Male Reproductive Choice - thoughts?

Beverly:

Your ideas in theory make alot of sense.. and I agree with them,
however that said the practicalities of implementation is a totally
different story. Example of what I mean.

A freind of mine is in the service. Just prior to being shipped out
he did what most young servicemen do. Went out for a good time just
before. Well this good time involved alot of alchol by both him and
the lady he was with. And as a result they had sex.

As a result of this act she became pregnant. Well this is where it
gets complicated. From what I understand she attempted to track him
down, but only knowing his first name, a very common one at that, and
being out of the counrty in Iraq for a Tour of duty lasting over a
year. He was pretty much out of contact.

When he came home, he happen to find her number written on his desk,
so he gave her a call.. A complete chance, or to this day he would
still not know he is a father probably. Well now he has found out he
is a father, and is very good one at that. Tries every chance he gets
to be with his son, and pay his support and whatever else.. .

But here is the major flaw in the idea you present. What if the
woman is trying to locate the man activily? What is the time limit?
What if the guy goes out of his way not to be found?moves out of
state... many different ways for a man to hide. What choices does the
woman have then? Can she keep the child, and upon location of the
father ask for support, or can she get an abortion with out the
knowledge or consent of the father? (Which is the case now)

What if the father through no fault of his own does no about the
child till after the birth, and then requests to become part of the
childs life? Do to his name not being included anywhere, because he
did not give his consent early on, does he infact have rights to this
child?

To me current system is not perfect, but it is still fairly decent as
this whole problem of fathers complaining about being a father, and
wanting nothing to do with their child probably only affects approx
5-10% of all the fathers out there, and thats being genorous.

Another flaw in the idea... What if it's the wrong guy? Your whole
idea is also based upon the fact that the guy she is informing is 100%
the father. What if she had sex with a couple of different men over a
a couple of week period, as is her right, or should that right be
stripped from women to ensure they will know.

What if she informs a guy, and he denies to even ever sleeping with
her. And then a DNA test is completed, which has to wait till after
birth, or if it can be done in the womb, past the point where she would
be legally allowed to have an abortion. DNA test comes back, presto he
was right... he's not the father... what then. The guy who is the
real father let off the hook as he did not give his consent?

I would challenge people out there to poll fathers. Scientific,
random poll, done by a credible organization accross the counrty, and
ask them a simple question. Do you feel your rights are being
infringed upon, by leaving the descision to bring a child to term soely
up to the woman?

I'm willing to bet that your numbers will not come back very high.
As the average guy out there understands that the best precaution to a
child is not to have sex with a woman. And they have more important
issues to concern their time with.

SpiderHam77

"SpiderHam77" wrote in message
ups.com...
Beverly:

Your ideas in theory make alot of sense.. and I agree with them,
however that said the practicalities of implementation is a totally
different story. Example of what I mean.

A freind of mine is in the service. Just prior to being shipped out
he did what most young servicemen do. Went out for a good time just
before. Well this good time involved alot of alchol by both him and
the lady he was with. And as a result they had sex.

As a result of this act she became pregnant. Well this is where it
gets complicated. From what I understand she attempted to track him
down, but only knowing his first name, a very common one at that, and
being out of the counrty in Iraq for a Tour of duty lasting over a
year. He was pretty much out of contact.

When he came home, he happen to find her number written on his desk,
so he gave her a call.. A complete chance, or to this day he would
still not know he is a father probably. Well now he has found out he
is a father, and is very good one at that. Tries every chance he gets
to be with his son, and pay his support and whatever else.. .

But here is the major flaw in the idea you present. What if the
woman is trying to locate the man activily? What is the time limit?
What if the guy goes out of his way not to be found?moves out of
state... many different ways for a man to hide. What choices does the
woman have then? Can she keep the child, and upon location of the
father ask for support, or can she get an abortion with out the
knowledge or consent of the father? (Which is the case now)

What if the father through no fault of his own does no about the
child till after the birth, and then requests to become part of the
childs life? Do to his name not being included anywhere, because he
did not give his consent early on, does he infact have rights to this
child?

