The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)
Dusty
The right to abandon your child
Mar 10, 2006
by Mona Charen
This is one of those moments when you want to grab liberals by the lapels
and demand, "Well, what did you expect?"
A group called the National Center for Men has filed a lawsuit they are
calling "Roe v. Wade for Men." Here are the facts: A 25-year-old computer
programmer named Matt Dubay of Saginaw, Mich., was ordered by a judge to pay
$500 per month in child support for a daughter he fathered with his
ex-girlfriend. His contention -- and that of the National Center for Men --
is that this requirement is unconstitutional because it violates the equal
protection clause.
Dubay does not dispute that he is the child's father. Rather, he claims that
during the course of his relationship with the mother, he was given to
understand that she could not become pregnant because of a physical
condition. He insists that she knew he did not want to have children with
her. The courts, he and his advocates argue, are forcing parenthood upon him
in a way that they cannot do to a woman. Here's the money quote from the NCM
website:
- More than three decades ago Roe vs. Wade gave women control of their
reproductive lives but nothing in the law changed for men. Women can now
have sexual intimacy without sacrificing reproductive choice. Women now have
the freedom and security to enjoy lovemaking without the fear of forced
procreation. Women now have control of their lives after an unplanned
conception. But men are routinely forced to give up control, forced to be
financially responsible for choices only women are permitted to make, forced
to relinquish reproductive choice as the price of intimacy. -
The feminists may well be stumped by this argument. After all, they've based
their abortion advocacy as a matter of women's reproductive rights. Is it
logical to claim that women have reproductive rights that men lack? Yes, a
woman has to carry an unplanned pregnancy for nine months and give birth.
But Mr. Dubay, and many other men, are saddled with 18 years of child
support. That's a pretty substantial inhibition of one's "reproductive
freedom."
Imagine that John and Jane learn that she is pregnant. She has full latitude
in the decision-making. She can decide, over his objections, to abort the
child or to raise it alone (he'll be lucky to get generous visitation), or
to place the child for adoption (in which case he can object, but only if he
wants to raise the baby himself).
The National Center for Men could argue that since a man cannot oblige a
woman to carry his child to term, neither should she be able to demand 18
years of child support from him. (The NCM has other complaints, too, and
it's amusing to see the tables turned. They whine, for example, that men
tend to die an average of eight years earlier than women, and that the
overwhelming majority of the homeless are men. True. Is it the fault of the
matriarchy?)
But the gravamen of the men's complaint is unwanted fatherhood. These poor
fellows who have sex with women they do not want to marry or have children
with are persecuted in this Brave New World we've created. When the only
frame of reference is a competition of rights, both sexes strive to outdo
one another in selfishness.
The point (and it is not one the feminists will find in their quiver) is
that sexuality requires responsibility -- and that doesn't just mean using
birth control. It means that if you engage in sex you have an automatic
obligation to any child that may result. Pro-choice women have been
vociferously rejecting this responsibility for decades. It should come as no
surprise that men are inclined to do the same.
Roe v. Wade and the sexual carnival we've encouraged in this country ever
since have planted the idea that men and women have some sort of
constitutional right to enjoy sex without consequences. Mr. Dubay and all of
those similarly situated (including women who use abortion as emergency
contraception) should look into the faces of their sons and daughters and
explain that it's nothing personal.
NewMan
lost on men, believe me.
I think it is more than fair that if a woman unilaterally decides to
keep a child against the objections of the would-be father, then she
has the right to do so - but not at his expense. My wallet, my choice.
One could always turn the tables in a different way, which would be an
interesting twist: If a woman insists on giving birth against the mans
wishes, then take the baby from her at birth and give full custody to
the father, then make the woman pay 18 years of child support to the
father - or up to 25 years is the child goes to college or university.
And make sure you impose ALL the same penalties on women for
non-payment of child support that are currently imposed upon men.
Give it 10 years or so and then see how women feel about the
situation. THAT would be equality. It is just that it is too bad that
things always have to come down to the "lowest common denominator". We
cannot agree on how to treat people fairly, so the compromise is make
sure everyone gets screwed equally.
What a joke.
Werebat
As I said before, what we can expect to see from conservative media
darlings on this issue is that they will use it as a tool to attack
feminists while pooh-poohing the idea itself.
C4M is not my battle -- I'm more interested in seeing some sort of
equality and decent treatment for divorced men who are willing to roll
up their sleeves and be fathers to their kids -- but it is interesting
to see how quickly cons will dump men's rights activists with terms like
"whining" and "deadbeats". This doesn't just happen with issues like
C4M, either. They dress themselves up like our friends but only to use
us like tools.
- Ron ^*^
tonita
adults who want to have sex as recreation without any regard for the
consequences. Don't have sex with someone you wouldn't want to become
a parent with. Why doesn't everyone just start dating again? I mean
real dating, not sexual olympics. This situation is what the
feminists have pushed for isn't it? They don't need men for anything.
I say to all of those sexually active adults - get fixed, have sex all
you want. Don't bring an innocent child into your messed up lives.
