a child in a situation such as this, when a child turns 'of age' and knows the truth, the child is going to have some negative feelings toward the absent parent, in this case the father. From the start he has wanted absolutely nothing to do with the kid and yet there is all this, oh, "but wouldn't it be nice to have a dad there too?" I said the father was there for short periods of time through the years. Well, wouldn't it be nice if mommy had chosen more carefully who she was going to spread for instead of having the courts force parenthood down this guys throat? So--guys can have sex with anyone, take the chance of getting them pregnant, no matter what precautions were taken there is still that chance, but in the event she does get pregnant unplanned it is her fault and he has parenthood shoved down his throat? I don't think so, grow up. Maybe he should be more careful if he knows he doesnt want to be a father. And this girl, wasnt supposed to sleep with her boyfriend of 4 years? I don't know where you live but it must be neverland. Forced parenthood would apply to rape, molestation etc....not two people who had consensual sex and then one decided he/she doesnt want to be a father/mother. --------------- Women can't keep their children;s lives too full for moping? You just read too much into what I was saying---children need both parents -- wether they are together or seperated...absent parents dont have to spend time with children is what you see, to say. Yes, they certainly need both parents. They need both parents fully involved in their day to day lives--not one as the real parent, and the other as a paying visitor. But sometimes that just doesn't happen. And sitting around waiting isn't going to make it happen. again taken too literrally--you make it sound as if Mom is sitting on the couch watching out the window every day for Dad to appear....that isnt the case--- --------- Again, it can very well be a state of mind. ----------- Women can't point their children to the bright side of things? Women are so dependent on men that their children end up in psyciiatric hospitals if men don't do what women think they should? You are painting a very grim picture of women here. No I am not, you are by reading more into this than there is. I never said any of those things. The presence of dad may have helped the issues. I never even thought those things. You are the one painting the bad picture for women....or any custodial parent out there. Let's see--Dad doesn't visit regularly, kid ends up in psychiatric hospital, Dad may have helped had he been there. Sure dad may have helped....had he been there from the beginning and had an influence on the child maybe things wouldve been different, maybe not. But when the problems started coming up dad couldve helped by being there MORALLY EMOTIONALLY (phone calls maybe?) ------------------ Dad has obviously said over and over again that he does NOT want to be a dad. How many different ways does he have to say it?? He never 'said' he doesnt want to be a dad. He shows it but never said it. So the father who made this child, this childs flesh and blood, should jsut be excused from parenthood for being a jerk? ----------------- Ya know, when Mom called Dad to tell him child was in hospital Dad's mom hung up the phone saying 'sucks to be him' .... about a 6 year old kid?!?! Her own blood...Now you tell me that something wasn't going on in Dad's household to make him not bother. Oh thats right, alot of you reading this think Mom is to blame...Sorry I forgot. ------------ Apparantly his mom understands that he doesn't want to be a dad why can't the kids mom?? Because maybe she feels the child deserves both parents-- ------------- Women are stuck with sitting around waiting for dad to do the right thing. how about alot of Custodial Parents are wondering wether or not the Non Custodial Parent will ever do the right thing (earlier referred to as sitting around waiting).....I guess I must explain every statement I make because you are taking everything too darn literally. ------------------ "The right thing" in the custodial parents eyes anyway. Why should a man who never wanted to be a parent, and has stated as much since the beginning, be held accountable for the womans decision to be a mommy? BECAUSE HE WAS RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH TO HAVE SEX HE NEEDS TO BE RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH TO BE A DAD--You heard of if you do the crime, do the time? Your responsible enough to commit a deed or act of any kind then be responsible enough to give it your time. Seems to me you think the child doesnt deserve a father because mom picked someone who isnt ready to be a father. Wah Wah Wah, Mom has to raise child alone Wah Wah Wah, Dad has to pay child support Anyone think of the child here? Everyone is too busy crying over the adults feelings inthe situation, what about the childs feelings? ~AZ~
|
|
#104
December 23rd 03, 02:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
