Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women

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

"Ronni" wrote in message
...
[snip]
I didnt say that. The case we were discussing does have a NCP. Men force
women who cannot morally give up their child to become parents. Men have
more control over a woman getting pregnant that she does. He has the
choices
before conception, she has them after. She cant make him where a condom,
he
cant make her have an abortion. You make unjust assumptions at my
thoughts
that werent even discussed.
it best to let baby make his own decision about Dad..


Er.... no, men cannot legally force women to become pregnant nor can they
force them to stay that way.
===
Recall the case in/near Wilkes-Barre PA that I posted last year? The dad
went to court
to try to prevent his pregnant ex-girlfriend from having an abortion. A
judge issued
an injunction against the woman to not have an abortion but the dad lost on
an
expedited appeal. The couple then got back together, got married, had the
child
and presumably, significant attorney fees.
===
===

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

"Ronni" wrote in message
...

"Gini" wrote in message
...

"Ronni" wrote

If everyone thought more of the child and less about the money
things
would
be so much different.
==
Actually, all that would be needed is for *the courts* to think more
about
the child
and less about money:

Agreed there--

To order 50/50 custody, to enforce custody, to require
accountability for lifestyle CS awards, to make false claims of abuse
a
felony and enforce it,

Not sure I understand what you mean there....are you saying there are
alot
of false claims of abuse?

False claims of abuse are made to initiate restraining orders against men.
Lawyers for women seeking divorce urge their clients to get RO's to gain a
tactical advantage if it is suspected custody will be an issue because the
husband has been a good father. They are also used as "kick-out" orders
to
force men to leave the family home.

OMG!! A lawyer doing this?? They don't deserve to practice!

Surveys are all over the board on how many of the RO's are based on false
allegations. The range is anywhere from 30-70% depending on where and
when
the survey was taken.

I have personally observed women being coached by other women at the
county
courthouse in how to fill out the paperwork to get an RO. The typical
case
is to instruct the woman to fudge the reason for wanting the RO by stating
"the man has shown signs of violence in the past and she is in fear that
something might happen." False allegations of child abuse are also used
to
prevent a father from having normal visitations with their children.

That is sad! Seriously! Here, if you dont have bruises or enough witnesses
to threats on your life you wont get the RO. (PFAO here -- protection from
abuse order)

False allegations of child abuse are the lowest anyone could ever sink....

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

"Ronni" wrote in message
...

"Gini" wrote in message
...

"Ronni" wrote

If everyone thought more of the child and less about the money
things
would
be so much different.
==
Actually, all that would be needed is for *the courts* to think more
about
the child
and less about money:

Agreed there--

To order 50/50 custody, to enforce custody, to require
accountability for lifestyle CS awards, to make false claims of abuse
a
felony and enforce it,

Not sure I understand what you mean there....are you saying there are
alot
of false claims of abuse?

False claims of abuse are made to initiate restraining orders against men.
Lawyers for women seeking divorce urge their clients to get RO's to gain a
tactical advantage if it is suspected custody will be an issue because the
husband has been a good father. They are also used as "kick-out" orders
to
force men to leave the family home.

OMG!! A lawyer doing this?? They don't deserve to practice!

Surveys are all over the board on how many of the RO's are based on false
allegations. The range is anywhere from 30-70% depending on where and
when
the survey was taken.

I have personally observed women being coached by other women at the
county
courthouse in how to fill out the paperwork to get an RO. The typical
case
is to instruct the woman to fudge the reason for wanting the RO by stating
"the man has shown signs of violence in the past and she is in fear that
something might happen." False allegations of child abuse are also used
to
prevent a father from having normal visitations with their children.

That is sad! Seriously! Here, if you dont have bruises or enough witnesses
to threats on your life you wont get the RO. (PFAO here -- protection from
abuse order)

False allegations of child abuse are the lowest anyone could ever sink....

"Gini" wrote in message
...

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

"Ronni" wrote in message
...
[snip]
I didnt say that. The case we were discussing does have a NCP. Men
force
women who cannot morally give up their child to become parents. Men
have
more control over a woman getting pregnant that she does. He has the
choices
before conception, she has them after. She cant make him where a
condom,
he
cant make her have an abortion. You make unjust assumptions at my
thoughts
that werent even discussed.
it best to let baby make his own decision about Dad..


