Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women

If you know "many" men with custody of their children, and who are
supposed to be getting child support, ME, you must live in an extremely
odd part of the world.

Figures of fathers with custody of their children vary in different
areas. However, in more than 10 years of tracking these issues, the
highest percentage I have ever seen for the U.S. is 15. So fifty
percent of parents are fathers, but at most only 15 percent are
custodial parents. And, of that 15 percent, I'll bet only a very, very
small percentage have child support awards, and an even smaller
percentage of them are actually getting the money.

In truth, child support money is a one-way flow of money -- from men to
women. Knowing that principle is fundamental to understanding what goes
on in the CS system.

But perhaps you live in Saudi Arabia.

ME wrote:

"Werebat" wrote in message ...
I find your story incredibly hard to believe, but it may just be because
I was recently imprisoned after dutifully paying my CS for well over two
years, ever since it was ordered. This guy owned a BUSINESS? Seems like
he'd be painfully easy to track down if you ask me!

Sure he is easy to track down, if the courts wanted to. But they don't want
to,
at least not around here. The courts around here do not see that when two
people take the responsibility to sleep together that they should both take
the responsibility of the consequences. If the payor (often women are paying
too, not just men--I know many men with custody of their children)
sends something, anything at all, they won't do or say much
of anything to him/her.

And the child wanted to KILL himself at 6 years old? This was not due to
absence of the father -- I'd look to see if Mommy Dearest was sexually
abusing him out of anger at the father and an inability to deal with the
real world.

Mom was not sexually abusing Baby, or abusing him in any way. I know
you will reply back saying, YEAH RIGHT, or something of the sort but
it's the truth.
- Ron ^*^



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.

No I do not live in Saudi Arabia. And yes, I agree, when men have custody
most of them do have less child support awarded to them. (Could that be
because the statistics also show that men make more than women?) I do not
live in an extremely odd part of the world. The biggest oddity here is the
weather. You may have tracked these issues for 10 years, and that is great,
but how have you tracked them? By country? By state? By large city? by
county? Obviously it would take more than 10 years to track the statistics
to all the small towns in the US, but you would find different numbers if it
were done like that. Sure 15% of men in this state might have custody, but
if it were broken up further, you probably would find X county (or town) has
25% while Y county (or town) has 10% and so on. So assume that I live in X
county. So now is it so impossible for me to know many fathers with custody
of their child(ren)? No it is not. I am not getting into all the politics
of this issue but I have one more thing to say--I respect your opinion (and
others posted here) but seems I get 'bashed' for my opinion. I have been
involved in the CS system for years and in this county the system doesn't
work great for either custodial parents or non custodial parents. Now, that
being said, I respect your research, your opinions, etc...but respect mine,
too.


"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
If you know "many" men with custody of their children, and who are
supposed to be getting child support, ME, you must live in an extremely
odd part of the world.

Figures of fathers with custody of their children vary in different
areas. However, in more than 10 years of tracking these issues, the
highest percentage I have ever seen for the U.S. is 15. So fifty
percent of parents are fathers, but at most only 15 percent are
custodial parents. And, of that 15 percent, I'll bet only a very, very
small percentage have child support awards, and an even smaller
percentage of them are actually getting the money.

In truth, child support money is a one-way flow of money -- from men to
women. Knowing that principle is fundamental to understanding what goes
on in the CS system.

But perhaps you live in Saudi Arabia.

ME wrote:

"Werebat" wrote in message
...
I find your story incredibly hard to believe, but it may just be
because
I was recently imprisoned after dutifully paying my CS for well over
two
years, ever since it was ordered. This guy owned a BUSINESS? Seems
like
he'd be painfully easy to track down if you ask me!

Sure he is easy to track down, if the courts wanted to. But they don't
want
to,
at least not around here. The courts around here do not see that when
two
people take the responsibility to sleep together that they should both
take
the responsibility of the consequences. If the payor (often women are
paying
too, not just men--I know many men with custody of their children)
sends something, anything at all, they won't do or say much
of anything to him/her.

And the child wanted to KILL himself at 6 years old? This was not due
to
absence of the father -- I'd look to see if Mommy Dearest was sexually
abusing him out of anger at the father and an inability to deal with
the
real world.

Mom was not sexually abusing Baby, or abusing him in any way. I know
you will reply back saying, YEAH RIGHT, or something of the sort but
it's the truth.
- Ron ^*^



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.

No I do not live in Saudi Arabia. And yes, I agree, when men have custody
most of them do have less child support awarded to them. (Could that be
because the statistics also show that men make more than women?) I do not
live in an extremely odd part of the world. The biggest oddity here is the
weather. You may have tracked these issues for 10 years, and that is great,
but how have you tracked them? By country? By state? By large city? by
county? Obviously it would take more than 10 years to track the statistics
to all the small towns in the US, but you would find different numbers if it
were done like that. Sure 15% of men in this state might have custody, but
if it were broken up further, you probably would find X county (or town) has
25% while Y county (or town) has 10% and so on. So assume that I live in X
county. So now is it so impossible for me to know many fathers with custody
of their child(ren)? No it is not. I am not getting into all the politics
of this issue but I have one more thing to say--I respect your opinion (and
others posted here) but seems I get 'bashed' for my opinion. I have been
involved in the CS system for years and in this county the system doesn't
work great for either custodial parents or non custodial parents. Now, that
being said, I respect your research, your opinions, etc...but respect mine,
too.