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......... ------- Oh, I see, you seem to have thought that this was RU486 which does induce abortions but you never said ...... oh, never mind. Excuse me for not knowing everything involved with a pill(s) that I will never use...I never said it induced abortion I never said it didnt...you really should read other threads where good points were made about this pill that I agreed with--- --------- ---------------------------- 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. -------------- Actually in a perfect world women would not sleep with guys who were such losers in the first place and if they did, would at least realize that choosing to give birth to and keep said losers kid is not going to turn loser into their ideal of a perfect dad. Then if they decide to keep said losers kid in spite of knowing this, they assume full responsibility for the care and raising of kid. Sure, again who cares that loser guy did the deed too. So they never discussed children, having them, not having them, want them, not wanting them...it happened, but let loser guy off the hook because he said he doesnt want to be a father. If both parties, mother and father, said this we would have even more unwanted, unloved children without homes who are waiting for someone to adopt them that wasnt blessed with the miracle of having their own children. But if mom said this, that she doesnt want to care and raise a child, everyone involved would judge her so much differently than they would dad. --------- ------------------ 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? -------------- Dad shouldn't be responsible for her actions. They both chose to have sex. She chose to take it further and become a parent. Dad has said from the beginning that he didn't want to be a dad. No, in the beginning he said the baby wasnt his. He never said he doesnt want to be a dad, the most he said in that respect was 6 years ago he said he wasnt ready to be a dad. ------------ -------------------------- 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 ----------- At least in your eyes. As long as dad is breathing it is assumed he is able to pay cs. Never mind he may be in an iron lung, (or the modern equivalent). I know dad, you don't... ------------- --------------------- ....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? ------------------- ---------- Like TM said, "Children pretty much tend to accept that what is happening in their lives is normal--they have nothing else to compare it to." I agree with TM and unless someone calls their attention to it they are not going to be aware of it. Until they see their friends, relatives etc. who have fathers they wont realize its different. Then they start asking questions. ----------- 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..... --------------- The point is he is held accountable for what he should or shouldn't be allowed to spend HIS money on. The cp is NEVER held accountable for what she spends his money on. And it is HIS money. Not all CP's spend the money in a way not benefiting the child. Moderate it, have CP show receipts, have NCP spend X amount monthly on clothes, toys, food, day care expenses and send that in as child support. Wouldnt bother me one bit---send it in the form of gift cards for a childrens clothes store--send a receipt showing NCP paid day care expenses for the week--I mean geezzz, NCP doesnt have to worry about finding a babysittier/day care he/she can afford so he/she could go to work. CS doesnt have to be in monetary form...but there has to be some kind of support from the NCP. ------------- -------------------- 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.. ------------ That is messed up. If, by some chance, the kid, all on his own, asked why his dad wasn't around, mom could have simply said, because he's not. There was no need to put 'dad' on the spot like that. I wouldn't have been surprised if he had said something like, "because I'm not your 'dad, I was just a sperm donor." That would have been hard on the kid but no worse than what the mom did by putting him in the situation. Then dad would be the biggest jerkoff alive and should be slapped around until he realized what he just did to that child. Mom was put on the spot and didnt know what to say either. ------------ -------------------- 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 paments. 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. -------------------- When has the father of this kid ever wanted the responsibilities of fatherhood? Did you think that this guy, upon seeing his baby boys face, was going to somehow miraculously be transformed into some ideal loving, caring daddy? He DOSN'T WANT to take the kid to the park. He DOESN'T WANT to send a card on birthdays. He DOESN'T WANT to call and see how school went. OBVIOUSLY Who cares if he WANTED the respnsibilities--he did the deed so he should be held up to take the responsibility. No, sitting around and waiting for something that is NEVER going to happen is not all women can do. Many women deal with reality and get on with their life. They stop deluding themselves and take responsibility for theirs and the kids well being. I can't stand women like this who think that they can sleep with whoever they want, break the 'rules' as far as having kids without being married and then whine about it when the loser they spread for doesn't step up and become an enthusiastic daddy. Women who 'spread for whover they want'? Waht about the men the stick it in whoever they want? This case, they were a couple... I will never get past this next statement--a woman sleeps with 30 guys she is a slut--a man sleeps with 30 girls and he is cool-- What kind of man (or woman) turns his/her back on his/her cihld? (considering in fact that the sex was consensual between both of them) They want all the benefits of having a husband and a loving father for their children without actually having to do anything about it. Without doing anything about it?? What are you talking about? Doing anything about what? What does a woman have to say, or what can she do, when he doesnt want to be a father or a husband. There is noting she 'can do about it'. She sure cant pressure him into it. So your statement about 'without acutally having to do anything about it' is messedup. They just want the government to legislate it into the loser and when that doesn't work, then dammit, they want his money. Yeah, money to support the child that he made. He was there too, she didnt get pregnant on her own. It costs money to raise children, but why not let dad of scot free--I mean geezz he doesnt want to be a father--that should hold up in any debate...ya know I don't want to pay my bills I make each month