Leave the child rearing to *real* men and women
NewMan
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! :)
We can only hope.
On 10 Mar 2006 13:38:57 -0800, "tonita" <toni_br...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Bill in Co.
Where you can still find them today, you mean.
Bill in Co.
> What everyone forgets is the child. It's all about the two idiotic
> adults who want to have sex as recreation without any regard for the
> consequences.
But that's pretty prevalent today, with this generation. Are you really
THAT surprised?
Joy
"NewMan" <Cloaked...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:ueu3121vi0buif814...@4ax.com...
> 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.
teachrmama
"tonita" <toni_br...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142026737....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I don't disagree with you about going back to dating without sex being
involved. That would solve a number of societal problems. I also don't
disagree with you about having some thought for the child produced from an
unintended pregnancy. However, today's child support system in no way
guarantees that the child is considered. It only seeks to transfer money
from one bio parent to the other. Usually from the father to the mother.
Children deserve 2 parents involved in their daily lives and committed to
their welfare. The current child support system does not do that. I don't
blame men for being upset about being roped into paying 18+ years of child
support, while the mother is not forced to pay a penny. I don't blame men
for being upset that a child they fathered is aborted without their
permission. I think that bringing the "consequences" of an unintended child
into some balance for both parents would put women into the position of
taking more thought for what they are doing, rather than expecting the man
to bear the burden of the costs.
NewMan
<joydoesn'tlik...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>"NewMan" <Cloaked...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>news:ueu3121vi0buif814...@4ax.com...
>> 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.
>
Ummmm, how typical.
Did you read what I said??? I was talking about the new birth control
pilll that MEN TAKE. It is, IIRC, still in trials. AFAIK, the possible
side effects have not yet been determined. And I appreciate that it
could well be the case where other medications could cause an
interaction and reduce the effectiveness. However, unlike a woman's
cycle where only one egg is released, and you are not exactly sure
when, men's ejaculate can be examined on a regular basis to determine
the effectiveness of the male birth control pill. Therefore a prudent
doctor and man would have the ejeculate tested regularly to ensure
effectiveness.
As I said, the advent of such a pill on the market, and documented
effectiveness with scientific tests would certainly torpedo a lot of
false paternity claims. I am sure such a possibility has governments
and femminists turning in their graves. :)
DB
"tonita" <toni_br...@yahoo.com> 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?
Joy
"DB" <SlipN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:_NCQf.45920$F_3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Responsible people don't drink so much beer that they have irresponsible
sex.
R
court is a man who had no interest in fathering and parenting a child
was duped by a woman who is forcing this man into parenting a child via
child support. The woman named in the suit had a choice; She could have
aborted the pregnancy, put the child up for adoption, or in this case,
kept the baby. The man however, had no choice. He was ordered by the
court to parent the child via child support. This, according to the
suit, is unconstitutional. I agree with this argument. The other
thoughts or opinions that have been discussed so far here are
irrelevant. If the woman has a choice, so should the man
Casey
Seems to me that the man made a choice as well - women don't generally
become pregnant all by themselves.
Casey
Chris
"R" <rbur...@mcihispeed.net> wrote in message
news:1142096783.8...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> I think we're missing the point of this. What is being asked of the
> court is a man who had no interest in fathering and parenting a child
> was duped by a woman who is forcing this man into parenting a child via
> child support.
Paying "child support" says NOTHING about parenting any child.
> The woman named in the suit had a choice; She could have
> aborted the pregnancy, put the child up for adoption, or in this case,
> kept the baby. The man however, had no choice. He was ordered by the
> court to parent the child via child support. This, according to the
> suit, is unconstitutional. I agree with this argument. The other
> thoughts or opinions that have been discussed so far here are
> irrelevant. If the woman has a choice, so should the man
Not only is she in the driver's seat when it comes to post-conception choice
for BOTH of them, but she is also in the driver's seat when it comes to who
gets to spend BOTH their incomes. Sounds fair to me.
>
SpiderHam77
I agree with R here. If the woman does have a choice.. then so
should the man. However the only large problem I can see here is that
ROE vs WADE was never ment to be used as the ability to force men in
CS.
R vs W was never meant to be anything more then declaring that women
have the right to choose for themselves if an operation can be
conducted on them. It has nothing to do with Parental rights... It has
nothing to do deciding paternity ect.. all the way down the line.
So I applaud the efforts of such a case. However I don't think it
will honestly have much of an effect as the Courts will probably come
up with a ruling that will clarify such things. And that stuff like CS
has be decided in the Legislature, not the courts.
To me the only way we can protect my fellow men from such an unfair
thing at this juncture in the game is education. Start teaching our
men from an early age. Drill it into them that these women are evil,
and want something from you. And we as men need to protect our sperm
like it's a rare comdity.
SpiderHam77
Tiffany
"Casey" <cclremov...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:wGEQf.53077$Dh.45044@dukeread04...
It is stated in this case that the man was told the women he was banging
couldn't get pregnant. So he made a choice to have sex with someone he
couldn't get knocked up. A pretty good choice, to bad it back fired.