"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
If you know "many" men with custody of their children, and who are
supposed to be getting child support, ME, you must live in an extremely
odd part of the world.

Figures of fathers with custody of their children vary in different
areas. However, in more than 10 years of tracking these issues, the
highest percentage I have ever seen for the U.S. is 15. So fifty
percent of parents are fathers, but at most only 15 percent are
custodial parents. And, of that 15 percent, I'll bet only a very, very
small percentage have child support awards, and an even smaller
percentage of them are actually getting the money.

In truth, child support money is a one-way flow of money -- from men to
women. Knowing that principle is fundamental to understanding what goes
on in the CS system.

But perhaps you live in Saudi Arabia.

ME wrote:

"Werebat" wrote in message
...
I find your story incredibly hard to believe, but it may just be
because
I was recently imprisoned after dutifully paying my CS for well over
two
years, ever since it was ordered. This guy owned a BUSINESS? Seems
like
he'd be painfully easy to track down if you ask me!

Sure he is easy to track down, if the courts wanted to. But they don't
want
to,
at least not around here. The courts around here do not see that when
two
people take the responsibility to sleep together that they should both
take
the responsibility of the consequences. If the payor (often women are
paying
too, not just men--I know many men with custody of their children)
sends something, anything at all, they won't do or say much
of anything to him/her.

And the child wanted to KILL himself at 6 years old? This was not due
to
absence of the father -- I'd look to see if Mommy Dearest was sexually
abusing him out of anger at the father and an inability to deal with
the
real world.

Mom was not sexually abusing Baby, or abusing him in any way. I know
you will reply back saying, YEAH RIGHT, or something of the sort but
it's the truth.
- Ron ^*^



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.

The huge disparity in custody, ME, between fathers and mothers is a
very important issue, and I make no apology for raising it and for
calling attention to efforts to fudge the question.

A major weapon in the armory of defenders of the CS status quo is to
pretend that men and women are equally likely to be custodial parents.
One way this is done is to rely on anecdotal evidence: "I know several
fathers who have custody of their children." That's what you did.

Another way is to be very careful never to talk about fathers and
mothers, but always to speak about noncustodial parents and custodial
parents. That's what the politicians, judges, CS bureaucrats, and
feminist groups do. They try to avoid anyone even thinking about the
issue.

Yet another way is to be careful to ensure that the actual numbers
don't leak out. So, for example, if you ask in my state about the
issue, you get told that they don't collect these numbers, and they
don't know. If pressed, they will agree that most custodial parents are
mothers. They will never acknowledge the continuation of the glass
ceiling on paternal custody, or the fact that very few custodial fathers
even have orders requiring that they be paid CS (in large measure
because most fathers wouldn't even try to get money from the mothers of
their children. They are more than content to have custody.)

Finally, another way of distorting the numbers is to fudge the joint
custody issue. In the great majority of joint custody situations, it
is joint legal custody, but the mothers have physical custody of the
children. That's no different from sole maternal custody, and should be
counted as such in the numbers.

As for how I have tracked these numbers, in the first place, you only
need to look around you. And, despite what you say, you will find very,
very few custodial fathers. Secondly, when I first started to be
involved in these issues more than 10 years ago, a member of the
fathers' group that I belonged to conducted his own research into
custody awards in the one of the counties in this area. He found that
over a period of several years, not a single father had been awarded
custody over the mother's objections, except in a few unusual cases
where there was some serious problem with the mother, such as her being
a drug addict. The 15 percent figure, the highest I have seen, comes
from a federal agency -- to the best of my recollection, the Census
Bureau. (I don't know how they handle joint custody.)

So-called "child support" is actually money that fathers pay mothers,
because of the custody situation. If any significant number of mothers
paid child support to fathers, the system would change very quickly --
or to be more accurate, if any significant number of mothers paid child
support to fathers, that would indicate that the system had ALREADY
changed.




ME wrote:

No I do not live in Saudi Arabia. And yes, I agree, when men have custody
most of them do have less child support awarded to them. (Could that be
because the statistics also show that men make more than women?) I do not
live in an extremely odd part of the world. The biggest oddity here is the
weather. You may have tracked these issues for 10 years, and that is great,
but how have you tracked them? By country? By state? By large city? by
county? Obviously it would take more than 10 years to track the statistics
to all the small towns in the US, but you would find different numbers if it
were done like that. Sure 15% of men in this state might have custody, but
if it were broken up further, you probably would find X county (or town) has
25% while Y county (or town) has 10% and so on. So assume that I live in X
county. So now is it so impossible for me to know many fathers with custody
of their child(ren)? No it is not. I am not getting into all the politics
of this issue but I have one more thing to say--I respect your opinion (and
others posted here) but seems I get 'bashed' for my opinion. I have been
involved in the CS system for years and in this county the system doesn't
work great for either custodial parents or non custodial parents. Now, that
being said, I respect your research, your opinions, etc...but respect mine,
too.