Er.... no, men cannot legally force women to become pregnant nor can
they
force them to stay that way.
===
Recall the case in/near Wilkes-Barre PA that I posted last year? The dad
went to court
to try to prevent his pregnant ex-girlfriend from having an abortion. A
judge issued
an injunction against the woman to not have an abortion but the dad lost
on
an
expedited appeal. The couple then got back together, got married, had the
child
and presumably, significant attorney fees.

I recall seeing something of the sort on the news.

"Gini" wrote in message
...

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

"Ronni" wrote in message
...
[snip]
I didnt say that. The case we were discussing does have a NCP. Men
force
women who cannot morally give up their child to become parents. Men
have
more control over a woman getting pregnant that she does. He has the
choices
before conception, she has them after. She cant make him where a
condom,
he
cant make her have an abortion. You make unjust assumptions at my
thoughts
that werent even discussed.
it best to let baby make his own decision about Dad..


Er.... no, men cannot legally force women to become pregnant nor can
they
force them to stay that way.
===
Recall the case in/near Wilkes-Barre PA that I posted last year? The dad
went to court
to try to prevent his pregnant ex-girlfriend from having an abortion. A
judge issued
an injunction against the woman to not have an abortion but the dad lost
on
an
expedited appeal. The couple then got back together, got married, had the
child
and presumably, significant attorney fees.

I recall seeing something of the sort on the news.

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
om...
"Ronni" wrote in message
...
"Paul Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Ronni" wrote in message
...

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
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?

Because he helped make the child.

No he diddn't.......only the sole and unilateral choices of the mother
made
the CHILD

A woman doesn't get pregnant by herself. When a woman gets pregnant a
man
can say what he wants, think what he wants, but that baby is part of the
woman.

He took the responsiblility of having sex
and a baby was conceived.

Free hint for the clueless........conception DOES NOT equate to
childbirth.

And the point is what? If you do the deed accept the possible
consequences.
What you are saying is a man is no longer responsible for his actions in
making a child.

If he (or any NCP) didn't want to pay child
support and felt so strongly that he didn't want to be a father then
the
only
true precaution is not to have sex.

When the same standard is applied to women, then it would aplly
equally to
men

It is applied to women. If a woman doesnt want to get pregnant dont have
sex. Birth control isnt 100%...its plain and simple but you dont seem to
get
it. And on the same note, some women cant take Birth Control --- keep
that
in mind. But certain people in this conversation tend to believe that
all
the womens choices are easily made. How many of you relize that birth
control can increase the risk of the women who takes it getting certain
kind
of cancers? It can cause blood clots. But we are supposed to put our
bodies,
and in some cases our lives, at risk because you dont want to be
responsible.


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.

Legal requirement, yes. But it is also the responsibility of a
parent.

Circular arguement........It is a responsibility because it is a
current
legal requirement.

No it is the responsibility as a human being. Bring another life into
the
world and not help support that life? Disgusting. You whine, cry, bitch,
and
moan about having to pay child support. Have you ever thought of what a
woman has to go through to carry a child, give birth, have an abortion
or
give the child up for adoption? Of course not, you see the $ signs being
taken out of your paycheck...

Ronni, you are not thinking this all the way through. Two people have
sex. A child is (accidentally or not so accidentally) conceived. MOM
can abort, abandon, or adopt out. She can do these things without
consulting Dad. She doesn't even have to tell him she is pregnant.
DAD can only sit and wait for mom's decision. That's for starters.

After the child is born, mom does not have to earn money. She can go
on welfare, move in with someone, and/or demand child support. DAD has
to fork over the $$$. He can't say "Make her go work, and I'll watch
the kid as my part of child support." Courts do not order such things.

If mom is not capable of supporting the child she chooses to bear 100%
on her own, why does she keep the child? Moms who make decisions such
as keeping an unexpected child should have the means to support their
choices ON THEIR OWN with no help from anyone. THEN, if dad chooses
to be a participant in the child's life (just as mom chose to do when
she kept the child) that is so much icing on the cake. That way both
parents have CHOSEN to be parents. If mom can't support the child,
then she should give it up so that someone who CAN support the child
can give it the life it deserves. Neither moms nor kids should be
dependent on child support wrung from an unwilling participant.