R
>become pregnant all by themselves.
THat's true but, beyond the scope of this discussion AND this suit as
well.
SpiderHam77
Tiffany wrote:
> It is stated in this case that the man was told the women he was banging
> couldn't get pregnant. So he made a choice to have sex with someone he
> couldn't get knocked up. A pretty good choice, to bad it back fired.
People make alot choices like this... And truely at the end of the
day it was has choice to use nor not to use extra protection.
I mean if no other reason then pregancy.. Condoms are quite effective
at stopping pregancy from happening. 99% I believe... I would be
ensuring that unless I was 100% positive that she could not become
prego I would be using my own form of protection.
SpiderHam77
Andre Lieven
Responsible people make sure that they have a *willing* co-parent,
*before* whelping a sprog.
Thus, by *your* standard, ALL single-by-CHOICE mommies are unfit.
Thanks for making that fact clear !
Andre
teachrmama
"SpiderHam77" <Spide...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142102153.9...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
How about if the courts force both parents to pay into a child support fund
for the child. Using financials provided by the custodial parent (with
proof of course), an amount is set for housing, food, etc, per month for
the child. ALL the rest of the money may be used ONLY WITH PROOF that it is
being spent directly on the child--not for the upkeep of the household,
which is the CP's responsibility. So "but the child will swim in the pool,
too" does not rate as a way to spend CS funds. Ten different sports per
year that the child drops out of one after another also does not rate. A
new car does not rate, because the car is the CP's responsibility, just as
the NCPs car is his responsibility. In other words, garnish the CP's wages,
too. Then listen to the "it's just too much money--how will I live"
screeching that goes on.
Andre Lieven
> R said
>> I think we're missing the point of this. What is being asked of the
>> court is a man who had no interest in fathering and parenting a child
>> was duped by a woman who is forcing this man into parenting a child via
>> child support. The woman named in the suit had a choice; She could have
>> aborted the pregnancy, put the child up for adoption, or in this case,
>> kept the baby. The man however, had no choice. He was ordered by the
>> court to parent the child via child support. This, according to the
>> suit, is unconstitutional. I agree with this argument. The other
>> thoughts or opinions that have been discussed so far here are
Exactly right, R. Rights for all, not just right for those with a
uterus...
> Seems to me that the man made a choice as well - women don't generally
> become pregnant all by themselves.
That is exactly the case *against* ALL women's-only POST-coital choices.
Please notify your local legislative representatives that, as you
oppose post coital choice for men, you also oppose ALL post coital
choices for women.
Petard. Hoist. You. <laughs>
" Men are people who deserve equal rights, too ? " gasped the annoyed
and incredulous WomenFirster.
Rights for all, or rights for none. All else is special interest group
bigotry.
Andre
Bill in Co.
Responsible people don't do (many) irresponsible things, but alas, The
Greatest Generation is nearly all dead now.
John Smith
freedom to ask his pregnant woman to abort the baby because he doesn't want
to go through with it.
Women have the choice to abort the baby without the man's consensus, why
can't man have the same choice without the woman's consensus. If she still
goes though with the pregnancy, then she should not force the father to pay
child support etc
"Dusty" <No....@home.org> wrote in message
news:a_mdndQi3sP...@adelphia.com...
John Smith
news:Q4GQf.704$%e1.273@trnddc05...
> It is stated in this case that the man was told the women he was banging
> couldn't get pregnant. So he made a choice to have sex with someone he
> couldn't get knocked up. A pretty good choice, to bad it back fired.
So if you make a choice to drive a car that you were told was safe and later
on it turned out it had a manufacturing defect and you get seriously injured
as a result of this defect, is that backfiring as well?
teachrmama
"John Smith" <john_s...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:ySHQf.8347$z82.5212@fed1read07...
If you were driving a car that you were told was safe and it turned out that
it had a manufacturing defect and you were seriously injured, you wouldn't
have to pay the manufacturer 20%+ of your income for 2 decades!
Kenneth S.
Casey's comment above is either deliberately disingenuous or just plain
obtuse. I'll be charitable and assume it's obtuse. So I'll try to explain
the situation in simple terms.
Yes, the man made a choice, and yes, women don't become pregnant all by
themselves. However, the point here is that in the U.S. at the present time
there is the most obvious and unjustifiable disparity in the way the two
sexes are treated in this context.
Both sexes have preconception choice. However, when it comes to
POST-conception choice, there is grotesque bias against men. For years,
legislators and judges have bent over backwards to find more and more
post-conception choices for women. There's abortion. There's the
unilateral ability to have the child adopted. And now more and more states
are legislating to give women the ability to drop off newborns at places
like hospitals and fire stations, no questions asked. Meantime, the
post-conception choices available to men are being reduced -- most notably
through the law interfering with the choice Mother Nature gave men, that of
walking away from unwanted pregnancies.
John Smith
news:duvp4...@news4.newsguy.com...