either, I still have to...You make a child, you pay for it, you make a bill, you pay for it....fair or not. My electric bill was $112 last month, I don't agree with that amount since my bill has been between $30-$80 for the last two years but I have to pay it if I want to keep the lights and heater on....I wouldn't argue getting no money, if NCP would simply provide in the material form what the child needs--CP tells NCP going school shopping--agree that the child's clothing and supplies will cost say $150. CP goes shopping gets $100 in items, lets NCP know what he/she got so he/she can go get $750 in other items the child needs.Child day care/babysitter costs CP pays part and NCP drops off part on his way home from work Friday afternoon--or his way to work Friday afternoon...whichever. Child gets sick, medical bill of say $200...NCP writes a check to ABC Doctor send it in or drops it off, as does CP...That would be ideal child support to me. Then no money is given to CP but they are still taking the responsibility inhelping raise the child. I do however dont think that NCP shouldnt be responsoble for exactly half--maybe 60/40 for certain things 70/30 for some--since CP obviously wants to have the child in his/her custody it only be fair if he/she puts up a little more than NCP. I have never said that child support needs to be in monetary form. What I jsut tried to explain would be just as good, if not better, since there would be less fighting over money between CP and NCP. ------------------ ------------------- 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? --------------- Sure, a man can sign his parental rights away but he can't sign away having to pay cs. If a man signs away parental rights then he does just that. No more child support. As with everything else, the woman has the say whether to allow it. A man should be able to 'sign off' from being a parent as completely and absolutely as a women is able to sign of on being a parent by having an abortion, giving the kid up for adoption or abandoning him. No one can tell a woman that she CAN'T do those things. And noone said those things were right either. ----------- -------------------- 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. --------------- How much to raise a child? Well, if a child does not die of starvation or something else then the very fact that the child has been 'raised' is proof that whatever the amount the parent, (or even parents), had, was 'enough', to 'raise' the child. That is so lame. So if child walks around in torn clothing, misses a week of school every year for colds or flu because the parent(s) doesnt have money to take them to the doctor, If the child eats and drinks bread and water...but lives to be 18 then child is raised? I would expect parents of any kind to want more for their children. Propper clothing, propper medical care, full stomachs with decent food.... -------------- 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.... ----------- Is the child alive and healthy? If so then they are receiving enough to be raised. It takes whatever it takes. It should not based on how much parents earn. Just because parents earn lots of money doesn't mean that the amount it takes to raise a kid is more. READ OTHER THREADS I alrady said that it doesnt take mroe to raise a child just because you are wealthy. And kids of divorce, in reality, don't have the advantages of two parent households and that is just the reality and for the government to order that the standard of living should remain the same is delusional. Yes and 1 of the advantages of two parent households is more money coming in to help support the family (children). Two incomes is more likely to provide proper clothing, food, and medical care than 1 income. ~AZ~ --------------------- 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.
|
|
#105
December 23rd 03, 02:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
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......... ------- Oh, I see, you seem to have thought that this was RU486 which does induce abortions but you never said ...... oh, never mind. Excuse me for not knowing everything involved with a pill(s) that I will never use...I never said it induced abortion I never said it didnt...you really should read other threads where good points were made about this pill that I agreed with--- --------- ---------------------------- 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. -------------- Actually in a perfect world women would not sleep with guys who were such losers in the first place and if they did, would at least realize that choosing to give birth to and keep said losers kid is not going to turn loser into their ideal of a perfect dad. Then if they decide to keep said losers kid in spite of knowing this, they assume full responsibility for the care and raising of kid. Sure, again who cares that loser guy did the deed too. So they never discussed children, having them, not having them, want them, not wanting them...it happened, but let loser guy off the hook because he said he doesnt want to be a father. If both parties, mother and father, said this we would have even more unwanted, unloved children without homes who are waiting for someone to adopt them that wasnt blessed with the miracle of having their own children. But if mom said this, that she doesnt want to care and raise a child, everyone involved would judge her so much differently than they would dad. --------- ------------------ 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? -------------- Dad shouldn't be responsible for her actions. They both chose to have sex. She chose to take it further and become a parent. Dad has said from the beginning that he didn't want to be a dad. No, in the beginning he said the baby wasnt his. He never said he doesnt want to be a dad, the most he said in that respect was 6 years ago he said he wasnt ready to be a dad. ------------ -------------------------- 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 ----------- At least in your eyes. As long as dad is breathing it is assumed he is able to pay cs. Never mind he may be in an iron lung, (or the modern equivalent). I know dad, you don't... ------------- --------------------- ....