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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:_NZSf.1086$5F1.18@fed1read08...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

[snip]

For all of Gini's babble about how the woman is only fertile at
one
point in her cycle, what she overlooks is
that sperm may live in the female reproductive tract for up to 7
days
and fertilization may occur even days after
intercourse.

Which is something you contradict yourself on in several previous
posts
(no, I ain't gonna spoon feed ya either - go
look it up). You yourself have stated that MEN must be the
primary
party responsible for all births

Um, no, I haven't. Haven't said anything even remotely along those
lines.
I have said that men need to be taking
responsibility for their own birth control though.

Last I checked, men don't control birth.

When they control their own fertility, they sure do. No conception,
no birth. That's how it works.

Please explain how men control their own fertility? This I gotta
hear...

By using whatever birth control methods are available - rhythm method,
condoms, abstinence, only having sex with someone they KNOW is not
fertile (as in sterile) and sterility are currently the available
choices. If and when a male pill becomes available, that will be
another option.

Not, that's not it. I want you to tell us how a man is in control of his
fertility, not a list of birth control options. How does one do that
Moonie? How do you control something that you have no control over??

Birth control is one thing, controlling one's own fertility is quite
another.

Ah.... "I didn't ask about the brakes, I want to know how you stop your
car."

You control your fertility by managing and being responsible for it.

By using whatever birth control methods are available.

If you can't understand that, then you probably shouldn't be having sex.

No Moon. Like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target.

It's not a question about preventing insemination, it's about fertility.
You said men could control it. And I want you to tell me how that can be
done. Is there an some sort of hidden "Off" switch that men have, yet no
one ever told us about? Is there some sort of password that needs to be
spoken to gain access to this hidden ability?

And how is it you, of all people, lay claim that you know about this secret
when no one else on the planet has ever heard about it? Four million years
of evolution and you somehow have vital information about the biology of the
human species that no other person has ever discovered. Wow.

"tonita" wrote
Well, I wouldn't consider that an ideal start for a newborn to be
schlepped back and forth. All babies need their mommies.
==
How sexist. If baby is not to be "schlepped back and forth," why should
preference
be based on gender? Actually, some states are now writing statutes stating
that fathers
should be given equal consideration in custody cases. I'm guessing that
hasn't changed
the practice much though.
==

"tonita" wrote in message
oups.com...
Well, I wouldn't consider that an ideal start for a newborn to be
schlepped back and forth. All babies need their mommies.

Babies need to be taken care of. Not necessarily by "mommy." By someone.
How ridiculous to think that only the female that carried the child to birth
can take care of a newborn!

Daddies
perform different roles even though most people today disagree.
Everyone wants to change human nature. But yes, both parents should
have equal rights but you can't cut a child in half.

Really? What "different roles" do daddies perform? When daddy gets up at
night and gives baby her 2 o'clock feeding, how is that different from mommy
doing so? When daddy changes baby's diaper, how is that different from
mommy doing so? How is daddy taking an equal role in the care of his
newborn "changing human nature"?


Men can't gestate, but they CAN feed baby a bottle. 50/50 joint custody
from day 1, with mom expressing milk if she insists on feeding baby only
mother's milk. Otherwise, formula will work just fine. It takes 2 to
create a child--2, then, should have equal rights and responsibilities.

tonita wrote:
Feminism happened and went to an extreme and society went along with
it. Traditional roles in the family don't exist anymore and in case
you haven't noticed, women react with hostility at the thought. I
don't know what kind of woman would become hostile at the thought of
having decent husband and provider and her role as mother and wife.
Of course if a woman doesn't want that role, marry someone who doesn't
want children or someone to raise them. If more couples would take
time to "date", get to know each other, discuss what they want out of
family life and make it happen. It's not impossible but life moves too
quickly now. Of course having some kind of spiritual base would help.
Say what you will about the commandments but I don't see how following
them can hurt anyone. They only serve to protect us. Unless of course
you're so self serving that you couldn't possibly follow them. There
is a simpler way of life and everyone is making everything so
complicated. A lot of people follow this way of life. Men have gotten
a rotten deal out of the last 30 or so years, but I say it's time to
really fight back for what's right. There is too much hostility
between the sexes and it's worse than ever. Women cannot have it all
ways and it's time for everyone to stop letting it happen. Let God
back into our lives and go back to traditional family roles and focus
on the family, not the material things or the sexual satisfaction that
many people feel they must have at every moment.