OK, I am not sure if you are agreeing with I said or disagreeing. Do you
think it is right for a woman to deceive a man into having a child with him
and then making him responsible for 20 years for child support.
teachrmama
Absolutely not!!
Werebat
Oh, blow it out your pompous ass.
Pray tell, which was this Greatest Generation? Give me dates.
- Ron ^*^
Bill in Co.
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.
Phil
"Bill in Co." <very_surly...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:tsZQf.2780$x94...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
get your information from one of the approved newtworks speaks volumes.
Phil #3
Moon Shyne
"Phil" <fa...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:LDZQf.10654$S25....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Actually it's a book.
Reading.
It's fundamental.
> Phil #3
>
>
Bill in Co.
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)
Jimbo
deciding to participate int he actions that lead to procreation, so
each of them should have equal say in what happens as a result of their
mutual decision.
tonita
law that says a man must have sex with fertile females just for the fun
of it. Make a committment, get married and raise a family. Otherwise,
have a vasectomy and mess around all you want. And yes, it is that
simple. It's that simple for women, too.
tonita
but they don't so everyone wants laws and procedures in place to clean
up the mess.
teachrmama
"tonita" <toni_br...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142195049....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Well, all the more reason for men to step up and back off. There is no
> law that says a man must have sex with fertile females just for the fun
> of it. Make a committment, get married and raise a family. Otherwise,
> have a vasectomy and mess around all you want. And yes, it is that
> simple. It's that simple for women, too.
You're talking about using good judgement. Obviously, there are times when
good judgement has not been selected by either participant. IF poor
judgement is used and a pregnancy occurs, don't you think that both the man
and the woman should have the same choices as to how to proceed from there?
Bill in Co.
> Well, all the more reason for men to step up and back off. There is no
> law that says a man must have sex with fertile females just for the fun
> of it. Make a committment, get married and raise a family. Otherwise,
> have a vasectomy and mess around all you want. And yes, it is that
> simple. It's that simple for women, too.
Wrong generation for THOSE values, Tonita. That particular train left
the station a LONG, LONG time ago.
mar<spam>tin_rid<spam>dle
> I mean if no other reason then pregancy.. Condoms are quite effective
> at stopping pregancy from happening. 99% I believe... I would be
> ensuring that unless I was 100% positive that she could not become
> prego I would be using my own form of protection.
>
> SpiderHam77
>
It's not 99%. Even when used PERFECTLY (rarely happens) I don't believe
condoms are 99% effective.
But let's say it is 99%. A sexually active couple having sex, say,
three times a week, would have sex about 156 times a year. If 1 in
every 100 acts of sex results in a baby, the guy in this relationship is
on the hook for one to two unplanned babies PER YEAR.
So much for the "he shoulda wrapped his rascal" argument.
teachrmama
> Each gender has a choice. People can choose to be more responsible,
> but they don't so everyone wants laws and procedures in place to clean
> up the mess.
Actually what would be nice would be if government would butt out of family
affairs. But if they choose not to do that, there should be equal choices
for both genders.
Ken Chaddock
> "NewMan" <Cloaked...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:ueu3121vi0buif814...@4ax.com...
>
>>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 ?
...Ken
Joy
"Ken Chaddock" <chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote in message
news:152Rf.24417$dg.13566@clgrps13...
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.
teachrmama
"Joy" <joydoesn'tlik...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:os2Rf.809$BW...@fe06.lga...
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.
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.
tonita
be bad judgement. There will always be irresponsible people I suppose,
but why make it easy. At some point, maybe they will think twice.
tonita
process, how many times did you hear the word "abortion". How
important was the nominee's position on abortion? The government
doesn't really have a say in a person's contraception method, and it
hardly has any say in how many people a person can have sex with and
the risks surrounding it. In case you haven't noticed, people do as
they damned well please. I would dare to say that if the government
really had a say, there wouldn't be so many fatherless kids and single
mothers on welfare.
Tiffany
Did me or Teach say that??? Heck, no.
T
Joy
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.
> 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. 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.
Tiffany
That would be a serious accident and I can assure you that the car
manufacture would be paying for it dearly. What is your point?
T
Tiffany
but until that day.....
lol
T
"tonita" <toni_br...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142210261.8...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Tiffany
> How can the government butt out? During the Supreme Court selection
> process, how many times did you hear the word "abortion". How
> important was the nominee's position on abortion? The government
> doesn't really have a say in a person's contraception method, and it
> hardly has any say in how many people a person can have sex with and
> the risks surrounding it. In case you haven't noticed, people do as
> they damned well please. I would dare to say that if the government
> really had a say, there wouldn't be so many fatherless kids and single
> mothers on welfare.
>
>
So you want a government that control our every move?? You want to be told
what you can and can not do, beyond basic laws??
T
John Smith
My point is that this women lied to this man by assuring him that she was
incapable of having a child and then later on she got pregnant and had a
child. I juxtapose this with the car example. So I don't think this man
should be forced to pay CS, although he should because the child is his too,
but there has to be some accountability for the mother.
