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

"Joy" wrote in message
news

"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:152Rf.24417$dg.13566@clgrps13...
Joy wrote:

"NewMan" wrote in message
...

Well perhaps with the advent of the birth control pill for men things
will change too! If men have the option to take "the pill", and no
women could "trick him" and get pregnant. Further, if a woman DID get
pregnant while he was on the pill, he would immediately challenge the
paternity of the child!


I know several children who were conceived while their mothers were on
the pill. Think about it - first of all, the pill isn't 100%
effective,
even when used absolutely correctly. Second, there are medications
that
interfere with the pill - for instance, some antibiotics can render it
ineffective or less effective. Third, the mother could get sick - get
a
bout of the stomach/intestinal flu, for instance - if she can't digest
it, it is much the same as if she hadn't taken it - a few days of the
flu
at the wrong time could leave you fertile.

All things that most women *know* and should take into account if they
decide to have sex don't you think ? I know this may seem like I'm
trying
to put the onus for contraception onto the woman, but realistically,
she's
the one who knows her personal situation, whether she's taking
medication
that interferes with the pill or whether she's been sick and how that
might effect her birth control efforts...if she doesn't take these
issues
into account, can you reasonably and credibly assert that any man who
has
been assured by her that she's "on the pill" could possibly be
"culpable"
in an unwanted pregnancy under such circumstances ?

I think you missed my point. My point is, *nobody* can know for sure - so
it behooves *everybody* to grasp that, in the absence of a physical cause
for absolute infertility (like a hysterectomy, for example), ALL sexual
encounters bring some risk of pregnancy. Using birth control minimizes
the
risk, it does not eliminate the risk. Therefore "an assurance that she's
on
the pill" shouldn't give *either* party a sense of invulnerability. Both
parties should understand that every sexual encounter does carry a risk of
pregnancy, even with the pill. Even if the pill is taken 100% correctly.
For many people this brings the risk down to a level they find
acceptable -
but the fact that there was a known, albeit small, risk means that IMO
both
parties are equally culpable.

So are you saying that if the guy is too ignorant to know that even if
she's
on the pill there is some risk of pregnancy then he shouldn't be
"culpable"?
I'd disagree, because every sexually active adult really should know that
birth control isn't 100% reliable and you are accepting that risk when you
choose to have sex. The safest bet is to only have sex with somebody who
you know well enough to know they would handle a surprise pregnancy the
same
way you would.

Good luck.

"DB" wrote in message
om...

"Joy" wrote in

I'm not buying the "2 decades of virtual servitude" bit - to call that
loaded language would be a gross understatement. Supporting your child
is
a natural consequence of having one.

It's people like you that have no concept of the real world and believe
there is a law for everything, to fix everything.
No amount of laws passed will change human behavior.

How is this for your laws lady, I immigrated here 3 years ago to find out
that I owe $52,000 in CS arrearages and face a possible 4 years in State
prison.

Either the government people are going to rip YOU off, or they are going to
rip-off the TAXPAYERS by paying for your room & board. Makes sense to me!

I'm currently earning about 10 bucks an hour and haven't a hope in
hell of paying this extortionate amount of money plus the $500 monthly
payments they want too!!!!!!!!!

Please, do not speak on topics you know nothing about.
Talk is cheap, I know this is USENET, but talking about trying to totally
control young hormones with laws is completely stupid!

"Joy" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Joy" wrote in message
news

"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:152Rf.24417$dg.13566@clgrps13...
Joy wrote:

"NewMan" wrote in message
...

Well perhaps with the advent of the birth control pill for men things
will change too! If men have the option to take "the pill", and no
women could "trick him" and get pregnant. Further, if a woman DID get
pregnant while he was on the pill, he would immediately challenge the
paternity of the child!


I know several children who were conceived while their mothers were
on
the pill. Think about it - first of all, the pill isn't 100%
effective, even when used absolutely correctly. Second, there are
medications that interfere with the pill - for instance, some
antibiotics can render it ineffective or less effective. Third, the
mother could get sick - get a bout of the stomach/intestinal flu, for
instance - if she can't digest it, it is much the same as if she
hadn't
taken it - a few days of the flu at the wrong time could leave you
fertile.

