Article on choice for men has it right-*neither* men nor women should have this option, the system was not broke BEFORE roe vs wade-its broke and unequal NOW, and choice for men would only make it worse and *nobody* would be responsible-repeal abortion ASA
me
The National Center for Men
The following appeared in the Boston Herald newspaper on January 10,
1996.
DON FEDER
Feminists squirm at men's advocate
Feminists must hate Mel Feit. The head of the National Center for Men
puts abortion advocates
in the painful position of being forced to admit a logical extension of
Roe vs. Wade or open
themselves to charges of hypocrisy.
The New York based organization is currently plaintiff shopping-looking
for a "compelling set of
circumstances" to challenge court-ordered child support form dads who
didn't choose paternity.
Feit claims it's a matter of fairness. Women aren't the ones confronted
by "unwanted pregnancies,"
he says. If a man has sex with a women and she conceives (without his
prior consent) and decides
to keep the child, why should he get burdened with support payments?
"Once contraception has failed, the woman has all the rights," Feit
complains. She can get an
abortion. If she decides to have the child, she can make the father pay
support, whether or not he
wanted it.
"Reproductive freedom for men is an essential component of Roe that's
currently missing," the
self-styled men's activist argues.
But how can it reasonably be maintained that being forced to pay support
violates a man's right to
privacy-the basis of Roe?
Feit replies that this may have been the original rationale, but Roe has
evolved far beyond the
privacy doctrine.
"For women, Roe means more than having control over their bodies," he
noted. "It allows a woman
to plan he life. If there's as contraceptive failure, the law protects
her, permits her to decide whether
or not to become a parent."
Ridiculous, feminists snort! Men don't have reproductive systems in the
sense that women do. A
women has to carry a child for nine months then deliver it. If she
doesn't place it for adoption, she
has to raise it to maturity. The man's obligation begins and ends in his
wallet.
True, but money facilitates existence. The quality of life is measured
in dollars and cents. Inarguably,
the man who is required to pay support for 18 years will have his
standard of living diminished
(severely so, if his circumstances are modes). Certain career, education
and family options will be
foreclosed.
If maximizing personal freedom is the primary goal of our legal system,,
why should men be held to
their traditional obligations (supporting the children they've fathered)
while women are liberated from
theirs?
Feit - who has debated feminists on the talk-TV circuit (Oprah, Donahue,
Sally Jesse etc.) - says
that at some point in the discussion he always turns to his opponent and
asks: "Do you believe the
government should be able to force someone to become a parent?" Sensing
the trap, they dodge the
question. But, their silence is telling.
Equally revealing is the feminist response to Feit's basic contention.
Says Cheryl Garrity, president
of the Massachusetts chapter of the National Organization for Women:
"Men do have a number of
options. They could use contraceptives or they could abstain for having
sex at all....They have to
face the consequences of their actions."
Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Obviously, women have exactly the same
options (plus adoption), as
pro-lifers have argued ad infinitum.
Feit is absolutely right and positively wrong. No, men should not be
free to desert their offspring.
And, yes, his pleading follows logically from Roe's demented reasoning.
This is a freedom that neither men nor women should have - she destroy
the child she has conceived
(intentionally or accidentally), he to abandon the family he has created
(deliberately or
inadvertently).
Both have to take responsibility for the natural results of the actions.
Wish or plan (take precautions)
as you will, men and women in bed make babies. If you’re not prepared to
deal with potentialities,
alter your behavior, but don’t demand the freedom to make others suffer
for your folly.
But, of course, today people want to have it all - right without
obligations, freedom without
consequences. Feit would like a man to be able to cohabit with a woman
for months or years, then,
when she gets in the family way, (unless there’s an explicit agreement
to the contrary) walk away
from the mess.
Some women want to surrender their bodies to the passions of the moment,
then have complete
control of their bodies when it suits them, including control over a
body that is not their own, but
happens to temporarily occupy their womb.
It’s doubtful there’s a federal court that will go along with the Men’s
Center; the judiciary isn’t big
on consistency. But, it’s nice to see Mel Feit out there, making
feminists squirm.
You can contact the Deputy Director by e-mail at: jpwhi...@aol.com,
James P. Whinston.