Tiffany
I don't disagree with that. I think that he was lied to pre-conception
should let him off the hook. One would hope that MAYBE he like to be a
father but I don't think that is the issue. Money is always the issue.
Maybe I wasn't clear in my reply. I think this man was doing a 'good' thing
in that he was sleeping with someone whom he was told couldn't get pregnant.
Let this be a lesson.... ppl lie. Ppl lie all the time. Men will lie and say
they are fixed... women will lie and say they can't get pregnant.
T
teachrmama
Then you must feel that she, too, is undeservedly off the hook, right?
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. 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.
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?
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--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.
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!!
teachrmama
>I guess as long as there are those kinds of options there will always
> be bad judgement. There will always be irresponsible people I suppose,
> but why make it easy. At some point, maybe they will think twice.
But let's make it so BOTH learn to think twice--not just one of them, like
it is now.
Werebat
Bill in Co. wrote:
You really are a pompous ass.
And you're too lazy to provide simple information, too.
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.
As for your "greatest generation", it would appear that Brokaw's
definition (you know, the one YOU were yapping about) includes the
*architects* of the "modern America" you snipe about so often.
Let's see, the group of people who were born around 1920 and grew up
listening to Blues tunes like Bo Carter's "Please Warm My Weiner", Lil
Johnson's "You Stole My Cherry", and Jelly Roll Morton's "Winin' Boy"
("I had that bitch, had her on the stump; I fucked her 'til her pussy
stunk... I'm gonna salivate your pussy 'til my peter gets hard...").
They then fought in WWII amidst forced internment of innocent
Japanese-Americans into camps, came to power in the 50s and 60s, and
went on to give us such greats as the atomic bomb stockpile, the Red
Scare, Axis Sally, McCarthyism, the Rosenbergs, etc. Aren't these the
idiots who buried toxic waste in Love Canal? Wotta laugh! I guess in
between trashing the environment for generations to come and lynching
niggers, they had ample time to demonstrate their moral superiority.
Of course you'll shift their temporal presence around if I continue to
call you on it, claiming that they weren't really in power for this, but
they were REALLY the force behind that, etc.
Give it a rest. The so-called "greatest generation" did a lot of
wonderful things, I'm sure, but they also committed their fair share of
gaffes and atrocities, just like everyone. Moreover, no decade is
completely dominated by any one generation of people.
When I am old it will be the 80s that people wax nostalgic about, and I
am already stockpiling information to blast my contemporaries with when
they start succumbing to that nonsense.
The past has, among other things, the luxury of certainty regarding
fears that never coalesced into reality, fears that are therefore fairly
easy to disregard or even forget entirely. The present cannot afford
the same, and so will always appear more dangerous.
- Ron ^*^
teachrmama
> How can the government butt out? During the Supreme Court selection
> process, how many times did you hear the word "abortion". How
> important was the nominee's position on abortion? The government
> doesn't really have a say in a person's contraception method, and it
> hardly has any say in how many people a person can have sex with and
> the risks surrounding it. In case you haven't noticed, people do as
> they damned well please. I would dare to say that if the government
> really had a say, there wouldn't be so many fatherless kids and single
> mothers on welfare.
You really think that? Then why don't they just take the babies from the
moms at birth, and force both parents to pay child support until one or both
can work out a way to support the child together? Instead, they supplement
the mother while going after the father for every penny that is paid to mom
and child for welfare. If they really supported 2-parent families, they
wouldn't have made it so easy to divorce, and for dad to supplement mom for
years after.
Bill in Co.
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)
R
> law that says a man must have sex with fertile females just for the fun
> of it. Make a committment, get married and raise a family. Otherwise,
> have a vasectomy and mess around all you want. And yes, it is that
> simple. It's that simple for women, too.
Irresponsability has nothing to do with it.
Who was the deciever has nothing to do with it.
vasectomy...? OMG what about hysterectomy? (Who's making the choice for
men AGAIN?)
This is about CHOICE... PERIOD
Women have it. Men don't
It's archaiac
Joy
>
>> 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.
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. 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. 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.
> 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?
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
Werebat
You know, there is really nothing I can say here that can illustrate
what kind of a sad little person you are that will be more effective
than the response you just gave (including the notable absence of a
rebuttal to any of my points). Congratulations, I guess.
- Ron ^*^
DB
"Joy" <joydoesn'tlik...@nospam.net> 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. 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!
John Smith
>
> 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?
John Smith
>
> "tonita" <toni_br...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1142210490.1...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> How can the government butt out? During the Supreme Court selection
>> process, how many times did you hear the word "abortion". How
>> important was the nominee's position on abortion? The government
>> doesn't really have a say in a person's contraception method, and it
>> hardly has any say in how many people a person can have sex with and
>> the risks surrounding it. In case you haven't noticed, people do as
>> they damned well please. I would dare to say that if the government
>> really had a say, there wouldn't be so many fatherless kids and single
>> mothers on welfare.
>
> You really think that? Then why don't they just take the babies from the
> moms at birth, and force both parents to pay child support until one or
> both can work out a way to support the child together? Instead, they
> supplement the mother while going after the father for every penny that is
> paid to mom and child for welfare. If they really supported 2-parent
> families, they wouldn't have made it so easy to divorce, and for dad to
> supplement mom for years after.