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
If you know "many" men with custody of their children, and who are
supposed to be getting child support, ME, you must live in an extremely
odd part of the world.

Figures of fathers with custody of their children vary in different
areas. However, in more than 10 years of tracking these issues, the
highest percentage I have ever seen for the U.S. is 15. So fifty
percent of parents are fathers, but at most only 15 percent are
custodial parents. And, of that 15 percent, I'll bet only a very, very
small percentage have child support awards, and an even smaller
percentage of them are actually getting the money.

In truth, child support money is a one-way flow of money -- from men to
women. Knowing that principle is fundamental to understanding what goes
on in the CS system.

But perhaps you live in Saudi Arabia.

ME wrote:

"Werebat" wrote in message
...
I find your story incredibly hard to believe, but it may just be
because
I was recently imprisoned after dutifully paying my CS for well over
two
years, ever since it was ordered. This guy owned a BUSINESS? Seems
like
he'd be painfully easy to track down if you ask me!

Sure he is easy to track down, if the courts wanted to. But they don't
want
to,
at least not around here. The courts around here do not see that when
two
people take the responsibility to sleep together that they should both
take
the responsibility of the consequences. If the payor (often women are
paying
too, not just men--I know many men with custody of their children)
sends something, anything at all, they won't do or say much
of anything to him/her.

And the child wanted to KILL himself at 6 years old? This was not due
to
absence of the father -- I'd look to see if Mommy Dearest was sexually
abusing him out of anger at the father and an inability to deal with
the
real world.

Mom was not sexually abusing Baby, or abusing him in any way. I know
you will reply back saying, YEAH RIGHT, or something of the sort but
it's the truth.
- Ron ^*^



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.

The huge disparity in custody, ME, between fathers and mothers is a
very important issue, and I make no apology for raising it and for
calling attention to efforts to fudge the question.

A major weapon in the armory of defenders of the CS status quo is to
pretend that men and women are equally likely to be custodial parents.
One way this is done is to rely on anecdotal evidence: "I know several
fathers who have custody of their children." That's what you did.

Another way is to be very careful never to talk about fathers and
mothers, but always to speak about noncustodial parents and custodial
parents. That's what the politicians, judges, CS bureaucrats, and
feminist groups do. They try to avoid anyone even thinking about the
issue.

Yet another way is to be careful to ensure that the actual numbers
don't leak out. So, for example, if you ask in my state about the
issue, you get told that they don't collect these numbers, and they
don't know. If pressed, they will agree that most custodial parents are
mothers. They will never acknowledge the continuation of the glass
ceiling on paternal custody, or the fact that very few custodial fathers
even have orders requiring that they be paid CS (in large measure
because most fathers wouldn't even try to get money from the mothers of
their children. They are more than content to have custody.)

Finally, another way of distorting the numbers is to fudge the joint
custody issue. In the great majority of joint custody situations, it
is joint legal custody, but the mothers have physical custody of the
children. That's no different from sole maternal custody, and should be
counted as such in the numbers.

As for how I have tracked these numbers, in the first place, you only
need to look around you. And, despite what you say, you will find very,
very few custodial fathers. Secondly, when I first started to be
involved in these issues more than 10 years ago, a member of the
fathers' group that I belonged to conducted his own research into
custody awards in the one of the counties in this area. He found that
over a period of several years, not a single father had been awarded
custody over the mother's objections, except in a few unusual cases
where there was some serious problem with the mother, such as her being
a drug addict. The 15 percent figure, the highest I have seen, comes
from a federal agency -- to the best of my recollection, the Census
Bureau. (I don't know how they handle joint custody.)

So-called "child support" is actually money that fathers pay mothers,
because of the custody situation. If any significant number of mothers
paid child support to fathers, the system would change very quickly --
or to be more accurate, if any significant number of mothers paid child
support to fathers, that would indicate that the system had ALREADY
changed.




ME wrote:

No I do not live in Saudi Arabia. And yes, I agree, when men have custody
most of them do have less child support awarded to them. (Could that be
because the statistics also show that men make more than women?) I do not
live in an extremely odd part of the world. The biggest oddity here is the
weather. You may have tracked these issues for 10 years, and that is great,
but how have you tracked them? By country? By state? By large city? by
county? Obviously it would take more than 10 years to track the statistics
to all the small towns in the US, but you would find different numbers if it
were done like that. Sure 15% of men in this state might have custody, but
if it were broken up further, you probably would find X county (or town) has
25% while Y county (or town) has 10% and so on. So assume that I live in X
county. So now is it so impossible for me to know many fathers with custody
of their child(ren)? No it is not. I am not getting into all the politics
of this issue but I have one more thing to say--I respect your opinion (and
others posted here) but seems I get 'bashed' for my opinion. I have been
involved in the CS system for years and in this county the system doesn't
work great for either custodial parents or non custodial parents. Now, that
being said, I respect your research, your opinions, etc...but respect mine,
too.