I think I have figured out the problem I am having with everyone here.
Everyone is arguing the womans choices...alot are saying abortion, adoption,
abandon. And right now, I just figured out why I am arguing with ya all.
Because I could not morally do those things.
I agree women have more choices, but I feel those choices are morally wrong
(in most instances).
I guess if I were to think like a women who wouldnt think about what she did
afterwards and regret it, a women who could let herself not care about a
child she is carrying or carried for nine months, then I would be able to
see the other side of this argument much clearer.
I apologize to everyone, but I still hold my ground about how I feel, as a
woman who couldnt do the 3 A's. Agreed adoption isn't all that bad of a
thing, but I still couldn't live with myself knowing my child is out there
somewhere and not with me, with people I don't know, or even know where the
child is.
As for the choices of women not to get pregnant, I personally cannot take
birth control of any kind because of the risk factor for cancer. I already
had cervical cancer and the risk is too high for me. As a woman who has had
2 miscarriages and has 2 children, it is hard for me to imagine EITHER
parent not wanting their child. Both my children are miracles...no I am not
the perfect mother, noone is, no my children aren't perfect, none are. But
when I think of my life without them, theres a HUGE void that would be
there. See, at 18 I was told I would never carry a baby full term. The
pregnancies were hard, my son was a week early...they said it was amazing.
(After alot of complications and hospital stays) My daughter was 3 days late
(also alot of complications)
I tell you these things because maybe you will see why I say the things I
say and why I wasn't understanding to begin with. Once again, everyone I
argued with I am sorry that I wasn't more open minded from the start.

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
om...
"Ronni" wrote in message
...
"Paul Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Ronni" wrote in message
...

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
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?

Because he helped make the child.

No he diddn't.......only the sole and unilateral choices of the mother
made
the CHILD

A woman doesn't get pregnant by herself. When a woman gets pregnant a
man
can say what he wants, think what he wants, but that baby is part of the
woman.

He took the responsiblility of having sex
and a baby was conceived.

Free hint for the clueless........conception DOES NOT equate to
childbirth.

And the point is what? If you do the deed accept the possible
consequences.
What you are saying is a man is no longer responsible for his actions in
making a child.

If he (or any NCP) didn't want to pay child
support and felt so strongly that he didn't want to be a father then
the
only
true precaution is not to have sex.

When the same standard is applied to women, then it would aplly
equally to
men

It is applied to women. If a woman doesnt want to get pregnant dont have
sex. Birth control isnt 100%...its plain and simple but you dont seem to
get
it. And on the same note, some women cant take Birth Control --- keep
that
in mind. But certain people in this conversation tend to believe that
all
the womens choices are easily made. How many of you relize that birth
control can increase the risk of the women who takes it getting certain
kind
of cancers? It can cause blood clots. But we are supposed to put our
bodies,
and in some cases our lives, at risk because you dont want to be
responsible.


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.

Legal requirement, yes. But it is also the responsibility of a
parent.

Circular arguement........It is a responsibility because it is a
current
legal requirement.

No it is the responsibility as a human being. Bring another life into
the
world and not help support that life? Disgusting. You whine, cry, bitch,
and
moan about having to pay child support. Have you ever thought of what a
woman has to go through to carry a child, give birth, have an abortion
or
give the child up for adoption? Of course not, you see the $ signs being
taken out of your paycheck...

Ronni, you are not thinking this all the way through. Two people have
sex. A child is (accidentally or not so accidentally) conceived. MOM
can abort, abandon, or adopt out. She can do these things without
consulting Dad. She doesn't even have to tell him she is pregnant.
DAD can only sit and wait for mom's decision. That's for starters.

After the child is born, mom does not have to earn money. She can go
on welfare, move in with someone, and/or demand child support. DAD has
to fork over the $$$. He can't say "Make her go work, and I'll watch
the kid as my part of child support." Courts do not order such things.

If mom is not capable of supporting the child she chooses to bear 100%
on her own, why does she keep the child? Moms who make decisions such
as keeping an unexpected child should have the means to support their
choices ON THEIR OWN with no help from anyone. THEN, if dad chooses
to be a participant in the child's life (just as mom chose to do when
she kept the child) that is so much icing on the cake. That way both
parents have CHOSEN to be parents. If mom can't support the child,
then she should give it up so that someone who CAN support the child
can give it the life it deserves. Neither moms nor kids should be
dependent on child support wrung from an unwilling participant.