That day is coming. They are already in our bedroom, now they are in your
wombs, and in the future they will be in your heads also. Just an Orwellian
prediction.
Chris
"SpiderHam77" <Spide...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142102153.9...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> R wrote:
> > I think we're missing the point of this. What is being asked of the
> > court is a man who had no interest in fathering and parenting a child
> > was duped by a woman who is forcing this man into parenting a child via
> > child support. The woman named in the suit had a choice; She could have
> > aborted the pregnancy, put the child up for adoption, or in this case,
> > kept the baby. The man however, had no choice. He was ordered by the
> > court to parent the child via child support. This, according to the
> > suit, is unconstitutional. I agree with this argument. The other
> > thoughts or opinions that have been discussed so far here are
> > irrelevant. If the woman has a choice, so should the man
>
> should the man. However the only large problem I can see here is that
> ROE vs WADE was never ment to be used as the ability to force men in
> CS.
>
> R vs W was never meant to be anything more then declaring that women
> have the right to choose for themselves if an operation can be
> conducted on them. It has nothing to do with Parental rights... It has
> nothing to do deciding paternity ect.. all the way down the line.
>
> So I applaud the efforts of such a case. However I don't think it
> will honestly have much of an effect as the Courts will probably come
> up with a ruling that will clarify such things. And that stuff like CS
> has be decided in the Legislature, not the courts.
>
> To me the only way we can protect my fellow men from such an unfair
> thing at this juncture in the game is education. Start teaching our
> men from an early age. Drill it into them that these women are evil,
> and want something from you. And we as men need to protect our sperm
> like it's a rare comdity.
Yeah, and don't "donate" it........
>
> SpiderHam77
>
Chris
fund
> for the child. Using financials provided by the custodial parent (with
> proof of course), an amount is set for housing, food, etc, per month for
> the child. ALL the rest of the money may be used ONLY WITH PROOF that it
is
> being spent directly on the child--not for the upkeep of the household,
> which is the CP's responsibility. So "but the child will swim in the
pool,
> too" does not rate as a way to spend CS funds. Ten different sports per
> year that the child drops out of one after another also does not rate. A
> new car does not rate, because the car is the CP's responsibility, just as
> the NCPs car is his responsibility. In other words, garnish the CP's
wages,
> too. Then listen to the "it's just too much money--how will I live"
> screeching that goes on.
How about if the courts keep their nose out of what's NOT their business?
>
>
Chris
Chris
"DB" <SlipN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:m06Rf.41697$2O6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> > 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!
Chris
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.
>
>
>
>
John Smith
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.
Bill in Co.
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.
Phil #3
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
>
>
teachrmama
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.
>
teachrmama
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.
>
>
DB
"John Smith" <john_s...@microsoft.com> 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 $100 a week from the time the child
is born. Nice system you have here!
Dusty
news:uq7Rf.8544$z82.3049@fed1read07...
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...
Kenneth S.
>
> "Ken Chaddock" <chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote in message
> news:152Rf.24417$dg.13566@clgrps13...
>> Joy wrote:
>>
>>> "NewMan" <Cloaked...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:ueu3121vi0buif814...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>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
>> 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.
>
> 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.
Sex with "somebody?" And how exactly does a man get to decide how to
handle a pregnancy?
He's at the mercy of the woman, who in the U.S. has been given the ability
to make all the post-pregnancy choices. So far as men are concerned, the
progress has been in the opposite direction. The law has been changing in
the direction of finding more and more ways of denying men the choice given
to them by Mother Nature -- that of walking away from unwanted pregnancies.
If we're talking about "safe bets," we're talking about the way things
ARE, as distinct from the way things OUGHT TO BE. There's a very sharp
distinction between these two ways of talking about situations. Years ago,
in the days of the Jim Crow laws, the "safest bet" for blacks was to stay in
their own neighborhoods, away from whites. By doing that they could reduce
the risks of being lynched. I don't remember that any respectable body of
opinion urged blacks to adopt the "safest bet" principle when deciding what
they should do.
Chris
>
> "teachrmama" <teach...@iwon.com> wrote in message
> news:dv2jc...@news2.newsguy.com...
> >
> >> 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.
It follows that you are against abortion; unless you believe that one ought
to be entitled to that which they do not deserve.
Better question: Did HE know he had been sleeping with such trash at the
time?
Chris
> I guess as long as there are those kinds of options there will always
> be bad judgement. There will always be irresponsible people I suppose,
> but why make it easy. At some point, maybe they will think twice.
Nice dodge to the question below.
>
> >
> > You're talking about using good judgement. Obviously, there are times
when
> > good judgement has not been selected by either participant. IF poor
> > judgement is used and a pregnancy occurs, don't you think that both the
man
> > and the woman should have the same choices as to how to proceed from
there?
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Kenneth S. wrote:
> > >> "Casey" <cclremov...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > >> news:wGEQf.53077$Dh.45044@dukeread04...