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
If you know "many" men with custody of their children, and who are
supposed to be getting child support, ME, you must live in an extremely
odd part of the world.

Figures of fathers with custody of their children vary in different
areas. However, in more than 10 years of tracking these issues, the
highest percentage I have ever seen for the U.S. is 15. So fifty
percent of parents are fathers, but at most only 15 percent are
custodial parents. And, of that 15 percent, I'll bet only a very, very
small percentage have child support awards, and an even smaller
percentage of them are actually getting the money.

In truth, child support money is a one-way flow of money -- from men to
women. Knowing that principle is fundamental to understanding what goes
on in the CS system.

But perhaps you live in Saudi Arabia.

ME wrote:

"Werebat" wrote in message
...
I find your story incredibly hard to believe, but it may just be
because
I was recently imprisoned after dutifully paying my CS for well over
two
years, ever since it was ordered. This guy owned a BUSINESS? Seems
like
he'd be painfully easy to track down if you ask me!

Sure he is easy to track down, if the courts wanted to. But they don't
want
to,
at least not around here. The courts around here do not see that when
two
people take the responsibility to sleep together that they should both
take
the responsibility of the consequences. If the payor (often women are
paying
too, not just men--I know many men with custody of their children)
sends something, anything at all, they won't do or say much
of anything to him/her.

And the child wanted to KILL himself at 6 years old? This was not due
to
absence of the father -- I'd look to see if Mommy Dearest was sexually
abusing him out of anger at the father and an inability to deal with
the
real world.

Mom was not sexually abusing Baby, or abusing him in any way. I know
you will reply back saying, YEAH RIGHT, or something of the sort but
it's the truth.
- Ron ^*^



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.

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
The huge disparity in custody, ME, between fathers and mothers is a
very important issue, and I make no apology for raising it and for
calling attention to efforts to fudge the question.

I didn't expect an apology at all

A major weapon in the armory of defenders of the CS status quo is to
pretend that men and women are equally likely to be custodial parents.
One way this is done is to rely on anecdotal evidence: "I know several
fathers who have custody of their children." That's what you did.

Another way is to be very careful never to talk about fathers and
mothers, but always to speak about noncustodial parents and custodial
parents.

Right, I admit I should've done that in the first place....

That's what the politicians, judges, CS bureaucrats, and
feminist groups do. They try to avoid anyone even thinking about the
issue.

Yet another way is to be careful to ensure that the actual numbers
don't leak out. So, for example, if you ask in my state about the
issue, you get told that they don't collect these numbers, and they
don't know. If pressed, they will agree that most custodial parents are
mothers. They will never acknowledge the continuation of the glass
ceiling on paternal custody, or the fact that very few custodial fathers
even have orders requiring that they be paid CS (in large measure
because most fathers wouldn't even try to get money from the mothers of
their children. They are more than content to have custody.)

I see...I agree
but since you want to talk statiscal numbers,
men statiscally make more than women do also...
therefore they wouldn't have the fear of how
are they going to give the child(ren) this or that, pay
for this or that.....


Finally, another way of distorting the numbers is to fudge the joint
custody issue. In the great majority of joint custody situations, it
is joint legal custody, but the mothers have physical custody of the
children. That's no different from sole maternal custody, and should be
counted as such in the numbers.

I see your point there


As for how I have tracked these numbers, in the first place, you only
need to look around you. And, despite what you say, you will find very,
very few custodial fathers.

I didn't doubt that there are few custodial fathers.
All I said was I know quite a few....and if the statistics are from a
larger area (like State) and not a smaller area (like county) it is VERY
possible that there may be a higher percentage of custodial fathers in
certain towns....not saying that THERE IS a higher percentage....just saying
it is possible---


Secondly, when I first started to be
involved in these issues more than 10 years ago, a member of the
fathers' group that I belonged to conducted his own research into
custody awards in the one of the counties in this area. He found that
over a period of several years, not a single father had been awarded
custody over the mother's objections, except in a few unusual cases
where there was some serious problem with the mother, such as her being
a drug addict. The 15 percent figure, the highest I have seen, comes
from a federal agency -- to the best of my recollection, the Census
Bureau. (I don't know how they handle joint custody.)

Okay, I wasn't questioning your figures, I was simply asking was it by
state, county, large cities, or small towns? I have no reason to argue your
numbers.

So-called "child support" is actually money that fathers pay mothers,
because of the custody situation. If any significant number of mothers
paid child support to fathers, the system would change very quickly --
or to be more accurate, if any significant number of mothers paid child
support to fathers, that would indicate that the system had ALREADY
changed.