All things that most women *know* and should take into account if they
decide to have sex don't you think ? I know this may seem like I'm
trying to put the onus for contraception onto the woman, but
realistically, she's the one who knows her personal situation, whether
she's taking medication that interferes with the pill or whether she's
been sick and how that might effect her birth control efforts...if she
doesn't take these issues into account, can you reasonably and
credibly
assert that any man who has been assured by her that she's "on the
pill"
could possibly be "culpable" in an unwanted pregnancy under such
circumstances ?

I think you missed my point. My point is, *nobody* can know for sure -
so it behooves *everybody* to grasp that, in the absence of a physical
cause for absolute infertility (like a hysterectomy, for example), ALL
sexual encounters bring some risk of pregnancy. Using birth control
minimizes the risk, it does not eliminate the risk. Therefore "an
assurance that she's on the pill" shouldn't give *either* party a sense
of invulnerability. Both parties should understand that every sexual
encounter does carry a risk of pregnancy, even with the pill. Even if
the pill is taken 100% correctly. For many people this brings the risk
down to a level they find acceptable - but the fact that there was a
known, albeit small, risk means that IMO both parties are equally
culpable.

And if they are equally culpable, don't you think they should have equal
choices as to what to do about the pregnancy? That's where the problem
is right now. Only a woman can decide that a child will result from a
pregnancy--and the man is given no choice bu to follow the woman's
choice.
Equal responsibility should mean equal choice.

Both of them took the risk of pregnancy. The default position is that a
baby results. The end result is that if a woman does get an abortion,
then
he's undeservedly off the hook. Kind of like the guy who gets pulled over
for speeding but only gets a warning. If he earned a ticket, then the cop
would have been well within his rights to give him a ticket. If he
doesn't
give him a ticket, then the guy got lucky - but not because he deserved to
avoid facing the consequences of his actions. In this analogy, having a
baby is like getting a ticket - if you do the act that results in either a
baby or a ticket, then the natural consequences apply. Sometimes you get
unmerited pardon after the fact, but in no way are you entitled to it.

Rough translation: A man deserves punishment for becoming a father.
With all due respect, are you a lesbian?


Now, I don't believe that a man should be able to impregnate a dozen
women
and walk away scott free. There has to be some responsibility
somewhere.
Perhaps he could pay the cost of an abortion for each child he creates
but
doesn't want--even if the woman decides to keep the child. But he
certainly shouldn't face 2 decades of virtual servitude because of a
decision made by the woman.

I'm not buying the "2 decades of virtual servitude" bit - to call that
loaded language would be a gross understatement. Supporting your child is
a
natural consequence of having one.

No it's not.

Having a child is a natural consequence
of having sex.

Not always.

Having sex is a choice.

So is having an abortion.

A smart person is careful about who
he or she has sex with, and limits it to partners who have the same
response
to the non-zero risk of pregnancy that they do. A foolish person isn't
careful about this, and ends up facing the consequences.

Being foolish does not justify injustice.

"Chris" wrote in message
news:Hf7Rf.554$5F1.90@fed1read08...
How is this for your laws lady, I immigrated here 3 years ago to find out
that I owe $52,000 in CS arrearages and face a possible 4 years in State
prison.

Either the government people are going to rip YOU off, or they are going
to
rip-off the TAXPAYERS by paying for your room & board. Makes sense to me!

The government is going to spend $400,000 ($100K per year for the prison
internment cost) of taxpayers money so that DB doesn't have to pay $52,000.
Yeah, that math makes a lot of sense.

Werebat wrote:
Bill in Co. wrote:
Werebat wrote:

Bill in Co. wrote:

Moon Shyne wrote:

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

"Bill in Co." wrote in message
nk.net...

Werebat wrote:

Bill in Co. wrote:

Joy wrote:

"DB" wrote in message
. net...

"tonita" wrote in

consequences. Don't have sex with someone you wouldn't want to
become a parent with.

Ever hear of Beer?

If only we could all live in a perfect world and be as smart as
you!

So is it right to sentence a man to death if is can't pay the
extortionate CS rates?

Responsible people don't drink so much beer that they have
irresponsible sex.

Responsible people don't do (many) irresponsible things, but alas,
The Greatest Generation is nearly all dead now.

Oh, blow it out your pompous ass.

Pray tell, which was this Greatest Generation? Give me dates.

- Ron ^*^

I guess you're still a bit too young to know, if you have to ask
that.