Nope, you missed the train. (That one left the station a long, long, time
ago). We're in a new age now; The Age of Enlightenment. You just don't
see it. -5 for you.

I've been divorced
and I'm not a bitter woman. I truly believe that women have become so
self centered and have treated men like dirt. If men behave badly,
what do you expect? It's what they've been trained to do. The clear
message is that women don't need men even to get pregnant so what are
men to think? I have nothing but contempt for women like this. All on
their high horses. *That's* what has caused the mess we have today.


What Tonita says is pretty much true but I still have two questions:
What happened to change it and;
How can we make it better?
I think understanding the first will give us clues to the second.
Phil #3


Phil #3 wrote:
"tonita" wrote in message
ups.com...
I respectfully disagree with, well...everything. You make it sound
as
if when a man doesn't get sex he'll either walk around with an
eternal
erection or he'll end up raping someone.

You apparently misunderstood.

We all know that isn't true.
People can use their intellect far more than they do.

They *can* but as long as we let the government tell us how to think,
why
bother?

Self control and
self discipline. As for the government, that's kind of far fetched.

Not at all. Apparently you are unaware that the state governments, the
ones that force the child support guidelines upon the People, rake a
tidy
profit from the federal government in the form of block grants as a
reward for collecting child support. Then add to it the interest on
millions of dollars sitting in the government accounts for varying
lengths of 1-3 months before disbursment.

The government, at least in my opinion, horns in when there is a lot
of
public pressure. Look at our society today...political correctness
and
all of that crap. It is so acceptable for a teenaged girl to get
knocked up, continue school, keep the kid go to junior prom and do
it
again the next year. Or worse, quit school and have babies as a
career. The government pays because there isn't a choice anymore.

Sure there's a choice, several in fact, but the basic step is for the
governement to butt out. The government rewards women who operate the
system by giving them the lion's share of the marriage plus custody of
the children and far more money than is needed to support those
children
and people are surprised when the numbers of these women increase.
Whether the mother has been married or not, the subject is the same:
rewarding bad behavior and wondering why the bad behavior increases.

It's done so kids won't starve or die.

Hardly. It's done for political correctness; that is, feminists demand
women be treated special and men be punished for being male.
Child support has nothing to do with supporting children. Most fathers
would do whatever is necessary for their children but the government
will
not permit it.

It's almost a badge of honor to
be a single mother these days. It's shameful. I think it happens
because there are so many fatherless homes.

To a large degree, absolutely. So it is with may pathological
amomalities
such as failing or dropping out of school, drug use, runaway
juveniles,
child abuse and neglect, crime and many others.

I don't agree with any of
it but that's the way it is. People get divorced because they can,
men
abandon because they can, women think they can have it all but they
can't. That's why marriages end and thank the feminists for the
victim
status many women take. It's downright pathetic.

Too true. Except most fathers want to remain in their children's lives
as
a
parent but are not allowed. The government promise is custody and a C$
order, which is promoted as "liberating" for women. In fact, it makes
them
dependent on the government instead of their husbands and due to the
monolothic number of laws in this regard, the husbands then come under
the
control of the government as well.
Phil #3


Phil #3 wrote:
"tonita" wrote in message
ups.com...
Dogs and cats breed without thought. Humans are supposed to have
evolved above that level. No one *has* to give in to that drive.

I am not so sure. Of course, it is different between men and women.
Men
have
a stronger sex drive than women, which is, IMO, the main reason some
women
think of men as perverts for having a normal (for men) sex drive.
From what I've read, women can do without sex easier than men and
the
longer
they do without it, the easier it is to do without it; sort of a
self-fullfilling prophecy, if you will. Men, on the other hand, are
sexual
creatures and the longer they do without it, the stronger the urge
becomes.
It's nature's way of insuring continuation of the species.
Still, you are correct in that no one has to give in but it *is* a
natural
drive. What is unnatural is *not* giving in to it.