To me current system is not perfect, but it is still fairly decent as
this whole problem of fathers complaining about being a father, and
wanting nothing to do with their child probably only affects approx
5-10% of all the fathers out there, and thats being genorous.

Another flaw in the idea... What if it's the wrong guy? Your whole
idea is also based upon the fact that the guy she is informing is 100%
the father. What if she had sex with a couple of different men over a
a couple of week period, as is her right, or should that right be
stripped from women to ensure they will know.

What if she informs a guy, and he denies to even ever sleeping with
her. And then a DNA test is completed, which has to wait till after
birth, or if it can be done in the womb, past the point where she would
be legally allowed to have an abortion. DNA test comes back, presto he
was right... he's not the father... what then. The guy who is the
real father let off the hook as he did not give his consent?

I would challenge people out there to poll fathers. Scientific,
random poll, done by a credible organization accross the counrty, and
ask them a simple question. Do you feel your rights are being
infringed upon, by leaving the descision to bring a child to term soely
up to the woman?

I'm willing to bet that your numbers will not come back very high.
As the average guy out there understands that the best precaution to a
child is not to have sex with a woman. And they have more important
issues to concern their time with.

So are you saying that, since the system we have is, in your opinion, fairly
serving the majority, the "small number" that are being treated unfairly by
the system should just "take it"?

teachrmama wrote:

So are you saying that, since the system we have is, in your opinion, fairly
serving the majority, the "small number" that are being treated unfairly by
the system should just "take it"?

In short, yes. The only ones being treated unfairly by the system of
reproductive rights that are currently in place are the men who do not
want to be fathers. Men who want to be fathers don't really care how
the baby comes about.. just as long as it does.

It's the men who feel they were somehow robbed of their sperm, and
are now being screwed over by the system that are complaining. I'm a
father. Proud one at that.

No where along the line did I feel I was being opressed. No where
along the line did I feel I was being taken advantage of. Why? Because
I wanted the child.

If I didn't want the child I could see how my view upon the system
would be slightly jaded. And for those who do feel that way... I feel
for them.. But I won't lose any sleep over their mistake of not taking
percautions in their lives to ensure that if a child was not created
from their actions.

SpiderHam77

On 5 Dec 2005 17:33:59 -0800, "SpiderHam77"
wrote:

Beverly:

Your ideas in theory make alot of sense.. and I agree with them,
however that said the practicalities of implementation is a totally
different story. Example of what I mean.

A freind of mine is in the service. Just prior to being shipped out
he did what most young servicemen do. Went out for a good time just
before. Well this good time involved alot of alchol by both him and
the lady he was with. And as a result they had sex.

As a result of this act she became pregnant. Well this is where it
gets complicated. From what I understand she attempted to track him
down, but only knowing his first name, a very common one at that, and
being out of the counrty in Iraq for a Tour of duty lasting over a
year. He was pretty much out of contact.

The result of bad choices are visited upon those who made them. The
woman slept with a man not even knowing his last name, much less a way
to contact him. Had he never contacted her, she would be raising the
child as if he had chosen to not be a father and she chose to have and
keep a baby. Your friend would have had no rights to force a woman to
carry a baby to term, so her choice had no different impact on him
than it would have otherwise.


When he came home, he happen to find her number written on his desk,
so he gave her a call.. A complete chance, or to this day he would
still not know he is a father probably. Well now he has found out he
is a father, and is very good one at that. Tries every chance he gets
to be with his son, and pay his support and whatever else.. .

But here is the major flaw in the idea you present. What if the
woman is trying to locate the man activily? What is the time limit?

There would be no time limit for notification; however, the man may
still have the period of time in which to exercise his right to not be
a father. If the mother cannot locate the father quickly, she can
exercise whatever choices she could exercise anyway. The only time
limitation is that of the father's decision... just like a woman has a
time limit in which to decide to abort. If a woman goes beyond her
choice to abort while trying to locate the father, she is also making
a choice to potentially do this alone. Adoption is another potential
choice.