I think I have figured out the problem I am having with everyone here.
Everyone is arguing the womans choices...alot are saying abortion, adoption,
abandon. And right now, I just figured out why I am arguing with ya all.
Because I could not morally do those things.
I agree women have more choices, but I feel those choices are morally wrong
(in most instances).
I guess if I were to think like a women who wouldnt think about what she did
afterwards and regret it, a women who could let herself not care about a
child she is carrying or carried for nine months, then I would be able to
see the other side of this argument much clearer.
I apologize to everyone, but I still hold my ground about how I feel, as a
woman who couldnt do the 3 A's. Agreed adoption isn't all that bad of a
thing, but I still couldn't live with myself knowing my child is out there
somewhere and not with me, with people I don't know, or even know where the
child is.
As for the choices of women not to get pregnant, I personally cannot take
birth control of any kind because of the risk factor for cancer. I already
had cervical cancer and the risk is too high for me. As a woman who has had
2 miscarriages and has 2 children, it is hard for me to imagine EITHER
parent not wanting their child. Both my children are miracles...no I am not
the perfect mother, noone is, no my children aren't perfect, none are. But
when I think of my life without them, theres a HUGE void that would be
there. See, at 18 I was told I would never carry a baby full term. The
pregnancies were hard, my son was a week early...they said it was amazing.
(After alot of complications and hospital stays) My daughter was 3 days late
(also alot of complications)
I tell you these things because maybe you will see why I say the things I
say and why I wasn't understanding to begin with. Once again, everyone I
argued with I am sorry that I wasn't more open minded from the start.

"Ronni" wrote in message ...


snip for length

WRONG......mothers have AAA......abort, abandon, adopt........options
fathers do not.

Abort--have to have surgery--risk thelife of the mother-tear away part of
the mother to the point that many abortions lead women into a state of
depression
Abandon--Disgusting for you to even say that...although it is done, it is
disgusting
Adopt--After carrying a child for 9 months, becoming attached and giving
birth to him/her--give him/her away as if the life of a child means nothing
to her?

Women may have choices but they are not easy ones to make...there is no easy
'out' for a women who accidentally became pregnant

Nobody said the choices were easy, Ronni. But they are choices that
the woman has that the man involved does not have. THAT is waht is
being said: that the woman gets to decide both for herself AND the
man.


CP always are giving more to the child than NCP.

Absolute horse****, much like the rest of your drivel.

Really? Horse**** huh? If anything is horse**** it is you...While NCP pays a
little CS the CP provides a roof over the childs head--ever hear of rent or
mortgage?--CP provides food for the child--CP provides transportation to
doctors-pays for doctors-pays for medication--gas money to get there--loses
money for time off work to take the child to the doctor--CP provides most of
the childs clothing--day care expenses--school lunch expenses--school trip
expenses--babysitter expenses to get a few hours to CP's self--

Would you like me to go on? You think all this and more comes up to be half
of what child support CP gets? Not in most cases. CP always provides
more--at the very least CP spends more time with the child which is one
thing the child needs most.....

You are wrong here, Ronni. My husband, who discovered a couple of
years ago that he had a 13 year old daughter by a one night stand,
pays 85% of the child's expenses. 85%--court ordered. Mom doesn't
work. She is "disabled" because she ran out of welfare and can't hold
a job. She drinks, you understand. Nobody could possibly expect her
to stop drinking and support all the children she has by different
fathers. Now, do you think that all the money that is taken from his
paycheck and sent to mom is used just for the child it is intended
for? Or might it be used for the others in the house, too, including
a nip for mom now and then.

My brother-in-law, who left his stormy marriage where his beloved
cheated on him at every opportunity, was ordered to pay nearly 50% of
his salary for child and spousal support--even though wifey had been
working at the exact same job as he did when they met. Four years
certainly didn't knock her out of the job market. After several years
of her demanding more and more and dragging him back to court and
never letting him see the child, she got permission from the court to
move. She moved in with the guy she cheated on him with. And
announced that he wasn't even the child's father! Her current lover
was. They didn't marry until spousal support benefits ran out. My BIL
left the state, married my sister, and never paid another penny. But
the bill is still there waiting. It will never go away.

In some cases, the mom may really be paying more than the dad--but,
for the most part, the court rules far more often in favor of the dad
providing the greatest portion of financial support--with no guarantee
that it will even benefit the child. (That being said, by far the
majority of couples are decent, honest people who really do their best
to support their children.)

"Ronni" wrote in message ...


snip for length

WRONG......mothers have AAA......abort, abandon, adopt........options
fathers do not.

Abort--have to have surgery--risk thelife of the mother-tear away part of
the mother to the point that many abortions lead women into a state of
depression
Abandon--Disgusting for you to even say that...although it is done, it is
disgusting
Adopt--After carrying a child for 9 months, becoming attached and giving
birth to him/her--give him/her away as if the life of a child means nothing
to her?