So-called "child support" could also be actual money mothers pay
fathers....because, althought it may be rare, they do pay fathers....so
child support is as you say 'non custodial parent paying money to the
custodial parent'
I strongly feel that 'child support' could definitly be time spent between
child and non custodial parent. But YES it does take money to raise children
that is why the non custodial parent is obligated to pay child support.
If my children would ever live with their father, and I ordered to pay child
support, although it may hurt my financials, I would rather see the clothing
on my childrens backs, the food in their stomaches, the toys they play with,
the safe car they are transported in then not pay and watch them not eat
healthy, wear torn clothing, not have many toys and be driven around in a
vehicle that is unsafe....
Non custodial parents are making a better life for their children every time
they send that check. Most non custodial parents look at it as paying the
custodial parent....maybe in some cases it is true where the custodial
parent 'blows' the money or spends it on his or herself, but not always.
This stuff should be evaluated on a case by case basis and the entire
categories (custodia - non custodial) not put down because of this. Non
custodial parent A may be happy to pay support to see custodial parent a
give the children have a better life, while non custodial parent B gets so
mad because he sees custodial parent B wearing the latest fashions etc while
she doesn't work herself. Not all CUSTODIAL PARENTS take advantage of the
CS system....Not all NON CUSTODIAL PARENTS pay child support....
I am not doubting that the figures do favor women -- but not every case
does....




ME wrote:

No I do not live in Saudi Arabia. And yes, I agree, when men have
custody
most of them do have less child support awarded to them. (Could that be
because the statistics also show that men make more than women?) I do
not
live in an extremely odd part of the world. The biggest oddity here is
the
weather. You may have tracked these issues for 10 years, and that is
great,
but how have you tracked them? By country? By state? By large city? by
county? Obviously it would take more than 10 years to track the
statistics
to all the small towns in the US, but you would find different numbers
if it
were done like that. Sure 15% of men in this state might have custody,
but
if it were broken up further, you probably would find X county (or town)
has
25% while Y county (or town) has 10% and so on. So assume that I live in
X
county. So now is it so impossible for me to know many fathers with
custody
of their child(ren)? No it is not. I am not getting into all the
politics
of this issue but I have one more thing to say--I respect your opinion
(and
others posted here) but seems I get 'bashed' for my opinion. I have been
involved in the CS system for years and in this county the system
doesn't
work great for either custodial parents or non custodial parents. Now,
that
being said, I respect your research, your opinions, etc...but respect
mine,
too.

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
If you know "many" men with custody of their children, and who are
supposed to be getting child support, ME, you must live in an
extremely
odd part of the world.

Figures of fathers with custody of their children vary in different
areas. However, in more than 10 years of tracking these issues, the
highest percentage I have ever seen for the U.S. is 15. So fifty
percent of parents are fathers, but at most only 15 percent are
custodial parents. And, of that 15 percent, I'll bet only a very,
very
small percentage have child support awards, and an even smaller
percentage of them are actually getting the money.

In truth, child support money is a one-way flow of money -- from men
to
women. Knowing that principle is fundamental to understanding what
goes
on in the CS system.

But perhaps you live in Saudi Arabia.

ME wrote:

"Werebat" wrote in message
...
I find your story incredibly hard to believe, but it may just be
because
I was recently imprisoned after dutifully payig my CS for well
over
two
years, ever since it was ordered. This guy owned a BUSINESS?
Seems
like
he'd be painfully easy to track down if you ask me!

Sure he is easy to track down, if the courts wanted to. But they
don't
want
to,
at least not around here. The courts around here do not see that
when
two
people take the responsibility to sleep together that they should
both
take
the responsibility of the consequences. If the payor (often women
are
paying
too, not just men--I know many men with custody of their children)
sends something, anything at all, they won't do or say much
of anything to him/her.

And the child wanted to KILL himself at 6 years old? This was not
due
to
absence of the father -- I'd look to see if Mommy Dearest was
sexually
abusing him out of anger at the father and an inability to deal
with
the
real world.

Mom was not sexually abusing Baby, or abusing him in any way. I know
you will reply back saying, YEAH RIGHT, or something of the sort but
it's the truth.
- Ron ^*^



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.

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
The huge disparity in custody, ME, between fathers and mothers is a
very important issue, and I make no apology for raising it and for
calling attention to efforts to fudge the question.

I didn't expect an apology at all

A major weapon in the armory of defenders of the CS status quo is to
pretend that men and women are equally likely to be custodial parents.
One way this is done is to rely on anecdotal evidence: "I know several
fathers who have custody of their children." That's what you did.

Another way is to be very careful never to talk about fathers and
mothers, but always to speak about noncustodial parents and custodial
parents.

Right, I admit I should've done that in the first place....

That's what the politicians, judges, CS bureaucrats, and
feminist groups do. They try to avoid anyone even thinking about the
issue.

Yet another way is to be careful to ensure that the actual numbers
don't leak out. So, for example, if you ask in my state about the
issue, you get told that they don't collect these numbers, and they
don't know. If pressed, they will agree that most custodial parents are
mothers. They will never acknowledge the continuation of the glass
ceiling on paternal custody, or the fact that very few custodial fathers
even have orders requiring that they be paid CS (in large measure
because most fathers wouldn't even try to get money from the mothers of
their children. They are more than content to have custody.)

I see...I agree
but since you want to talk statiscal numbers,
men statiscally make more than women do also...
therefore they wouldn't have the fear of how
are they going to give the child(ren) this or that, pay
for this or that.....