The problem is not sex, the problem is that the government is ready,
willing, and with our tax and child support dollars, able to become
surrogate husband and father. More is done to insure a steady supply
of
divorces with children than is devoted to the idea of a strong
family
consisting of mother, father, children. The strong family has no
need
for the government to step in and control the family (and a very
large
part
of
it's finance) and a split family, that is where at least one parent
does
not
live with their children, the government is making a profit from
enabling and assisting in broken familes and as a side benefit to an
ever-increasing
government, gaining further total control over the People.

In short, it's not so simple as just saying "no".
Phil #3




It's too bad everyone couldn't stay focused on the topic without
all
the bitterness taking over. Nothing will ever be solved in such a
scattered way. Everyone wants to have their "Sex In The City"
moments
but refuse to consider the consequences after the fact. Hence the
state of our world today. Too many fatherless kids, not enough
personal accountability. Everyone wants theirs and to hell with
everyone else. Someone else is always to blame. No more grit and
backbone. Everyone is weak and must cater to their "feelings"
above
all else. Kind of makes for a very weak society in general and it
certainly shows. I feel sad really. Kids are hurthing and the
adults
care very little about their psyches. As long as all the men and
women
are happily screwing, who cares? The kids will get over it, the
kids
will be fine, the kids don't care what the parents do. Go ahead
and
believe all that if that's what it takes to get through the day.
There
*are* good men and women in the world and I mean *real* men and
women,
not these morons who are behaving like juveniles. They're out
there
raising good kids, focusing on their families and working together
to
keep it together. They're not worried if they're going to feel
good
every second, or being happy every second. It's hard work and
they're
up for it. They're not into the blame game or the emotional tennis
match, batting the blaming ball back and forth. Real men aren't
guided
by their penises and won't risk it all for some woman they hardly
know.
They actually care about who becomes the mother of their children.
Real women are discerning and don't let just anyone into their
bodies
just for the momentary feelings. Real men and women don't have any
interest in abortion issues or who's responsible for the pregnancy.
They don't have to because they don't indulge in the self serving
behavior that's created this mess in the first place. They don't
have
the "me, me, me" mindset. They sacrifice for the sake of their
families. Yes, it's a very sad state and I suppose it will only
get
worse given the types of responses to this post. Everyone will
just
continue to blame someone else.



Phil #3 wrote:
Doesn't seem to have made much difference over the past 30 years
although
the marriage rate has dropped and will continue to do so, sex is
one
of
humankind's basic drives. It's a difficult instinct to overcome.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Gini" wrote in message
news:QEbTf.1700$8G2.430@trndny01...

"Dusty" wrote


Not, that's not it. I want you to tell us how a man is in control of
his
fertility, not a list of birth control options. How does one do that
Moonie? How do you control something that you have no control over??

Birth control is one thing, controlling one's own fertility is quite
another.
==
And it's a whole lot different than controlling one's sperm. I'm sure
she'll
will have very good answer. It will be amusingly convoluted but she'll
come
up with
some way to dance around it.
==

When a man uses birth control he becomes infertile.

Condoms render a man infertile?

Since when? Last time I checked, the condom fell into the 'barrier
method' of birth control, by keeping the sperm from
proximity to the egg.

Oh, I get it now.

Managing fertility for women is when to have sex.

Managing fertility for men is how to have sex.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"tonita" wrote in message
oups.com...
Well, I wouldn't consider that an ideal start for a newborn to be
schlepped back and forth. All babies need their mommies.

Babies need to be taken care of. Not necessarily by "mommy." By someone.
How ridiculous to think that only the female that carried the child to
birth
can take care of a newborn!

The CS system agrees. That's why they make fathers pay for daycare so the
mommies don't have to take care of the babies. Daycare providers spend more
time during a day with babies than most working mothers do during their
child's awake hours.