Women may have choices but they are not easy ones to make...there is no easy
'out' for a women who accidentally became pregnant

Nobody said the choices were easy, Ronni. But they are choices that
the woman has that the man involved does not have. THAT is waht is
being said: that the woman gets to decide both for herself AND the
man.


CP always are giving more to the child than NCP.

Absolute horse****, much like the rest of your drivel.

Really? Horse**** huh? If anything is horse**** it is you...While NCP pays a
little CS the CP provides a roof over the childs head--ever hear of rent or
mortgage?--CP provides food for the child--CP provides transportation to
doctors-pays for doctors-pays for medication--gas money to get there--loses
money for time off work to take the child to the doctor--CP provides most of
the childs clothing--day care expenses--school lunch expenses--school trip
expenses--babysitter expenses to get a few hours to CP's self--

Would you like me to go on? You think all this and more comes up to be half
of what child support CP gets? Not in most cases. CP always provides
more--at the very least CP spends more time with the child which is one
thing the child needs most.....

You are wrong here, Ronni. My husband, who discovered a couple of
years ago that he had a 13 year old daughter by a one night stand,
pays 85% of the child's expenses. 85%--court ordered. Mom doesn't
work. She is "disabled" because she ran out of welfare and can't hold
a job. She drinks, you understand. Nobody could possibly expect her
to stop drinking and support all the children she has by different
fathers. Now, do you think that all the money that is taken from his
paycheck and sent to mom is used just for the child it is intended
for? Or might it be used for the others in the house, too, including
a nip for mom now and then.

My brother-in-law, who left his stormy marriage where his beloved
cheated on him at every opportunity, was ordered to pay nearly 50% of
his salary for child and spousal support--even though wifey had been
working at the exact same job as he did when they met. Four years
certainly didn't knock her out of the job market. After several years
of her demanding more and more and dragging him back to court and
never letting him see the child, she got permission from the court to
move. She moved in with the guy she cheated on him with. And
announced that he wasn't even the child's father! Her current lover
was. They didn't marry until spousal support benefits ran out. My BIL
left the state, married my sister, and never paid another penny. But
the bill is still there waiting. It will never go away.

In some cases, the mom may really be paying more than the dad--but,
for the most part, the court rules far more often in favor of the dad
providing the greatest portion of financial support--with no guarantee
that it will even benefit the child. (That being said, by far the
majority of couples are decent, honest people who really do their best
to support their children.)

"Ronni" wrote
................................................

I think I have figured out the problem I am having with everyone here.
Everyone is arguing the womans choices...alot are saying abortion,
adoption,
abandon. And right now, I just figured out why I am arguing with ya all.
Because I could not morally do those things.
==
Nor could some of us. But, that is not the issue, either. As you agree
below, the issue
is that the mother has options the man doesn't have. That she cannot morally
accept
the options, should not mandate that the man/dad be legally bound by her
morals and choices.
Do not assume that if a woman feels dads should have equal rights in family
law matters, she
must believe that abortion/adoption are acceptable. It's kind of like the
abortion political quandry.
I may/may not believe that abortion is moral/immoral, but not believe
the government and society have the right to determine/legislate
reproductive decisions.
(Conclusion)
==
I agree women have more choices, but I feel those choices are morally
wrong
(in most instances).
I guess if I were to think like a women who wouldnt think about what she
did
afterwards and regret it, a women who could let herself not care about a
child she is carrying or carried for nine months, then I would be able to
see the other side of this argument much clearer.
I apologize to everyone, but I still hold my ground about how I feel, as a
woman who couldnt do the 3 A's. Agreed adoption isn't all that bad of a
thing, but I still couldn't live with myself knowing my child is out there
somewhere and not with me, with people I don't know, or even know where
the
child is.
As for the choices of women not to get pregnant, I personally cannot take
birth control of any kind because of the risk factor for cancer. I already
had cervical cancer and the risk is too high for me. As a woman who has
had
2 miscarriages and has 2 children, it is hard for me to imagine EITHER
parent not wanting their child. Both my children are miracles...no I am
not
the perfect mother, noone is, no my children aren't perfect, none are. But
when I think of my life without them, theres a HUGE void that would be
there. See, at 18 I was told I would never carry a baby full term. The
pregnancies were hard, my son was a week early...they said it was amazing.
(After alot of complications and hospital stays) My daughter was 3 days
late
(also alot of complications)
I tell you these things because maybe you will see why I say the things I
say and why I wasn't understanding to begin with. Once again, everyone I
argued with I am sorry that I wasn't more open minded from the start.