What if the guy goes out of his way not to be found?moves out of
state... many different ways for a man to hide. What choices does the
woman have then? Can she keep the child, and upon location of the
father ask for support, or can she get an abortion with out the
knowledge or consent of the father? (Which is the case now)

Well, if the guy goes out of his way not to be found, does this not
have some indication on what she can expect from him in the future
regarding the child? Personally, I'd rather know while all my choices
were still available than after I've formed a bond with my child while
unrealistically expecting that he may someday be a father to my child.
For what it is worth, my biological mother knew my biological father's
intentions shortly after she informed him she was pregnant. He simply
disappeared. Abortion wasn't legal back then, so she gave me up for
adoption, knowing that her resources were not enough to raise me
herself. That was the ultimate show of a mother's love, in my
opinion. She did what was best for me despite how much it hurt her to
do so.

Yes, she can keep the child and, upon notifying the father and
receiving a poisitve response or no response at all may ask for
support. The goal here is to give men the opportunity to decide to
not be a father just as a woman can decide not to be a mother. Child
support, however, would never be retroactive before the date of
notification. This would eliminate a man finding out he has a 13 year
old child someday along with 13 years of child support arrears.

Yes, she can still get an abortion without the father's consent.


What if the father through no fault of his own does no about the
child till after the birth, and then requests to become part of the
childs life? Do to his name not being included anywhere, because he
did not give his consent early on, does he infact have rights to this
child?

A father who becomes aware that he is the father may exercise his
rights and responsibilities at any time, but not if he was notified
and declined to be a parent.


To me current system is not perfect, but it is still fairly decent as
this whole problem of fathers complaining about being a father, and
wanting nothing to do with their child probably only affects approx
5-10% of all the fathers out there, and thats being genorous.

I'm pretty sure it is more prevalent than that, but men already know
that once conception happens, their hands are tied.


Another flaw in the idea... What if it's the wrong guy? Your whole
idea is also based upon the fact that the guy she is informing is 100%
the father. What if she had sex with a couple of different men over a
a couple of week period, as is her right, or should that right be
stripped from women to ensure they will know.

Not at all. If she slept with several men, she must notify several
men they they are potentially the father of her unborn child. If more
than one agrees to accept being a parent, then tests will have to be
done to determine who the actual father is.


What if she informs a guy, and he denies to even ever sleeping with
her. And then a DNA test is completed, which has to wait till after
birth, or if it can be done in the womb, past the point where she would
be legally allowed to have an abortion. DNA test comes back, presto he
was right... he's not the father... what then. The guy who is the
real father let off the hook as he did not give his consent?

He wouldn't have to deny sleeping with her... only enact his right to
not be a parent against his will.


I would challenge people out there to poll fathers. Scientific,
random poll, done by a credible organization accross the counrty, and
ask them a simple question. Do you feel your rights are being
infringed upon, by leaving the descision to bring a child to term soely
up to the woman?

I'm willing to bet that your numbers will not come back very high.
As the average guy out there understands that the best precaution to a
child is not to have sex with a woman. And they have more important
issues to concern their time with.

Abstinence is best, absolutely. I just don't see it practiced much
anymore.


SpiderHam77

On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 20:16:40 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:

So are you saying that, since the system we have is, in your opinion, fairly
serving the majority, the "small number" that are being treated unfairly by
the system should just "take it"?


I'm interested in hearing how you think my ideas would have affected
your husband. Either he would have been notified much sooner or would
have been liable for child support only after he was notified. Would
this not have been much more fair to him? He also would have had the
right to say he was not now going to be the father of a half grown
child, although I suspect he would have taken responsibility. He
should have never been hit with the arrears, IMO, though.

On 5 Dec 2005 21:21:06 -0800, "SpiderHam77"
wrote:


teachrmama wrote:

So are you saying that, since the system we have is, in your opinion, fairly
serving the majority, the "small number" that are being treated unfairly by
the system should just "take it"?

In short, yes. The only ones being treated unfairly by the system of
reproductive rights that are currently in place are the men who do not
want to be fathers. Men who want to be fathers don't really care how
the baby comes about.. just as long as it does.

The notification aspect is quite important... even to men who want
children. There are numerous men who find out they are fathers years
after the birth of the child. Then, the courts order child support
and include an arrearage that could be thousands of dollars which can
ruin a man's credit. Is it fair that women will always know when a
baby is coming and men won't? Child support should never be
retroactive past when the father finds out he is/was "expecting."