Daddies
perform different roles even though most people today disagree.
Everyone wants to change human nature. But yes, both parents should
have equal rights but you can't cut a child in half.

Really? What "different roles" do daddies perform? When daddy gets up at
night and gives baby her 2 o'clock feeding, how is that different from
mommy
doing so? When daddy changes baby's diaper, how is that different from
mommy doing so? How is daddy taking an equal role in the care of his
newborn "changing human nature"?

How hard is it to find, interview, and hire a daycare worker? Even dads can
do that. If dads got custody more often they could use their higher
earnings power to hire a nanny and allow the children to always remain in
their home environment. It's the mommies who always want to ship the
kiddies off to daycare centers.

"Phil #3" wrote in message
ink.net...

"tonita" wrote in message
oups.com...
Well, I guess the feminists have suceeded in beating men down. I
always say anything worth having is worth fighting for. Maybe it's
time for men and women to start behaving themselves so none of this
will happen? It's still a blame game. Blame the man, blame the woman,
blame the government. I suppose if I had a child out of wedlock I
could turn to the government for help but I didn't and I won't. My
kids didn't. My friends didn't. It all boils down to behavior and the
attitude of wanting something more for one's life and the lives of
their children. The idea of living a more dignified life. People can
change but they don't have to. It's a societal problem, government
included but I don't think it's totally to blame. There are no values
to stand behind anymore. Nobody has to have values or, dare I say,
morals. It's a free-for-all world and everybody just stands by and
watches and supports. I can't change it but I certainly haven't
contributed to it either.


Blame is not the correct word. Identifying a problem is the first step in
correcting it.

Do you have any idea about the possibility of an unmarried father gaining
custody?
It is so close to impossible as to *be* impossible and without at least
$150K to spend on lawyers, it just won't happen and probably won't then.
It's damn near impossible for a divorced father as well.
Mothers are freely given what men must fight for and usually are denied
including custody and in the cases where father gets custody (almost
always
because the mother allowed it), they rarely get C$.

In my opinion, the drop in respect for others led to legalized
abortion-as-birth-control and the so-called 'no-fault' divorces.

"No fault" divorce is code for "marriage is meaningless".

The
nation's thought is "it's all about *me*".
Phil #3

Phil #3 wrote:
"tonita" wrote in message
ups.com...
I respectfully disagree with, well...everything. You make it sound as
if when a man doesn't get sex he'll either walk around with an
eternal
erection or he'll end up raping someone.

You apparently misunderstood.

We all know that isn't true.
People can use their intellect far more than they do.

They *can* but as long as we let the government tell us how to think,
why
bother?

Self control and
self discipline. As for the government, that's kind of far fetched.

Not at all. Apparently you are unaware that the state governments, the
ones
that force the child support guidelines upon the People, rake a tidy
profit
from the federal government in the form of block grants as a reward for
collecting child support. Then add to it the interest on millions of
dollars
sitting in the government accounts for varying lengths of 1-3 months
before
disbursment.

The government, at least in my opinion, horns in when there is a lot
of
public pressure. Look at our society today...political correctness
and
all of that crap. It is so acceptable for a teenaged girl to get
knocked up, continue school, keep the kid go to junior prom and do
it
again the next year. Or worse, quit school and have babies as a
career. The government pays because there isn't a choice anymore.

Sure there's a choice, several in fact, but the basic step is for the
governement to butt out. The government rewards women who operate the
system
by giving them the lion's share of the marriage plus custody of the
children
and far more money than is needed to support those children and people
are
surprised when the numbers of these women increase. Whether the mother
has
been married or not, the subject is the same: rewarding bad behavior
and
wondering why the bad behavior increases.

It's done so kids won't starve or die.

Hardly. It's done for political correctness; that is, feminists demand
women
be treated special and men be punished for being male.
Child support has nothing to do with supporting children. Most fathers
would
do whatever is necessary for their children but the government will not
permit it.

It's almost a badge of honor to
be a single mother these days. It's shameful. I think it happens
because there are so many fatherless homes.