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? ------------------- ---------- Like TM said, "Children pretty much tend to accept that what is happening in their lives is normal--they have nothing else to compare it to." I agree with TM and unless someone calls their attention to it they are not going to be aware of it. Until they see their friends, relatives etc. who have fathers they wont realize its different. Then they start asking questions. ----------- 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..... --------------- The point is he is held accountable for what he should or shouldn't be allowed to spend HIS money on. The cp is NEVER held accountable for what she spends his money on. And it is HIS money. Not all CP's spend the money in a way not benefiting the child. Moderate it, have CP show receipts, have NCP spend X amount monthly on clothes, toys, food, day care expenses and send that in as child support. Wouldnt bother me one bit---send it in the form of gift cards for a childrens clothes store--send a receipt showing NCP paid day care expenses for the week--I mean geezzz, NCP doesnt have to worry about finding a babysittier/day care he/she can afford so he/she could go to work. CS doesnt have to be in monetary form...but there has to be some kind of support from the NCP. ------------- -------------------- 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.. ------------ That is messed up. If, by some chance, the kid, all on his own, asked why his dad wasn't around, mom could have simply said, because he's not. There was no need to put 'dad' on the spot like that. I wouldn't have been surprised if he had said something like, "because I'm not your 'dad, I was just a sperm donor." That would have been hard on the kid but no worse than what the mom did by putting him in the situation. Then dad would be the biggest jerkoff alive and should be slapped around until he realized what he just did to that child. Mom was put on the spot and didnt know what to say either. ------------ -------------------- 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 paments. 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. -------------------- When has the father of this kid ever wanted the responsibilities of fatherhood? Did you think that this guy, upon seeing his baby boys face, was going to somehow miraculously be transformed into some ideal loving, caring daddy? He DOSN'T WANT to take the kid to the park. He DOESN'T WANT to send a card on birthdays. He DOESN'T WANT to call and see how school went. OBVIOUSLY Who cares if he WANTED the respnsibilities--he did the deed so he should be held up to take the responsibility. No, sitting around and waiting for something that is NEVER going to happen is not all women can do. Many women deal with reality and get on with their life. They stop deluding themselves and take responsibility for theirs and the kids well being. I can't stand women like this who think that they can sleep with whoever they want, break the 'rules' as far as having kids without being married and then whine about it when the loser they spread for doesn't step up and become an enthusiastic daddy. Women who 'spread for whover they want'? Waht about the men the stick it in whoever they want? This case, they were a couple... I will never get past this next statement--a woman sleeps with 30 guys she is a slut--a man sleeps with 30 girls and he is cool-- What kind of man (or woman) turns his/her back on his/her cihld? (considering in fact that the sex was consensual between both of them) They want all the benefits of having a husband and a loving father for their children without actually having to do anything about it. Without doing anything about it?? What are you talking about? Doing anything about what? What does a woman have to say, or what can she do, when he doesnt want to be a father or a husband. There is noting she 'can do about it'. She sure cant pressure him into it. So your statement about 'without acutally having to do anything about it' is messedup. They just want the government to legislate it into the loser and when that doesn't work, then dammit, they want his money. Yeah, money to support the child that he made. He was there too, she didnt get pregnant on her own. It costs money to raise children, but why not let dad of scot free--I mean geezz he doesnt want to be a father--that should hold up in any debate...ya know I don't want to pay my bills I make each month either, I still have to...You make a child, you pay for it, you make a bill, you pay for it....fair or not. My electric bill was $112 last month, I don't agree with that amount since my bill has been between $30-$80 for the last two years but I have to pay it if I want to keep the lights and heater on....I wouldn't argue getting no money, if NCP would simply provide in the material form what the child needs--CP tells NCP going school shopping--agree that the child's clothing and supplies will cost say $150. CP goes shopping gets $100 in items, lets NCP know what he/she got so he/she can go get $750 in other items the child needs.Child day care/babysitter costs CP pays part and NCP drops off part on his way home from work Friday afternoon--or his way to work Friday afternoon...whichever. Child gets sick, medical bill of say $200...NCP writes a check to ABC Doctor send it in or drops it off, as does CP...That would be ideal child support to me. Then no money is given to CP but they are still taking the responsibility inhelping raise the child. I do however dont think that