It's the men who feel they were somehow robbed of their sperm, and
are now being screwed over by the system that are complaining. I'm a
father. Proud one at that.

I'm complaining and I am not even a man.


No where along the line did I feel I was being opressed. No where
along the line did I feel I was being taken advantage of. Why? Because
I wanted the child.

If I didn't want the child I could see how my view upon the system
would be slightly jaded. And for those who do feel that way... I feel
for them.. But I won't lose any sleep over their mistake of not taking
percautions in their lives to ensure that if a child was not created
from their actions.

I agree with you that people should take precautions to ensure that a
child they do not want is created. I assume you disagree with Roe v
Wade? After all, shouldn't a woman also be expected to take proper
precautions?

I have a friend who was pregnant and wanted the baby. The father of
the baby did not... so he punched her so hard in the stomach as to
cause a miscarriage. He never spent a day in jail as this was his
first offense and the miscarriage was not considered murder. Is THIS
how you would like to see it? Or would his ability to tell the woman
that he intends not to be a father be a much better alternative?

Just as in pre-Roe v Wade days, there are going to be people so
desperate for an "out" that they are going to do whatever it takes.
Are you sure you want to endanger women this way? A civilized society
can handle male reproductive choice which cannot force a woman to have
an unwanted child; rather, it does not force a man to have one either
while giving the woman all the reproductive rights that she currently
enjoys.

SpiderHam77

Beverly wrote:

The notification aspect is quite important... even to men who want
children. There are numerous men who find out they are fathers years
after the birth of the child. Then, the courts order child support
and include an arrearage that could be thousands of dollars which can
ruin a man's credit. Is it fair that women will always know when a
baby is coming and men won't? Child support should never be
retroactive past when the father finds out he is/was "expecting."

Now on this I agree... a man should not be held liable for child
support payments retroactive for a child he didn't know to be his.
Upon proving the child is his.. from that day forward he should
responsible for child support.

It's the men who feel they were somehow robbed of their sperm, and
are now being screwed over by the system that are complaining. I'm a
father. Proud one at that.

I'm complaining and I am not even a man.

Well all the men I know... Responsible men that is... Men who accept
the consquenses of actions they make.. After discussing this topic
with a few of them. They don't see what the issue is... If they don't
want a child, they will not have sex, or make sure they got Fort Knox
security going on down there. But a child being created is part of the
risk of having sex. If you don't fully understand that... and are not
willing to live up to the consequences as a result (This goes for both
sexes) don't have sex.

I agree with you that people should take precautions to ensure that a
child they do not want is created. I assume you disagree with Roe v
Wade? After all, shouldn't a woman also be expected to take proper
precautions?

I agree with Roe Vs Wade on the princple that the state should not be
able to tell somone they cannot do something to their body. Do I agree
with abortion? Personally no. However that said, I would never stand
in the way of a person having an abortion.

I have a friend who was pregnant and wanted the baby. The father of
the baby did not... so he punched her so hard in the stomach as to
cause a miscarriage. He never spent a day in jail as this was his
first offense and the miscarriage was not considered murder. Is THIS
how you would like to see it? Or would his ability to tell the woman
that he intends not to be a father be a much better alternative?

Just as in pre-Roe v Wade days, there are going to be people so
desperate for an "out" that they are going to do whatever it takes.
Are you sure you want to endanger women this way? A civilized society
can handle male reproductive choice which cannot force a woman to have
an unwanted child; rather, it does not force a man to have one either
while giving the woman all the reproductive rights that she currently
enjoys.

One thought I had to the Male Reproductive Rights.. if this type of
law was passed, I could see this having an abnormal effect on 2
different fronts. The sales of condoms may dramatically drop. Reason
- as a guy, who is clean, knowing my partner is clean, only reason I
would use a condom is to ward off an unwanted pregancy.

And well if it is in my right as a man to say... Woa... no I don't
want that child I just had a hand in creating... why would I spend the
time, effort and money in purchasing a condom, when most men will tell
you sex without a condom is much more enjoyable.