To a large degree, absolutely. So it is with may pathological
amomalities
such as failing or dropping out of school, drug use, runaway juveniles,
child abuse and neglect, crime and many others.

I don't agree with any of
it but that's the way it is. People get divorced because they can,
men
abandon because they can, women think they can have it all but they
can't. That's why marriages end and thank the feminists for the
victim
status many women take. It's downright pathetic.

Too true. Except most fathers want to remain in their children's lives
as
a
parent but are not allowed. The government promise is custody and a C$
order, which is promoted as "liberating" for women. In fact, it makes
them
dependent on the government instead of their husbands and due to the
monolothic number of laws in this regard, the husbands then come under
the
control of the government as well.
Phil #3


Phil #3 wrote:
"tonita" wrote in message
ups.com...
Dogs and cats breed without thought. Humans are supposed to have
evolved above that level. No one *has* to give in to that drive.

I am not so sure. Of course, it is different between men and women.
Men
have
a stronger sex drive than women, which is, IMO, the main reason some
women
think of men as perverts for having a normal (for men) sex drive.
From what I've read, women can do without sex easier than men and
the
longer
they do without it, the easier it is to do without it; sort of a
self-fullfilling prophecy, if you will. Men, on the other hand, are
sexual
creatures and the longer they do without it, the stronger the urge
becomes.
It's nature's way of insuring continuation of the species.
Still, you are correct in that no one has to give in but it *is* a
natural
drive. What is unnatural is *not* giving in to it.

The problem is not sex, the problem is that the government is ready,
willing, and with our tax and child support dollars, able to become
surrogate husband and father. More is done to insure a steady supply
of
divorces with children than is devoted to the idea of a strong
family
consisting of mother, father, children. The strong family has no
need
for
the government to step in and control the family (and a very large
part
of
it's finance) and a split family, that is where at least one parent
does
not
live with their children, the government is making a profit from
enabling
and assisting in broken familes and as a side benefit to an
ever-increasing
government, gaining further total control over the People.

In short, it's not so simple as just saying "no".
Phil #3




It's too bad everyone couldn't stay focused on the topic without
all
the bitterness taking over. Nothing will ever be solved in such a
scattered way. Everyone wants to have their "Sex In The City"
moments
but refuse to consider the consequences after the fact. Hence the
state of our world today. Too many fatherless kids, not enough
personal accountability. Everyone wants theirs and to hell with
everyone else. Someone else is always to blame. No more grit and
backbone. Everyone is weak and must cater to their "feelings"
above
all else. Kind of makes for a very weak society in general and it
certainly shows. I feel sad really. Kids are hurthing and the
adults
care very little about their psyches. As long as all the men and
women
are happily screwing, who cares? The kids will get over it, the
kids
will be fine, the kids don't care what the parents do. Go ahead
and
believe all that if that's what it takes to get through the day.
There
*are* good men and women in the world and I mean *real* men and
women,
not these morons who are behaving like juveniles. They're out
there
raising good kids, focusing on their families and working together
to
keep it together. They're not worried if they're going to feel
good
every second, or being happy every second. It's hard work and
they're
up for it. They're not into the blame game or the emotional
tennis
match, batting the blaming ball back and forth. Real men aren't
guided
by their penises and won't risk it all for some woman they hardly
know.
They actually care about who becomes the mother of their children.
Real women are discerning and don't let just anyone into their
bodies
just for the momentary feelings. Real men and women don't have
any
interest in abortion issues or who's responsible for the
pregnancy.
They don't have to because they don't indulge in the self serving
behavior that's created this mess in the first place. They don't
have
the "me, me, me" mindset. They sacrifice for the sake of their
families. Yes, it's a very sad state and I suppose it will only
get
worse given the types of responses to this post. Everyone will
just
continue to blame someone else.



Phil #3 wrote:
Doesn't seem to have made much difference over the past 30 years
although
the marriage rate has dropped and will continue to do so, sex is
one
of
humankind's basic drives. It's a difficult instinct to overcome.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"tonita" wrote in message
ups.com...
I think I just did answer that question so I'm not sure in what context
you are asking here. Are you saying in *all* cases of pregnancy?
Statistically men don't ask for custody of the newborn.