NCP shouldnt be responsoble for exactly half--maybe 60/40 for certain things 70/30 for some--since CP obviously wants to have the child in his/her custody it only be fair if he/she puts up a little more than NCP. I have never said that child support needs to be in monetary form. What I jsut tried to explain would be just as good, if not better, since there would be less fighting over money between CP and NCP. ------------------ ------------------- 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? --------------- Sure, a man can sign his parental rights away but he can't sign away having to pay cs. If a man signs away parental rights then he does just that. No more child support. As with everything else, the woman has the say whether to allow it. A man should be able to 'sign off' from being a parent as completely and absolutely as a women is able to sign of on being a parent by having an abortion, giving the kid up for adoption or abandoning him. No one can tell a woman that she CAN'T do those things. And noone said those things were right either. ----------- -------------------- 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. --------------- How much to raise a child? Well, if a child does not die of starvation or something else then the very fact that the child has been 'raised' is proof that whatever the amount the parent, (or even parents), had, was 'enough', to 'raise' the child. That is so lame. So if child walks around in torn clothing, misses a week of school every year for colds or flu because the parent(s) doesnt have money to take them to the doctor, If the child eats and drinks bread and water...but lives to be 18 then child is raised? I would expect parents of any kind to want more for their children. Propper clothing, propper medical care, full stomachs with decent food.... -------------- 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.... ----------- Is the child alive and healthy? If so then they are receiving enough to be raised. It takes whatever it takes. It should not based on how much parents earn. Just because parents earn lots of money doesn't mean that the amount it takes to raise a kid is more. READ OTHER THREADS I alrady said that it doesnt take mroe to raise a child just because you are wealthy. And kids of divorce, in reality, don't have the advantages of two parent households and that is just the reality and for the government to order that the standard of living should remain the same is delusional. Yes and 1 of the advantages of two parent households is more money coming in to help support the family (children). Two incomes is more likely to provide proper clothing, food, and medical care than 1 income. ~AZ~ --------------------- 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.
|
|
#106
December 23rd 03, 02:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"AZ Astrea" wrote in message ... "ME" wrote in message ... "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. ------------- Good lord!!!! I can't believe you said this! MEN CAN NOT SIGN AWAY THEIR PARENTAL RIGHTS THE SAME WAY THAT WOMEN CAN!!!!! Women DO NOT have to get permission from the man to have an abortion, put the baby up for adoption or to abandon the baby!!! Men HAVE TO be ALLOWED to by the women in order to get out of paying child support! I wasnt talking abortion etc. I was talking simply what I said. SIGNING away parental rights---you know child is born already---NCP has to be allowed by CP to sign away is true, but the reality of it is there.... ---------- 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.... ----------- You may say it's 50 50 as much as you want but that's not the way it is. A women has 100% of the ability to impose fatherhood on a man after conception. A man has 0%. And a woman has the right to not believe in abortion etc. The man had the right to 'slip up' (if you will)....lets face it--when getting pregnant the man has more control since he is the one who controls his own sperm IMPOSE FATHERHOOD? Dont have sex if you dont want to take the chance of that happening...pretty simple... ----------- (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 ---------------- Together they may have decided to have sex. They each had an equal part in that decision. The decision to have sex. Sex. I doubt that before they hopped into bed they decided to become parents. Well if mom didnt decided to become a parent, and dad didnt, then it was an accident....but only one party should live up to the responsibility they gave themself when they slept 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? ------------ Do you see what anyone else is saying? The decision, post-conception belongs to the mom and the mom alone. When a man can tell a woman that she must have an abortion and be able, legally to force her to do so or when a man can tell a woman that she has to remain pregnant and give birth to the kid and be able, legally to force her to do so then things will be fair. Having an abortion can put moms life at risk also, the baby is in moms body and she has a right to decide what happens toher own body, you have the choice of being fixed--dont want to be a parent but cant stop sleeping around? Get clipped, dont expect a woman to have surgery because you are too irresonsible to live up to your actions. Legally force a woman to have an abortion??? Disgusting---how about a better angle--you want her to have an abortion, she will not---so legally force the woman to let you sign away your rights as a parent, as well as sign away any child support. Or maybe it would just be easier to allow the father to opt-out ot parenthood and then if the woman wants the kid anyway it can be her responsibility. If she can't afford to raise it then give it up for adoption. Why should the rest of the world have to pay because she wanted to be a mommy? ~AZ~ 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.