Next effect, abortions. Wouldn't this infact just increase the
number of abortions. If a woman knowing that the guy has just walked
away.. doesn't think they will be able to give the baby up for
adoption, and also knows they will not be able to care for it on their
own.. whats the alternative... Abortion....

Also on the idea of abortions. One of the only ways I could see this
idea working, is having the entire country believe 1 moral code. All
the anti abortion people would have to put down their signs and agree
that in all fairness to everyone, because the man wants nothing to do
with the child, the woman should be allowed to have an abortion with no
arguments.

Or if abortion is not the key.. ensure all women who are not
fincially able to raise a child on their own, are strong willed enough
to give the child up for adoption. Otherwise this child raising
becomes a burden on the welfare system still, and is still going to
cost me money due to an increase of taxes.

On both these fronts I see losing battle.

If this is all about CS, my proposal, and I have listed it in the
group before awhile ago is a cap. No more then 30% of the NCP's take
home income can be deducted for CS. And there also has to be a Min
income before the 30% is applied.

If you only make 1000 a month take home... being expected to pay 300
a month in support is outrageous. But you take home say 10,000 a
month. 3,000 a month in support is not an outrageous figure.. where the
lines are drawn is up for debate..

This would ensure that NCP's are still able to make a decent living,
and the CP's cannot take them for every cent they are worth. Anything
above that 30% is up to the discretion of the NCP... New bike... New
Clothes.. whatever...

SpderHam77

"Beverly" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 20:16:40 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:

So are you saying that, since the system we have is, in your opinion,
fairly
serving the majority, the "small number" that are being treated unfairly
by
the system should just "take it"?


I'm interested in hearing how you think my ideas would have affected
your husband. Either he would have been notified much sooner or would
have been liable for child support only after he was notified. Would
this not have been much more fair to him? He also would have had the
right to say he was not now going to be the father of a half grown
child, although I suspect he would have taken responsibility. He
should have never been hit with the arrears, IMO, though.

I absolutely agree that nobody should be held accountable for arrears for
the years before they even knew the child existed. That is unbelievably
unfair in my opinion. I think that a man confronted with a half grown--or
even a very young--child he did not know about should have the freedom to
say "The mother had a choice to give the child both a mother and a father,
and she chose to be a single mother." and walk away. I also think that the
father should be given information about the true cost of raising a child in
the area the child lives in--not the cost of living nonsense the courts spew
out--and choose how much he wants to pay. From half the actual cost of the
child's needs, to however much he wants to pay--if he chooses to be a
father. My husband has a family to support--and taking the amount they do
out of his check each month makes finances a bit tight. His child and her
mother live in a very low cost of living area. The amount taken from his
paycheck is what some bread-winners earn in that area, because we live in a
high cost of living area so the salaries *look* high. The man who was
dreadfully wronged by having his child kept from him for all those years
should have the right to balance his responsibilities toward his newly
discovered child (should he choose to be a father to the child) and his
present circumstances. And I, personally, feel that he should have the
right to sue the woman who kept his child a secret from him!

----- Original Message -----
From: "SpiderHam77"
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 5:31 PM
Subject: Male Reproductive Choice - thoughts?



Beverly wrote:

The notification aspect is quite important... even to men who want
children. There are numerous men who find out they are fathers years
after the birth of the child. Then, the courts order child support
and include an arrearage that could be thousands of dollars which can
ruin a man's credit. Is it fair that women will always know when a
baby is coming and men won't? Child support should never be
retroactive past when the father finds out he is/was "expecting."

Now on this I agree... a man should not be held liable for child
support payments retroactive for a child he didn't know to be his.
Upon proving the child is his.. from that day forward he should
responsible for child support.

It's the men who feel they were somehow robbed of their sperm, and
are now being screwed over by the system that are complaining. I'm a
father. Proud one at that.

I'm complaining and I am not even a man.

Well all the men I know... Responsible men that is... Men who accept
the consquenses of actions they make.. After discussing this topic
with a few of them. They don't see what the issue is... If they don't
want a child, they will not have sex, or make sure they got Fort Knox
security going on down there. But a child being created is part of the
risk of having sex. If you don't fully understand that... and are not
willing to live up to the consequences as a result (This goes for both
sexes) don't have sex.