Really? Is there a study that you can show us that states that men do not
want custody of newborns? Or are you just going by what you see in the
world around you? How do you know that men don't ask?

Having to "ask" implies that the child does not belong to him.


Your question
can't be answered generally because all cases are different I suppose.
And I guess women generally are the custodians, but at this time, men
aren't fighting enough for their own rights.

What makes you think that men aren't fighting for their rights--and losing
most of the time? You can't just make an assumption about this.

How many men as opposed
to women really fight for the custody of a newborn?

If there is a fight, Tonita, then I would assume that BOTH are
fighting--my
mother always taught us that it takes 2 to fight. Unfortunately, women are
generally awarded custody simply because of the fact that they are women.
THIS is what needs to change. 50/50 custody should be the default
position
of the family courts. And, if that is not a possibility, men should have
as
much right to sole custody as women do.

50/50 is ALWAYS a possibility unless one parent is dead.


I wouldn't have a
problem with a man gaining custody of his child. I dare to say there
are a lot of women out there who should not be mothers but things
won't change I guess for a long long time, if ever. So, I'll say
this...a child should get monetary support from the non custodial
parent, whoever it may be. How's that?

ONLY if 50/50 custody is unworkable. THE CHILD deserves BOTH parents in
his
life. THAT is far more important than money.

As for the general state of our society today, I agree with what you say.
The number of out-of-wedlock births and single-parent homes is alarming.
But the issue is not going to be solved by being punitive. Both genders
need to have equal choices. Both have the right to abstain from sex or
use
adequate birth control, thus (hopefully) preventing a conception. But, in
the event of a conception, all equality disappears. The woman is in
control--for 18-22 years! I am willing to wager that, if the $$ were cut
off, and dad had the child 50% of the time, women would be MUCH more
careful
about their choices. Raising 2 or 3 kids from 2 or 3 dads, balancing the
times you can go places by the times that you have the children, and
working
to pay for the children's expenses when they are with you would not be
nearly as pleasant as having full custody + child support from 3 different
men. Equalize things, and I think we'd see a real change in things.

You got that right! What keeps the "child support" industry going is
MONEY....... plain and simple.



teachrmama wrote:

These are your words, Tonita--the words that I responded to:

"If a man sires a kid he should pay support for the kid."

My question stands: Why shoud the man pay support? Why should he not
have
the privilege of raising his child?

tonita wrote:

If a man sires a kid he should pay support for the kid. Simple
concept.

I believe that men and women should have equal rights and that the
exercise of those "rights" should be equally effective and lead to
equal, or at least equivalent outcomes.
In most jurisdictions in the US, an unmarried mother can put her child
up for adoption without the consent of the father and, if the father
wants to retain custody of the child, he must assume all legal and
financial responsibility by "adopting" his own child, thereby absolving
the mother of all legal and financial responsibility, in only a few
jurisdictions do fathers have this option and in NO jurisdiction do
mothers have to "adopt" their children, absolving the father of
responsibility...
In a large, and growing number of jurisdictions in the US, a mother can
legally abandon her infant child by dropping it off at a "responsible
site" like a hospital, fire or police station. In only a few of these
jurisdictions is this option available to a father.
And, of course, there is abortion...

When women are held to the same legal obligations as men are I will
agree with you...

....ken

"tonita" wrote in message
oups.com...
Well, I wouldn't consider that an ideal start for a newborn to be
schlepped back and forth. All babies need their mommies. Daddies
perform different roles even though most people today disagree.
Everyone wants to change human nature. But yes, both parents should
have equal rights but you can't cut a child in half.

I will never understand the female logic that it's okay for a newborn child
to be "schlepped back and forth" from daycare 10 times per week, but it is
not okay for a newborn child to be "schlepped back and forth" from their
father a couple of times a week.

Why aren't the trips to and from daycare worse than far fewer trips to be
with the father?

Why is it a mother would entrust a child to a daycare worker before they
would entrust a child to the baby's father?