You can contact the Webmaster/Postmaster by e-mail at:
nc...@teleport.com.
casey purvis
let's take this a step further. dad should have an equal say about
abortion or not! (mine are grown and doing well. they, of course, have
picked up some of the bad things, but we talk about these problems, and i'm
very proud to say they are ahead of me. they not only understand but handle
the difficulties better than i did. they both have equal time with their
children and are excellent dads.)
i got custody of both of them. one before he was 2, the other at 7. for all
of my mistakes, they knew and still know that i was always trying.
dad should certainly be equal in all respects.
why not take a poll of children raised in various situations? see what they
say. for the powers that be, that is probably an overwhelmingly intelligent
thought. {scots sarcasm}
casey
Angilion
>let's take this a step further. dad should have an equal say about
>abortion or not!
That's a different thing entirely, as it entails controlling
someone else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A WAR, | Prejudice can play no part in equality |
| IT'S NOT A CASE OF EITHER/OR! | |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Angilion (The Metaphorical Aardvark) email: ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk |
| |
| I protest against the attempts to excessively censor the net |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rich
Angilion wrote:
>
> On Sat, 28 Feb 1998 18:54:22 -0800, casey purvis
> <wca...@mail.earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >abortion or not!
>
> someone else.
Are you saying that there is no basis for this? Are you saying that
women in general have any qualms about controlling men?
I used to say that women have a right to freedom from discrimination,
till I learned that in general they seem to think I have no such
right. Almost all women who have ever posted in alt.feminsim over the
years have insisted on this.
Now I say that women have a right to freedom from discrimination equal
to men's, no more, no less.
I say the same WRT parental rights. If men have no right to control their
own bodies, women have no such right either.
Equality is a bitch, which is why all organized feminism is hysterically
opposed to it.
Rich
Jonathan Magnus
ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk (Angilion) wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Feb 1998 18:54:22 -0800, casey purvis
><wca...@mail.earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>let's take this a step further. dad should have an equal say about
>>abortion or not!
>
>That's a different thing entirely, as it entails controlling
>someone else.
And demanding child support is not controlling someone else?
Sorry, it does not wash unless you consider the father to not be a
person.
Child support could also hurt his future family and deny his next
children of a better life.
That is controlling a lot of 'someone elses'.
She puts up with it for 9 months or more, if she wants to.
He puts up with it for 18+ hears and has no say?
Sounds like everybody looses.
Actually, everybody does.
This is a tough issue.
Suppose technology stepped in.
Everyone is sterilized at birth. If you want kids, up to 2 are paid
for by insurance/government and done by in vetro. Half of the third,
etc.
What do you think?
>| Angilion (The Metaphorical Aardvark) email: ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk |
Jonathan
me
Jonathan Magnus wrote:
>
> ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk (Angilion) wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 28 Feb 1998 18:54:22 -0800, casey purvis
> ><wca...@mail.earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >>abortion or not!
> >
> >someone else.
>
> And demanding child support is not controlling someone else?
sure it is. and even more, giving men no say over the outcome of the
pregnancy means his reproductive freedom IS being totally controlled-he
has no independent right to be father, even if she agreed to the whole
thing and then did a 180. also, if he does not want to be one, he does
not really have that choice either. current laws give all choice to
females, none (really) to males of any real significance or
independence.
> Sorry, it does not wash unless you consider the father to not be a
> person.
the law and feminist jurisprudence, which men were idiots to allow in
the first place, does not consider them to be!
> Child support could also hurt his future family and deny his next
> children of a better life.
yup. and even if the child has a separate right to it, it all comes down
to mothers wishes and slavery of men predicated on the qaulity and state
of those. If the child were legally adopted, he'd owe nothing. If he
were a sperm donor he'd owe nothing. what's the unifying thread here?
THE MOMS WISHES.
> That is controlling a lot of 'someone elses'.
yup
> She puts up with it for 9 months or more, if she wants to.
> He puts up with it for 18+ hears and has no say?
yup. thats the fucked up law! simply to overrate the significance of
something womens bodies were DESIGNED for pregnancy, a small little
section of time, he has to pay for 18 years. Plus, the argumet that its
insane that HE be allowed to force a MEDICAL abortion is weak too. As
SHE can KILL HIS BABY ON DEMAND WITHOUT CONSENT. He may not be pregnant
himslef, but its still his. The tough part of parenting has NOTHING todo
with gestating. It has to do with the 18+ year committment financially,
emotionally, etc. Women do NOT get abortions to "control their own
bodies" they get them to AVOID Child Support themselves on unwanted kids
that if *they* gave to the father *THEY* would owe 18+ years of support
to! As the law stands, women can avoid motherhood after an accident, and
men cannot. they are forced to be fathers, and women are NEVER forced to
be mothers. Men either have to avoid sex entirely or get fixed and women
dont have to do shit-doesnt sound fair to me...