> > >> >R said
> > >> >> I think we're missing the point of this. What is being asked of
the
> > >> >> court is a man who had no interest in fathering and parenting a
child
> > >> >> was duped by a woman who is forcing this man into parenting a
child
> > >> >> via
> > >> >> child support. The woman named in the suit had a choice; She could
> > >> >> have
> > >> >> aborted the pregnancy, put the child up for adoption, or in this
case,
> > >> >> kept the baby. The man however, had no choice. He was ordered by
the
> > >> >> court to parent the child via child support. This, according to
the
> > >> >> suit, is unconstitutional. I agree with this argument. The other
> > >> >> thoughts or opinions that have been discussed so far here are
> > >> >> irrelevant. If the woman has a choice, so should the man
> > >> >
Chris
> Each gender has a choice.
Just not EQUAL choice.
> People can choose to be more responsible,
> but they don't so everyone wants laws and procedures in place to clean
> up the mess.
>
> SpiderHam77 wrote:>
> > I agree with R here. If the woman does have a choice.. then so
> > should the man. However the only large problem I can see here is that
> > ROE vs WADE was never ment to be used as the ability to force men in
> > CS.
> >
> > R vs W was never meant to be anything more then declaring that women
> > have the right to choose for themselves if an operation can be
> > conducted on them. It has nothing to do with Parental rights... It has
> > nothing to do deciding paternity ect.. all the way down the line.
> >
> > So I applaud the efforts of such a case. However I don't think it
> > will honestly have much of an effect as the Courts will probably come
> > up with a ruling that will clarify such things. And that stuff like CS
> > has be decided in the Legislature, not the courts.
> >
> > To me the only way we can protect my fellow men from such an unfair
> > thing at this juncture in the game is education. Start teaching our
> > men from an early age. Drill it into them that these women are evil,
> > and want something from you. And we as men need to protect our sperm
> > like it's a rare comdity.
> >
> > SpiderHam77
>
Chris
> How can the government butt out? During the Supreme Court selection
> process, how many times did you hear the word "abortion". How
> important was the nominee's position on abortion? The government
> doesn't really have a say in a person's contraception method, and it
> hardly has any say in how many people a person can have sex with and
> the risks surrounding it. In case you haven't noticed, people do as
> they damned well please. I would dare to say that if the government
> really had a say, there wouldn't be so many fatherless kids and single
> mothers on welfare.
Cotrarily, it is the government which is the CATALYST for such arrangement.
>
>
> teachrmama wrote:
> > "tonita" <toni_br...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1142196922.0...@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> > > Each gender has a choice. People can choose to be more responsible,
> > > but they don't so everyone wants laws and procedures in place to clean
> > > up the mess.
> >
> > Actually what would be nice would be if government would butt out of
family
> > affairs. But if they choose not to do that, there should be equal
choices
> > for both genders.
> >
> > >
GL Fowler
wrote:
>R said
>> I think we're missing the point of this. What is being asked of the
>> court is a man who had no interest in fathering and parenting a child
>> was duped by a woman who is forcing this man into parenting a child via
>> child support. The woman named in the suit had a choice; She could have
>> aborted the pregnancy, put the child up for adoption, or in this case,
>> kept the baby. The man however, had no choice. He was ordered by the
>> court to parent the child via child support. This, according to the
>> suit, is unconstitutional. I agree with this argument. The other
>> thoughts or opinions that have been discussed so far here are
>> irrelevant. If the woman has a choice, so should the man
>
>Seems to me that the man made a choice as well - women don't generally
>become pregnant all by themselves.
>
>
>Casey
You normally get these knee-jerk reactions in your near catatonic
state? So did she, and she has a nice long list of post-coital
choices.
A jury is 12 individuals who decides who has the best lawyer.
- Mark Twain
YooperBoyka
>
> "Joy" <joydoesn'tlik...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:2y5Rf.1046$BW5....@fe06.lga...
>>
>> "teachrmama" <teach...@iwon.com> wrote in message
>> news:dv2jc...@news2.newsguy.com...
>> >
>> >> Both of them took the risk of pregnancy. The default position is that
> a
>> >> baby results. The end result is that if a woman does get an abortion,
>> >> then he's undeservedly off the hook.
>> >
>> > Then you must feel that she, too, is undeservedly off the hook, right?
>>
>> Sure.
>
> It follows that you are against abortion; unless you believe that one
> ought
> to be entitled to that which they do not deserve.
I think that the opinions expressed in this discussion may be convincing
many
men that the best options are celibacy or masturbation.
Might make life a little less satisfying for the women of the world.
Wouldn't *that* be a bite in the ass!
YooperBoyka
"Werebat" <ranpo...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:lI5Rf.87501$bF.39023@dukeread07...
>
>
> You know, there is really nothing I can say here that can illustrate what
> kind of a sad little person you are that will be more effective than the
> response you just gave (including the notable absence of a rebuttal to any
> of my points). Congratulations, I guess.