|
|
#107
December 23rd 03, 02:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"AZ Astrea" wrote in message ... "ME" wrote in message ... "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. ------------- Good lord!!!! I can't believe you said this! MEN CAN NOT SIGN AWAY THEIR PARENTAL RIGHTS THE SAME WAY THAT WOMEN CAN!!!!! Women DO NOT have to get permission from the man to have an abortion, put the baby up for adoption or to abandon the baby!!! Men HAVE TO be ALLOWED to by the women in order to get out of paying child support! I wasnt talking abortion etc. I was talking simply what I said. SIGNING away parental rights---you know child is born already---NCP has to be allowed by CP to sign away is true, but the reality of it is there.... ---------- 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.... ----------- You may say it's 50 50 as much as you want but that's not the way it is. A women has 100% of the ability to impose fatherhood on a man after conception. A man has 0%. And a woman has the right to not believe in abortion etc. The man had the right to 'slip up' (if you will)....lets face it--when getting pregnant the man has more control since he is the one who controls his own sperm IMPOSE FATHERHOOD? Dont have sex if you dont want to take the chance of that happening...pretty simple... ----------- (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 ---------------- Together they may have decided to have sex. They each had an equal part in that decision. The decision to have sex. Sex. I doubt that before they hopped into bed they decided to become parents. Well if mom didnt decided to become a parent, and dad didnt, then it was an accident....but only one party should live up to the responsibility they gave themself when they slept 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? ------------ Do you see what anyone else is saying? The decision, post-conception belongs to the mom and the mom alone. When a man can tell a woman that she must have an abortion and be able, legally to force her to do so or when a man can tell a woman that she has to remain pregnant and give birth to the kid and be able, legally to force her to do so then things will be fair. Having an abortion can put moms life at risk also, the baby is in moms body and she has a right to decide what happens toher own body, you have the choice of being fixed--dont want to be a parent but cant stop sleeping around? Get clipped, dont expect a woman to have surgery because you are too irresonsible to live up to your actions. Legally force a woman to have an abortion??? Disgusting---how about a better angle--you want her to have an abortion, she will not---so legally force the woman to let you sign away your rights as a parent, as well as sign away any child support. Or maybe it would just be easier to allow the father to opt-out ot parenthood and then if the woman wants the kid anyway it can be her responsibility. If she can't afford to raise it then give it up for adoption. Why should the rest of the world have to pay because she wanted to be a mommy? ~AZ~ 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.
|
|
#108
December 24th 03, 02:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
Ronni:
The tone of your comments below suggests that you have not devoted much time to thinking about these issues. So I will content myself with making one simple point. You seem to justify the present situation, where the choices are made unilaterally by women, by saying that it's the woman's body that is involved. Let's assume for the moment that this is a fair summary of the situation (and there are many who would not agree, since another human being--the unborn child--is involved). However, if the woman is to have all the choices on this biological basis, why shouldn't the man have choices, on the same biological basis, about whether or not to pay child support? There's no biological imperative to pay child support. There's no organ in the male body that generates this money. It's purely a legal requirement, and could be repealed. And to make the obvious point, if you are going to say to men that they shouldn't have sex if they don't want to be fathers, do you say the same thing to women? If so, you would abolish the post-conception reproductive rights that women in the U.S. have been given, and that are constantly being enlarged. Ronni wrote: "AZ Astrea" wrote in message ... "ME" wrote in message ... "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. ------------- Good lord!!!! I can't believe you said this! MEN CAN NOT SIGN AWAY THEIR PARENTAL RIGHTS THE SAME WAY THAT WOMEN CAN!!!!! Women DO NOT have to get permission from the man to have an abortion, put the baby up for adoption or to abandon the baby!!! Men HAVE TO be ALLOWED to by the women in order to get out of paying child support! I wasnt talking abortion etc. I was talking simply what I said. SIGNING away parental rights---you know child is born already---NCP has to be allowed by CP to sign away is true, but the reality of it is there.... ---------- 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.... ----------- You may say it's 50 50 as much as you want but that's not the way it is. A women has 100% of the ability to impose fatherhood on a man after conception. A man has 0%. And a woman has the right to not believe in abortion etc. The man had the right to 'slip up' (if you will)....lets face it--when getting pregnant the man has more control since he is the one who controls his own sperm IMPOSE FATHERHOOD? Dont have sex if you dont want to take the chance of that happening...pretty simple... ----------- (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 ---------------- Together they may have decided to have sex. They each had an equal part in that decision. The decision to have sex. Sex. I doubt that before they hopped into bed they decided to become parents. Well if mom didnt decided to become a parent, and dad didnt, then it was an accident....but only one party should live up to the responsibility they gave themself when they slept 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? ------------ Do you see what anyone else is saying? The decision, post-conception belongs to the mom and the mom alone. When a man can tell a woman that she must have an abortion and be able, legally to force her to do so or when a man can tell a woman that she has to remain pregnant and give birth to the kid and be able, legally to force her to do so then things will be fair. Having an abortion can put moms life at risk also, the baby is in moms body and she has a right to decide what happens toher own body, you have the choice of being fixed--dont want to be a parent but cant stop sleeping around? Get clipped, dont expect a woman to have surgery because you are too irresonsible to live up to your actions. Legally force a woman to have an abortion??? Disgusting---how about a better angle--you want her to have an abortion, she will not---so legally force the woman to let you sign away your rights as a parent, as well as sign away any child support. Or maybe it would just be easier to allow the father to opt-out ot parenthood and then if the woman wants the kid anyway it can be her responsibility. If she can't afford to raise it then give it up for adoption. Why should the rest of the world have to pay because she wanted to be a mommy? ~AZ~ 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.