Well, perhaps Tom Brokaw can enlighten you in that regard, since he
used the term a fair amount during his "tenure".

But then again, perhaps not......
I'll leave the light on for ya, but I won't wait up.

Being nearly 60, I am unfamiliar with the term. The fact that you
appear to
get your information from one of the approved newtworks speaks
volumes.

No, apparently the "volumes spoken" have been lost on you. (Want to
try
again)? Hint: some further info was provided below, hopefully for
your
enlightenment (if that is even possible)

You really are a pompous ass.


ROFL!! (Look who is talking). Got a mirror handy?
"The things we hate most about others are the things that we deny exist
within ourselves". (cogitate on that for awhile, if you're up to it)

And you're too lazy to provide simple information, too.

I'm not going to do all your work for you, grasshopper.

From School Library Journal:
"YA-Brokaw defines "the greatest generation" as American citizens who
came of age during the Great Depression and the Second World War and
went on to build modern America."

Now you could have simply told me that when I asked, but no, you had to
pretend to be some kind of an enigmatic sage. Fine.

That's right. Now you're learning.
(good first step)

You know, there is really nothing I can say here..

Indeed. THAT is quite evident. (And has been, for some time, Ron).
But not to worry, be nice, and I *might* still leave the light on for you.

"Joy" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

Both of them took the risk of pregnancy. The default position is that a
baby results. The end result is that if a woman does get an abortion,
then he's undeservedly off the hook.

Then you must feel that she, too, is undeservedly off the hook, right?

Sure.


Kind of like the guy who gets pulled over
for speeding but only gets a warning. If he earned a ticket, then the
cop would have been well within his rights to give him a ticket. If he
doesn't give him a ticket, then the guy got lucky - but not because he
deserved to avoid facing the consequences of his actions. In this
analogy, having a baby is like getting a ticket - if you do the act that
results in either a baby or a ticket, then the natural consequences
apply. Sometimes you get unmerited pardon after the fact, but in no way
are you entitled to it.

Then there should be NO ABORTION. Otherwise women are undeservedly off
the hook by their choice, and men only by the woman's choice. The ticket
is given by an objective outsider--the choice to keep the child is made
by an interested party in the decision.


Now, I don't believe that a man should be able to impregnate a dozen
women and walk away scott free. There has to be some responsibility
somewhere. Perhaps he could pay the cost of an abortion for each child
he creates but doesn't want--even if the woman decides to keep the
child. But he certainly shouldn't face 2 decades of virtual servitude
because of a decision made by the woman.

I'm not buying the "2 decades of virtual servitude" bit - to call that
loaded language would be a gross understatement. Supporting your child
is a natural consequence of having one.

You know what, Joy. If all the father had to do is meet the NEEDS of the
child, it wouldn't be so unfair. If the father had equal parenting time,
it wouldn't be so unfair. But that isn't how it is. Look at the support
levels required--in some states it is 50% of take-home pay for one
child!! It's 20% of take-home where we are. And my husband was told
(when he found out he had an almost-13-year-old daughter) that SHE was
the only child that mattered--that our 2 children were irrelevant. He
was charged 2 years of back child support--that put him in the felony
category of arrearages! He could have been arrested at any time, just on
the say-so of a judge. If he lost his job, his child support would
still be due. They could take the house that I help pay for--just rip it
out from under us and put us--ourselved and our children--out on the
street.

Is there any way to protect your home by either titling it in your name
alone, or by selling it to a trusted relative (who will "rent" it to you
for exactly the amount of the house payment?).

Do not tell me it is not
servitude!! A lost job--an illness--an accident--all beyond his
control--can give what we have worked so hard for to a woman who has
never worked a day in her life!! And she is raising her flock of
illegitimate children to be the same way.

You are confusing two separate things. One is whether or not both parents
should be responsible for the child, and as a separate issue the other is
how much is paid in child support.

Oh, no-no-no. This part was in response to your saying that it was not
servitude. You are so very, very wrong! Do you have any idea how many men
are looking at what we are looking at, and are facing loss of driers and
professional licenses and even jail should an unexpected accident or illness
hit them?


Look at it this way - I'm assuming that
you wouldn't have any problems if your husband was only ordered to pay a
very small amount, like $10/month.