Finally, another way of distorting the numbers is to fudge the joint
custody issue. In the great majority of joint custody situations, it
is joint legal custody, but the mothers have physical custody of the
children. That's no different from sole maternal custody, and should be
counted as such in the numbers.

I see your point there


As for how I have tracked these numbers, in the first place, you only
need to look around you. And, despite what you say, you will find very,
very few custodial fathers.

I didn't doubt that there are few custodial fathers.
All I said was I know quite a few....and if the statistics are from a
larger area (like State) and not a smaller area (like county) it is VERY
possible that there may be a higher percentage of custodial fathers in
certain towns....not saying that THERE IS a higher percentage....just saying
it is possible---


Secondly, when I first started to be
involved in these issues more than 10 years ago, a member of the
fathers' group that I belonged to conducted his own research into
custody awards in the one of the counties in this area. He found that
over a period of several years, not a single father had been awarded
custody over the mother's objections, except in a few unusual cases
where there was some serious problem with the mother, such as her being
a drug addict. The 15 percent figure, the highest I have seen, comes
from a federal agency -- to the best of my recollection, the Census
Bureau. (I don't know how they handle joint custody.)

Okay, I wasn't questioning your figures, I was simply asking was it by
state, county, large cities, or small towns? I have no reason to argue your
numbers.

So-called "child support" is actually money that fathers pay mothers,
because of the custody situation. If any significant number of mothers
paid child support to fathers, the system would change very quickly --
or to be more accurate, if any significant number of mothers paid child
support to fathers, that would indicate that the system had ALREADY
changed.

So-called "child support" could also be actual money mothers pay
fathers....because, althought it may be rare, they do pay fathers....so
child support is as you say 'non custodial parent paying money to the
custodial parent'
I strongly feel that 'child support' could definitly be time spent between
child and non custodial parent. But YES it does take money to raise children
that is why the non custodial parent is obligated to pay child support.
If my children would ever live with their father, and I ordered to pay child
support, although it may hurt my financials, I would rather see the clothing
on my childrens backs, the food in their stomaches, the toys they play with,
the safe car they are transported in then not pay and watch them not eat
healthy, wear torn clothing, not have many toys and be driven around in a
vehicle that is unsafe....
Non custodial parents are making a better life for their children every time
they send that check. Most non custodial parents look at it as paying the
custodial parent....maybe in some cases it is true where the custodial
parent 'blows' the money or spends it on his or herself, but not always.
This stuff should be evaluated on a case by case basis and the entire
categories (custodia - non custodial) not put down because of this. Non
custodial parent A may be happy to pay support to see custodial parent a
give the children have a better life, while non custodial parent B gets so
mad because he sees custodial parent B wearing the latest fashions etc while
she doesn't work herself. Not all CUSTODIAL PARENTS take advantage of the
CS system....Not all NON CUSTODIAL PARENTS pay child support....
I am not doubting that the figures do favor women -- but not every case
does....




ME wrote:

No I do not live in Saudi Arabia. And yes, I agree, when men have
custody
most of them do have less child support awarded to them. (Could that be
because the statistics also show that men make more than women?) I do
not
live in an extremely odd part of the world. The biggest oddity here is
the
weather. You may have tracked these issues for 10 years, and that is
great,
but how have you tracked them? By country? By state? By large city? by
county? Obviously it would take more than 10 years to track the
statistics
to all the small towns in the US, but you would find different numbers
if it
were done like that. Sure 15% of men in this state might have custody,
but
if it were broken up further, you probably would find X county (or town)
has
25% while Y county (or town) has 10% and so on. So assume that I live in
X
county. So now is it so impossible for me to know many fathers with
custody
of their child(ren)? No it is not. I am not getting into all the
politics
of this issue but I have one more thing to say--I respect your opinion
(and
others posted here) but seems I get 'bashed' for my opinion. I have been
involved in the CS system for years and in this county the system
doesn't
work great for either custodial parents or non custodial parents. Now,
that
being said, I respect your research, your opinions, etc...but respect
mine,
too.

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
If you know "many" men with custody of their children, and who are
supposed to be getting child support, ME, you must live in an
extremely
odd part of the world.

Figures of fathers with custody of their children vary in different
areas. However, in more than 10 years of tracking these issues, the
highest percentage I have ever seen for the U.S. is 15. So fifty
percent of parents are fathers, but at most only 15 percent are
custodial parents. And, of that 15 percent, I'll bet only a very,
very
small percentage have child support awards, and an even smaller
percentage of them are actually getting the money.

In truth, child support money is a one-way flow of money -- from men
to
women. Knowing that principle is fundamental to understanding what
goes
on in the CS system.

But perhaps you live in Saudi Arabia.

ME wrote:

"Werebat" wrote in message
...
I find your story incredibly hard to believe, but it may just be
because
I was recently imprisoned after dutifully payig my CS for well
over
two
years, ever since it was ordered. This guy owned a BUSINESS?
Seems
like
he'd be painfully easy to track down if you ask me!

Sure he is easy to track down, if the courts wanted to. But they
don't
want
to,
at least not around here. The courts around here do not see that
when
two
people take the responsibility to sleep together that they should
both
take
the responsibility of the consequences. If the payor (often women
are
paying
too, not just men--I know many men with custody of their children)
sends something, anything at all, they won't do or say much
of anything to him/her.