|
|
#109
December 24th 03, 02:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
Ronni:
The tone of your comments below suggests that you have not devoted much time to thinking about these issues. So I will content myself with making one simple point. You seem to justify the present situation, where the choices are made unilaterally by women, by saying that it's the woman's body that is involved. Let's assume for the moment that this is a fair summary of the situation (and there are many who would not agree, since another human being--the unborn child--is involved). However, if the woman is to have all the choices on this biological basis, why shouldn't the man have choices, on the same biological basis, about whether or not to pay child support? There's no biological imperative to pay child support. There's no organ in the male body that generates this money. It's purely a legal requirement, and could be repealed. And to make the obvious point, if you are going to say to men that they shouldn't have sex if they don't want to be fathers, do you say the same thing to women? If so, you would abolish the post-conception reproductive rights that women in the U.S. have been given, and that are constantly being enlarged. Ronni wrote: "AZ Astrea" wrote in message ... "ME" wrote in message ... "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. ------------- Good lord!!!! I can't believe you said this! MEN CAN NOT SIGN AWAY THEIR PARENTAL RIGHTS THE SAME WAY THAT WOMEN CAN!!!!! Women DO NOT have to get permission from the man to have an abortion, put the baby up for adoption or to abandon the baby!!! Men HAVE TO be ALLOWED to by the women in order to get out of paying child support! I wasnt talking abortion etc. I was talking simply what I said. SIGNING away parental rights---you know child is born already---NCP has to be allowed by CP to sign away is true, but the reality of it is there.... ---------- 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.... ----------- You may say it's 50 50 as much as you want but that's not the way it is. A women has 100% of the ability to impose fatherhood on a man after conception. A man has 0%. And a woman has the right to not believe in abortion etc. The man had the right to 'slip up' (if you will)....lets face it--when getting pregnant the man has more control since he is the one who controls his own sperm IMPOSE FATHERHOOD? Dont have sex if you dont want to take the chance of that happening...pretty simple... ----------- (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 ---------------- Together they may have decided to have sex. They each had an equal part in that decision. The decision to have sex. Sex. I doubt that before they hopped into bed they decided to become parents. Well if mom didnt decided to become a parent, and dad didnt, then it was an accident....but only one party should live up to the responsibility they gave themself when they slept 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? ------------ Do you see what anyone else is saying? The decision, post-conception belongs to the mom and the mom alone. When a man can tell a woman that she must have an abortion and be able, legally to force her to do so or when a man can tell a woman that she has to remain pregnant and give birth to the kid and be able, legally to force her to do so then things will be fair. Having an abortion can put moms life at risk also, the baby is in moms body and she has a right to decide what happens toher own body, you have the choice of being fixed--dont want to be a parent but cant stop sleeping around? Get clipped, dont expect a woman to have surgery because you are too irresonsible to live up to your actions. Legally force a woman to have an abortion??? Disgusting---how about a better angle--you want her to have an abortion, she will not---so legally force the woman to let you sign away your rights as a parent, as well as sign away any child support. Or maybe it would just be easier to allow the father to opt-out ot parenthood and then if the woman wants the kid anyway it can be her responsibility. If she can't afford to raise it then give it up for adoption. Why should the rest of the world have to pay because she wanted to be a mommy? ~AZ~ 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.