Neither I nor my husband have a problem with the fact that his child needs
to be supported. He is a very responsible man. We do have a problem with
the fact that our children are considered irrelevant by the very system that
proclaims to do things "in the best interests of the children." However,
that does not mean that I feel that others should be forced to make the same
decision. I think there needs to be fairness for all concerned. I don't
think men should be forced into fatherhood any more than I think women
should be forced into motherhood.

If that is the case, then your issue
isn't really whether or not he has any responsibility to the child - your
issue is how much and how it is enforced. This is not the issue I've been
addressing. The only issue I've been addressing is the first one - the
issue of whether or not both parents are responsible.

See, that's where the can of worms is--should people be forced to be
parents? Women can not be so forced. Men can. And at great price, I might
add. There needs to be an equality about the responsibilities demanded.


Do you think it is right for a woman to get 20% of 7 men's incomes, and
never have to work to support herself? Where is the equal responsibility
in that?

She sounds like low-life trash (and IMO any woman with 7 kids by 7
different fathers should be evaluated for fitness as a parent). Did your
husband know she was low-life trash when he slept with her? Did you
know he had been sleeping with low-life trash when you married him?

My husband lived through a difficult childhood and began drinking when he
left home. He did many things that he is not proud of. But he has been
sober for almost 15 years, and has never failed to live up to his
responsibilities, and make amends for past wrongs. I knew he had a
difficult past. We found out about the child just before she turned 13--she
will be 17 next month.


This is exactly what I was getting at when I said a responsible person is
careful about who he or she sleeps with - it prevents this kind of problem
from developing in the first place. Sex really isn't without
consequences. I wish our educational system would let guys like your
husband talk to teenagers and let them hear what the consequences of their
actions might be - it might help some of them avoid becoming parents with
the wrong person.

My husband is in a position where he counsels many about the damage that
uncontrolled alcohol and careless sex can cause. Our education system can
only do so much. The examples in the world around us--including tv, video
games and movies--do not teach the message of personal responsibility very
well.


Having a child is a natural consequence
of having sex. Having sex is a choice. A smart person is careful about
who he or she has sex with, and limits it to partners who have the same
response to the non-zero risk of pregnancy that they do. A foolish
person isn't careful about this, and ends up facing the consequences.

You keep saying "person." You really mean "man." Because the woman
never has to spend one dime of her money on the child--

I'd disagree with that "never" and "man". Please don't confuse your
husbands trashy co-parent with "womankind". I know lots of women spending
all kinds of their own money on their children. I do it myself, in fact.

So do I. And I know quite a number of divorced parents who truly co-parent
their children without the need for government intrusion. But I also know
women who spend bare minimum on their children, and espect the dad to do
above and beyond the amount he pays for child support each and every month.
Take some time to chat with some of the men on alt child support. Some of
their stories will curl your hair.


not so long as the father
is paying lifestyle child support, and she only needs to provide enough
to keep child and family services from her door.

I provide way more than "only enough to keep child and family services
from [my] door", as does every other single mother I know, so don't tell
me that the "woman" doesn't ever do that. I suspect it has a lot to do
with the quality of the woman involved - and the bottom line is, your
husband made the wrong choice - he picked the wrong woman to screw, found
a leech to impregnate, and the consequences have been horrible. Tough as
it is, and I'm more sympathetic than you might think, that doesn't mean he
shouldn't have any responsibility for the child.

Again, he would never choose to not support his child. But that does not
make the system fair. Not does it mean that men should be able to be forced
into fatherhood, when women cannot similarly be forced into motherhood.
From my perspective, it would be far kinder to take the child from a couple
that is so immature that they find a solution to this issue, and let a
stable couple adopt it.


The point is that, if both are equally responsible for the pregnancy,
both should have equal choices about what to do about it. Of child
support is deemed to be necessary, take it from both parents--not just
the father. I bet you get a HUGE outcry about THAT!!

Why? I'm a mother that supported my kids - why would I think there was
anything odd about mothers as well as fathers supporting their families?
Of course I think both parents should be responsible.

I mean garnish both parents paychecks. Give the custodial parent a set
amount each month for housing and food. Nothing else. Then the CP can
bring receipts to prove what else was paid for for the child (within the
predetermined annual budget) and be reimbursed from the account. Making it
so that the child's money could never be spent on anything but the child. I
think that there are many mothers who would be shocked at how small their
paychecks were with CS subtracted.