And the child wanted to KILL himself at 6 years old? This was not
due
to
absence of the father -- I'd look to see if Mommy Dearest was
sexually
abusing him out of anger at the father and an inability to deal
with
the
real world.

Mom was not sexually abusing Baby, or abusing him in any way. I know
you will reply back saying, YEAH RIGHT, or something of the sort but
it's the truth.
- Ron ^*^



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.

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
The huge disparity in custody, ME, between fathers and mothers is a
very important issue, and I make no apology for raising it and for
calling attention to efforts to fudge the question.

A major weapon in the armory of defenders of the CS status quo is to
pretend that men and women are equally likely to be custodial parents.
One way this is done is to rely on anecdotal evidence: "I know several
fathers who have custody of their children." That's what you did.

Another way is to be very careful never to talk about fathers and
mothers, but always to speak about noncustodial parents and custodial
parents. That's what the politicians, judges, CS bureaucrats, and
feminist groups do. They try to avoid anyone even thinking about the
issue.

Yet another way is to be careful to ensure that the actual numbers
don't leak out. So, for example, if you ask in my state about the
issue, you get told that they don't collect these numbers, and they
don't know. If pressed, they will agree that most custodial parents are
mothers. They will never acknowledge the continuation of the glass
ceiling on paternal custody, or the fact that very few custodial fathers
even have orders requiring that they be paid CS (in large measure
because most fathers wouldn't even try to get money from the mothers of
their children. They are more than content to have custody.)

Finally, another way of distorting the numbers is to fudge the joint
custody issue. In the great majority of joint custody situations, it
is joint legal custody, but the mothers have physical custody of the
children. That's no different from sole maternal custody, and should be
counted as such in the numbers.

I believe there is a fifth way of distorting the numbers to add to your
list. And that is to ignore the statistics altogether and claim maternal
custody is the only correct way for children to be raised. (You know the
old "calf never follows the bull" theory.) This distortion method ignores
that children are parented successfully by fathers in intact families,
widowers raise children all the time, and CP fathers get rave reviews from
their adult children for the way they were raised and cared for. And most
importantly this distortion ignores all the statisitcs that show the vast
majority of troubled children are the products of mother-headed households.


As for how I have tracked these numbers, in the first place, you only
need to look around you. And, despite what you say, you will find very,
very few custodial fathers. Secondly, when I first started to be
involved in these issues more than 10 years ago, a member of the
fathers' group that I belonged to conducted his own research into
custody awards in the one of the counties in this area. He found that
over a period of several years, not a single father had been awarded
custody over the mother's objections, except in a few unusual cases
where there was some serious problem with the mother, such as her being
a drug addict. The 15 percent figure, the highest I have seen, comes
from a federal agency -- to the best of my recollection, the Census
Bureau. (I don't know how they handle joint custody.)

There are significant questions about whether the 15% father custody number
is even valid. Most statisitcs I have seen take the 85% mother custody
number and assume the other 15% are fathers with custody. However, the
national CSE office reports their client base receiving CS payments is made
up of 85% mothers, 8% fathers, and 7% other non-biological parent such as
aunts, uncles, and grandparents.

BTW - The Census does not use words like "joint custody." Instead, the
Census report measures "Parents living with their own children under 21
years of age whose other parent is not living in the home." By this
definition, the Census excludes the national OSE office group of 7%
non-biological parents receiving CS.


So-called "child support" is actually money that fathers pay mothers,
because of the custody situation. If any significant number of mothers
paid child support to fathers, the system would change very quickly --
or to be more accurate, if any significant number of mothers paid child
support to fathers, that would indicate that the system had ALREADY
changed.

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
The huge disparity in custody, ME, between fathers and mothers is a
very important issue, and I make no apology for raising it and for
calling attention to efforts to fudge the question.

A major weapon in the armory of defenders of the CS status quo is to
pretend that men and women are equally likely to be custodial parents.
One way this is done is to rely on anecdotal evidence: "I know several
fathers who have custody of their children." That's what you did.

Another way is to be very careful never to talk about fathers and
mothers, but always to speak about noncustodial parents and custodial
parents. That's what the politicians, judges, CS bureaucrats, and
feminist groups do. They try to avoid anyone even thinking about the
issue.

Yet another way is to be careful to ensure that the actual numbers
don't leak out. So, for example, if you ask in my state about the
issue, you get told that they don't collect these numbers, and they
don't know. If pressed, they will agree that most custodial parents are
mothers. They will never acknowledge the continuation of the glass
ceiling on paternal custody, or the fact that very few custodial fathers
even have orders requiring that they be paid CS (in large measure
because most fathers wouldn't even try to get money from the mothers of
their children. They are more than content to have custody.)

Finally, another way of distorting the numbers is to fudge the joint
custody issue. In the great majority of joint custody situations, it
is joint legal custody, but the mothers have physical custody of the
children. That's no different from sole maternal custody, and should be
counted as such in the numbers.