|
|
#110
December 24th 03, 04:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"Ronni" wrote in message
... Anyone think of the child here? Everyone is too busy crying over the adults feelings inthe situation, what about the childs feelings? I think of the children. Every time I sit down and read this news group I can't help but to think of the children their situation is impacting. I can't help to be concerned how it impacts their every day existence, and what their future may bring. In an ideal world children wouldn't suffer due to their parents' decisions and in some case - bad choices. We don't live in an ideal world. Instead children are growing up with hurt feelings towards one parent, or another. I have three sons. My ex, the father of my two oldest, has had nothing to do with my sons. I've basically raised them without their father around. He was convicted of child abuse related charge in 1987. My oldest two sons are now adults. I've seen first hand the damage their father has caused them. I have a younger son whose father and I were never married. Unlike my ex, this son's father has been very active in our son's life. He is a good and decent man. He is an excellent father to our son. A part of me has always felt that my ex should have been paying child support all along. Heck, I think he should have paid for all the doctor bills incurred due to his abuse. But I have never received a penny. Instead I tried to do the best I could. During those years I applied for student loans and put myself through college. I love what I'm doing, and I enjoy where I work. My life with all my sons has taught me a lot about life, about love, about parenting, and most importantly - what I really want out of a relationship with a man - for life - in terms of marriage. As December 9th has rolled on past us it has marked the 18th year I've been separated/divorced. 18 years is a long time to put everything into perspective and understand what is really important. What is important? The kids, and how they view life. As I said, I basically raised my oldest two sons without their father. Neither one has ever done drugs, got involved in gangs, gone out drinking, gone out partying, etc. I've raised them to be themselves, enjoy life, don't rush, and understand that their actions can result in events which they didn't want to happen. My boyfriend went through his divorce just last year. His ex cheated on him and left him, their home, and their kids. He has custody of all his kids. She just doesn't get it. Even I had a heart-to-heart talk with her. Tried to explain to her that she can't go wrong if she shows the kids they are important to her... but those kids continue to suffer. My boyfriend's oldest son has mixed emotions concerning spending Christmas with his mother. He has a deep dislike (hate) for the man she sleeps with. He has only started to really deal with the divorce, and why she left, just a couple of months ago. So I see the pain in their eyes. I see the pain in their voice. I've listened to my boyfriend talk about it, and it kills him. Every one of those kids were planned. He would have never agreed to having children if he knew they would divorce. It kills him to see his kids in pain. A part of my boyfriend wants to tell his ex to just disappear. If she can't be a real active party in the kids' lives, then just go away. Otherwise, be active in their lives and think about them. Stop putting the man she sleeps with in front of the kids. She wanted the kids... go figure. Just this last weekend my boyfriend's 9 year old daughter gave me a card and tree decoration she made. I opened it while I was there. The card read that she loves me and wants me to be her mother. This came from a little girl who once tried to do everything possible to cause my boyfriend and I problems in our relationship. I gave her a big hug and hid my tears. I thanked her - she has come along way, and she is a really good kid. Do I think of the kids? yes I do. So does my boyfriend. We don't put each other first. Instead we put our kids first. Six kids between the two of us. All very different than each other, but all good kids. We love our own kids, and we love each other's kids. Our relationship is golden, and our kids mean more than life itself to us. I remember reading in one of your posts that the young child was thinking of suicide. Please understand that it is very normal for a child to wish they were never born, or wish themselves were dead, when one, or both, their parents don't want them. Or I should say, when they believe one, or both, of their parents don't want them. What a horrible feeling to have to know your parent wishes you never existed. What child on this earth, at that age, wouldn't want to make their parents happy - even if that means not existing. For this child I'd give him lots of big hugs. While hugging the child just give them silence. Let them know they are loved and wanted. Let them know their every existence is important to someone out their in this world. Embrace that child and allow him to feel his pain, then allow him to heal. Show him the world is not a cold hard place to live, but it is filled with love and life. I don't know what else to say... a triangle best represents the relationship between all parties after the break up of a relationship involving a child. There is the relationship between the child and each parent, which represents two of the lines. The third line represents the relationship between the parents. The one of those lines are broken between child and a parent, it flattens the triangle causing an imbalance in the triangle and puts one of the parents in the middle. If the parent who has the relationship with the child continues with the relationship (bad or good) with the other parent, it can cause the child much pain. Sometimes it is best for the parent in that type of situation to sever the relationship with the other parent. This typically goes against what I normally would say, since I support shared and equal parenting. But I don't allow my normal beliefs to cloud my vision that when something is not right - it isn't healthy for the child. The child you speak of is not in a healthy situation. It is probably best for your friend to just walk away. If child support is something she seeks from the father, than let the state deal with it. She has a son which needs her right now, and she can't put herself in the middle of the relationship between her son and his father. Take care, Tracy ~~~~~~~ http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/ "You can't solve problems with the same type of thinking that created them." Albert Einstein *** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