Then you go for 50/50 custody and each parent is required to provide 50% of
the $$ for the child's *needs* and 50% of the parenting. A parent who is
involved with a child is a better parent than one who is forced to be an ATM
and have very little contact with the child. None of this "the woman
chooses to bring the child into the world and keep it so the man has to pay
for it" nonsense. Let them be equal parents, each providing for the child
on their own dime.

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 00:22:49 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:


"Beverly" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 20:16:40 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:

So are you saying that, since the system we have is, in your opinion,
fairly
serving the majority, the "small number" that are being treated unfairly
by
the system should just "take it"?


I'm interested in hearing how you think my ideas would have affected
your husband. Either he would have been notified much sooner or would
have been liable for child support only after he was notified. Would
this not have been much more fair to him? He also would have had the
right to say he was not now going to be the father of a half grown
child, although I suspect he would have taken responsibility. He
should have never been hit with the arrears, IMO, though.

I absolutely agree that nobody should be held accountable for arrears for
the years before they even knew the child existed. That is unbelievably
unfair in my opinion. I think that a man confronted with a half grown--or
even a very young--child he did not know about should have the freedom to
say "The mother had a choice to give the child both a mother and a father,
and she chose to be a single mother." and walk away. I also think that the
father should be given information about the true cost of raising a child in
the area the child lives in--not the cost of living nonsense the courts spew
out--and choose how much he wants to pay. From half the actual cost of the
child's needs, to however much he wants to pay--if he chooses to be a
father. My husband has a family to support--and taking the amount they do
out of his check each month makes finances a bit tight. His child and her
mother live in a very low cost of living area. The amount taken from his
paycheck is what some bread-winners earn in that area, because we live in a
high cost of living area so the salaries *look* high. The man who was
dreadfully wronged by having his child kept from him for all those years
should have the right to balance his responsibilities toward his newly
discovered child (should he choose to be a father to the child) and his
present circumstances. And I, personally, feel that he should have the
right to sue the woman who kept his child a secret from him!


If he did and won, it would set a precedent that might make women
think twice about how quickly they should tell the father and/or
whether courts would be willing to set child support retroactive to
birth.

I'm sure not many have thought of this, but retroactive support during
a period of time a woman CHOSE to be a single parent can be construed
as monetary damages... the key ingredient for a civil suit. It would
really have nothing to do with lost time with the child (which cannot
be measured in dollars) as much as it would be a financial burden
placed upon a man unknowingly which may have affected financial
decisions he made during the period of secrecy. If your husband could
prove that the mother of his child did or should have known of his
whereabouts during gestation and shortly after childbirth, then a
decision she made unilaterally to be a single parent (even though she
changed her mind later when deciding to sue for support) had
repercussions on your husband that would have influenced his decisions
had he known. Heck, YOU made decisions you may not have otherwise
should this not have been kept a secret.

Of course, suing a single mother while she is trying to raise a child
about the money USED to "support the child" is likely to cause
outrage; however, if it could be done as to not harm the child (i.e.
once the child reaches majority or a judgment that does not commence
until the child reaches majority), it may be effective in sending a
message that her decision of secrecy caused this man to get in over
his head financially which would not have been the case should he have
known.

Family court is a very unfriendly place for fathers, but civil court
is a different animal altogether. It is not that he is/was unwilling
to support his child. It is the effect that her secrecy had on his
future decisions. "If not for [her (in)actions], he would not have
[entered into similar long-term obligations such as having more
children]." People's (in)actions that have caused another harm have a
long precedent in favor of the injured in civil court.

He DOES have a right to sue, but the case would need to be phrased in
a very particular way for any chance of winning. It would be handled
by a different kind of lawyer (possibly a personal injury attorney)
whose fees are often contingent. The attorney would have to be a good
spin-doctor in order to convince the judge that it is not about the
child and his responsibility to support the child; rather, it is how
the secrecy caused him to make future decisions he may otherwise not
have made if not for her secrecy.
Beverly