Of course, I think that the vast majority of parents handle the whole child
support issue without any need for courts, etc. Still, it needs to be fair
for everyone.

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:uq7Rf.8544$z82.3049@fed1read07...
"Chris" wrote in message
news:Hf7Rf.554$5F1.90@fed1read08...
How is this for your laws lady, I immigrated here 3 years ago to find
out
that I owe $52,000 in CS arrearages and face a possible 4 years in State
prison.

Either the government people are going to rip YOU off, or they are going
to
rip-off the TAXPAYERS by paying for your room & board. Makes sense to me!

The government is going to spend $400,000 ($100K per year for the prison
internment cost) of taxpayers money so that DB doesn't have to pay
$52,000. Yeah, that math makes a lot of sense.

Oh, no, no, no. You've got it all wrong. He would still be expected to pay
the 52K plus interest when he gets out of prison.

"Bill in Co." wrote in message
nk.net...
Moon Shyne wrote:
"Phil" wrote in message
link.net...

"Bill in Co." wrote in message
nk.net...
Werebat wrote:
Bill in Co. wrote:
Joy wrote:

"DB" wrote in message
. net...

"tonita" wrote in

consequences. Don't have sex with someone you wouldn't want to
become a parent with.

Ever hear of Beer?

If only we could all live in a perfect world and be as smart as
you!

So is it right to sentence a man to death if is can't pay the
extortionate CS rates?

Responsible people don't drink so much beer that they have
irresponsible
sex.

Responsible people don't do (many) irresponsible things, but alas,
The
Greatest Generation is nearly all dead now.

Oh, blow it out your pompous ass.

Pray tell, which was this Greatest Generation? Give me dates.

- Ron ^*^

I guess you're still a bit too young to know, if you have to ask that.

Well, perhaps Tom Brokaw can enlighten you in that regard, since he
used
the
term a fair amount during his "tenure".

But then again, perhaps not......
I'll leave the light on for ya, but I won't wait up.

Being nearly 60, I am unfamiliar with the term. The fact that you
appear
to
get your information from one of the approved newtworks speaks volumes.

No, apparently the "volumes spoken" have been lost on you. (Want to try
again)? Hint: some further info was provided below, hopefully for your
enlightenment (if that is even possible)

So damn smart that you replied to Moonshyne's post but answered mine.
'nuff said about intelligence on your part.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahhahaha.
Phil #3


Actually it's a book.

Reading.

It's fundamental.

Phil #3

"John Smith" wrote in

How is this for your laws lady, I immigrated here 3 years ago to find out
that I owe $52,000 in CS arrearages and face a possible 4 years in State
prison. I'm currently earning about 10 bucks an hour and haven't a hope
in hell of paying this extortionate amount of money plus the $500 monthly
payments they want too!!!!!!!!!

Whoa! How did you end up in this situation?

Easy, they just pass a law stating that any CS case filed and not contended
can and will accrue from the day the child is born.
So 5 years ago she files a case, never lets me know about it and all of a
sudden the Government demands that I pay $100 a week from the time the child
is born. Nice system you have here!

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:uq7Rf.8544$z82.3049@fed1read07...
"Chris" wrote in message
news:Hf7Rf.554$5F1.90@fed1read08...
How is this for your laws lady, I immigrated here 3 years ago to find
out
that I owe $52,000 in CS arrearages and face a possible 4 years in State
prison.

Either the government people are going to rip YOU off, or they are going
to
rip-off the TAXPAYERS by paying for your room & board. Makes sense to me!

The government is going to spend $400,000 ($100K per year for the prison
internment cost) of taxpayers money so that DB doesn't have to pay
$52,000. Yeah, that math makes a lot of sense.

FYI, John.. The amount DB owes keeps accruing and accumulating more
interest, fees and penalties for the state to hit him with when he gets out.

In other words - what he owes now keeps building up. It doesn't stop just
because he's in jail. If the state puts him in jail, they -will- hit him
with the bill when they release him for the first offence.. then lock him
right back up again for another "failure to pay" the state for the time he
was in prison.

It's a Catch-22 pure and simple. I just hope that when they (the state)
locks us both up for "failure to pay" that we get adjoining cells so it's
easier to commiserate...