...and it took you *how* long to figure that out?
Tiffany
"YooperBoyka" <cj.don'tw...@no.spam> wrote in message
news:d--dneZ-Fqo...@giganews.com...
You don't think women can masturbate too??
T
YooperBoyka
"Tiffany" <ti...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:T4kRf.22777$_f4.6764@trnddc03...
Well,...if that's what you want out of life...
Have at it.
Gini
"YooperBoyka" <cj.don'tw...@no.spam> wrote
> I think that the opinions expressed in this discussion may be convincing
> many
> men that the best options are celibacy or masturbation.
> Might make life a little less satisfying for the women of the world.
> Wouldn't *that* be a bite in the ass!
==
I think that's an inevitable conclusion if the system continues its rampant
attack on men
and men's rights (so to speak).
==
Chris
And if he doesn't?
> >
> >
>
>
Chris
"Kenneth S." <nim...@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:vpWdnXjV4pS...@rcn.net...
Funny, but sadly true.
For what it's worth, this topic is all over the news as well as talk radio.
Perhpas this might be the irreversible tide that will wash away such
injustice which is LONG overdue!
>
>
SpiderHam77
mar<spam>tin_rid<spam>dle wrote:
>
> It's not 99%. Even when used PERFECTLY (rarely happens) I don't believe
> condoms are 99% effective.
>
> But let's say it is 99%. A sexually active couple having sex, say,
> three times a week, would have sex about 156 times a year. If 1 in
> every 100 acts of sex results in a baby, the guy in this relationship is
> on the hook for one to two unplanned babies PER YEAR.
>
> So much for the "he shoulda wrapped his rascal" argument.
Well then if that argument doesn't hold true, lets go back to the old
argument... if your not ready to father a child, then don't have sex.
I know Sex is alot fun, I rather enjoy it myself. However if I was
truely concerned about my partner becoming Pregnant and using my Sperm
without my permission, I would refrain from Sex all together.
SpiderHam77
Dusty
Then the state would send him right back to prison to teach him the error of
his ways for being in "contempt" of court - but they'd never toss him (or
anyone else) into jail for owing a debt... -THAT- is EXACTLY how the Feds
and states get around that pesky, little nasty bit of the Constitution that
they don't care for.
Dusty
>
[snip]
> For what it's worth, this topic is all over the news as well as talk
> radio.
> Perhpas this might be the irreversible tide that will wash away such
> injustice which is LONG overdue!
I can only hope it does. God, that would be so nice, to wake up in the
morning and know that I'm not a criminal any longer...
Hey, let me know when the Flight of the Swine takes off, will ya? I wanna
watch.
Patrick Lee
Patrick Lee
whatever the government forces down our
throats through legislation is always a bad
idea when it comes to OUR money!! Women
should be held equally accountable for their
choice to conceive and rear children and not
count on "Big Brother" to provide a solution
for their actions!!
Dusty
news:1142297145.8...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ummm, excuse me, but there's something that everyone's forgetting. One very
important FACT in all this - SHE LIED.
She told him BEFORE all this bull shit happened... "Oh, darling, let's have
sex. You want it. I want it. You know I want it. And you know I've told
you a thousand times I can't get pregnant. It's impossible for me to
conceive a child. So lets do the Horizontal Bop all night long. And in the
morning, let's have hot, sweaty monkey love, too. 'cuz there's no way you
could ever knock me up."
Bull shit, bull shit, bull shit, bull shit, bull shit, bull shit!!
What amazes me is that everyone here discussing it knows that SHE LIED.
They've read it in the newspapers. They've heard it on TV and radio.
They've read it here, on the groups (I know, I've been lurking and watching
and reading all your posts! Hell, -I'm- the son-of-a-bitch who fucking
posted it in the first place!!!). They've discussed it ad nauseam. They
almost know it by heart. It's been drummed into their thick, fucking skills
for weeks now - and they -STILL- don't get it!!!!!!
What part of - SHE LIED - is so fucking hard for you fucking people to
fucking understand?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
It makes me want to fucking scream!!! FUCK!!!!!
OK. I feel better now.
------------------------------
Hey, Spider.. it's nothing personal, it was just one to many "keep it in
your pants" replies that set me off. So don't take it that I'm PO'd with
you, I'm not.
:) <--- see?
tonita
>
> It is stated in this case that the man was told the women he was banging
> couldn't get pregnant. So he made a choice to have sex with someone he
> couldn't get knocked up. A pretty good choice, to bad it back fired.
John Smith
"Dusty" <No....@home.org> wrote in message
news:gNidnRzXk7etiIvZ...@adelphia.com...
> Then the state would send him right back to prison to teach him the error
> of his ways for being in "contempt" of court - but they'd never toss him
> (or anyone else) into jail for owing a debt... -THAT- is EXACTLY how the
> Feds and states get around that pesky, little nasty bit of the
> Constitution that they don't care for.
When did the Constitution matter in a divorce court.
John Smith
not every one is slow like you.
John Smith
You are dumb as a door nail. You make an idiotic statement that says
nothing.