I believe there is a fifth way of distorting the numbers to add to your
list. And that is to ignore the statistics altogether and claim maternal
custody is the only correct way for children to be raised. (You know the
old "calf never follows the bull" theory.) This distortion method ignores
that children are parented successfully by fathers in intact families,
widowers raise children all the time, and CP fathers get rave reviews from
their adult children for the way they were raised and cared for. And most
importantly this distortion ignores all the statisitcs that show the vast
majority of troubled children are the products of mother-headed households.


As for how I have tracked these numbers, in the first place, you only
need to look around you. And, despite what you say, you will find very,
very few custodial fathers. Secondly, when I first started to be
involved in these issues more than 10 years ago, a member of the
fathers' group that I belonged to conducted his own research into
custody awards in the one of the counties in this area. He found that
over a period of several years, not a single father had been awarded
custody over the mother's objections, except in a few unusual cases
where there was some serious problem with the mother, such as her being
a drug addict. The 15 percent figure, the highest I have seen, comes
from a federal agency -- to the best of my recollection, the Census
Bureau. (I don't know how they handle joint custody.)

There are significant questions about whether the 15% father custody number
is even valid. Most statisitcs I have seen take the 85% mother custody
number and assume the other 15% are fathers with custody. However, the
national CSE office reports their client base receiving CS payments is made
up of 85% mothers, 8% fathers, and 7% other non-biological parent such as
aunts, uncles, and grandparents.

BTW - The Census does not use words like "joint custody." Instead, the
Census report measures "Parents living with their own children under 21
years of age whose other parent is not living in the home." By this
definition, the Census excludes the national OSE office group of 7%
non-biological parents receiving CS.


So-called "child support" is actually money that fathers pay mothers,
because of the custody situation. If any significant number of mothers
paid child support to fathers, the system would change very quickly --
or to be more accurate, if any significant number of mothers paid child
support to fathers, that would indicate that the system had ALREADY
changed.

"ME" wrote in message
...

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
..
[snip]

So-called "child support" is actually money that fathers pay mothers,
because of the custody situation. If any significant number of mothers
paid child support to fathers, the system would change very quickly --
or to be more accurate, if any significant number of mothers paid child
support to fathers, that would indicate that the system had ALREADY
changed.

So-called "child support" could also be actual money mothers pay
fathers....because, althought it may be rare, they do pay fathers....so
child support is as you say 'non custodial parent paying money to the
custodial parent'
I strongly feel that 'child support' could definitly be time spent between
child and non custodial parent. But YES it does take money to raise
children
that is why the non custodial parent is obligated to pay child support.

Obviously not or there would be some guidelines about how this C$ is spent
or at least a modicum of desire to see to it that children benefit directly
and absolutely from the C$. There isn't, therefore that is not why C$ is
ordered. Compare the rates of foster-parenting payments, social security and
AFDC payments and benefits with C$ guidelines. Only C$ spending has no
guidelines, outlines or accountability. Odd, no?

If my children would ever live with their father, and I ordered to pay
child
support, although it may hurt my financials, I would rather see the
clothing
on my childrens backs, the food in their stomaches, the toys they play
with,
the safe car they are transported in then not pay and watch them not eat
healthy, wear torn clothing, not have many toys and be driven around in a
vehicle that is unsafe....
Non custodial parents are making a better life for their children every
time
they send that check.

This is patently untrue. The fact is that the C$ makes the CPs life better
by virtue of giving her more money to spend on her choices. Even when the CP
uses the C$ for better housing, food and clothing, the CP benefits along
with the children in living a SOL above that she could afford otherwise,
meaning the CP is utilizing the other parent's income to bolster her own. As
long as the minimal threshhold standard of neglect is not breached (which is
hardly fit for children's physical and mental health), no one cares or even
looks. Even when it can be proven that the CP is *not* using the majority of
C$ for the child but is, in fact using it as personal income, it is
impossible to change the situation either legally or actually.
If, indeed the focus was on the betterment of the children's lives, there
would be *some* mandate about what C$ is for. As it is, C$ is for whatever
the CP chooses, even when it has absolutely no relation to the children as
long as they are not neglected according to the state's definition of
"neglect". The state's definition of "neglect" applies equally to those at
every income level; those earning $0 and those earning $10,000/month.

Most non custodial parents look at it as paying the
custodial parent....maybe in some cases it is true where the custodial
parent 'blows' the money or spends it on his or herself, but not always.
This stuff should be evaluated on a case by case basis and the entire
categories (custodia - non custodial) not put down because of this. Non
custodial parent A may be happy to pay support to see custodial parent a
give the children have a better life, while non custodial parent B gets so
mad because he sees custodial parent B wearing the latest fashions etc
while
she doesn't work herself. Not all CUSTODIAL PARENTS take advantage of the
CS system....Not all NON CUSTODIAL PARENTS pay child support....
I am not doubting that the figures do favor women -- but not every case
does....

Five legged sheep. When a few of a category change from the norm, the norm
remains.
In my very limited viewpoint, the case of the CP gouging the C$ system is
normal. Having a few differ from the norm does nothing to change the norm.
[snip]
Phil #3