> Sounds like everybody looses.
> Actually, everybody does.
> This is a tough issue.
> Suppose technology stepped in.
> Everyone is sterilized at birth. If you want kids, up to 2 are paid
> for by insurance/government and done by in vetro. Half of the third,
> etc.
> What do you think?
nope. repeal roe v wade. the best solution is to put men and women back
in the same boat like nature meant and equalize the scales like before
roe...
me.
janelaw
Jonathan Magnus wrote:
>
>
> And demanding child support is not controlling someone else?
>
>
Well, no. You control your own sperm. What you do with it
leads to certain consequences. A woman controls her ova and
uterus. What she does has consequences too.
Child support is the result of your own volitional act. If it
is hurting your present family, it is because you voluntarily
chose to become involved past your ability to support the
progeny you already had.
You can't take back sperm.
GJP
Do you know what the CS guidelines are??? Do you know where they came from??? Do
you have a clue whether they have anything at all to do with the costs of
raising children??? Do you know if they can be changed by the State and when??
Do you know when they started??? Just wondering because you would appear to be
defending them and my guess is you haven't a clue.
Greg Palumbo
me
janelaw wrote:
>
> Jonathan Magnus wrote:
> >
> >
> > And demanding child support is not controlling someone else?
> >
> >
>
> Well, no.
well, yes, honey bunny.
> You control your own sperm.
no, he doesnt. if he did, she'd deliver his child like he may want to,
or abort like he may want to. Its his child, but he has no rights to it,
only the mother does. as is, he has no real control.
further, a man can be held at gunpoint. made to masturbate for his
sperm, she can artifically inseminate, and he will STILL get hit for
child support since he cannot force a medical abortion and can be sued
by the state and or her, regardless of her conduct.
He can use a condom she poked holes into unknown to him, or lie about
being on the pill-something women do often. He can even get a vasectomy
and if it fails when he was assured it could not and he seemed sperm
free, he's still stuck. he has no options independent of her of any kind
whatsoever.
he cannot:
1) make her abort
2) make her not abort
3) force her to give consent to adoption
4) force C4M as its not legal yet and terminate HIS
rights/responsibilities but not any of hers to either abort or keep
after birth.
In short, he has no rights, and this=no options=slavery by women slave
owners...
A similiar case is a 12 year old boy being held liable for supprt to sex
he CANNOT legally consent to, and there have been cases where he's been
sued successfully for full suppport.
Further, to say: "dont have sex" is cruel and wrong, as women are NOT
expected to do that. The only way MEN can avoid pregnancy is to NEVER
ONCE IN THEIR LIVES HAVE INTERCOURSE.
Now, how would *YOU* like that applied to women in a binding sense?
sound fair that you can never have sex unless you want a child? Is that
not what reproductive freedom for women is about, to absolutely control
the amount and spacing of kids? Then why is it that men do not really
have the same freedom? dont you love equality?
> What you do with it
> leads to certain consequences. A woman controls her ova and
> uterus.
no, she should be expected to NATURALLY control them, and abortion does
not do that. contraceptives are not abortions. that is killinga life
ALREADY in motion, and once that happens, she should live by it just
like men, or BARE MINIMUM agree to C4M.
she has eggs we have sperm, if there's no such thing as a unplanned
pregnancy for men as they should "consent" upon intercourse to
fatherhood when their sperm fertilizes, then women do EXACTLY the same
with their egg, and must accept the pregnancy and the 18+ years of child
support...none of this abortion rights shit.
> What she does has consequences too.
>
no, not unless *SHE* wants it too! the same does not apply to males. A
woman controls her EGGS like men their sperm, so if she doesnt like
pregnancy and childbirth, dont release the egg at ovulation, just like
men dont release your sperm into her. You cant have this both ways with
a special unfair proviso only for women!
obviously, seriously, you know damn well men have *NO* real control over
what happens to their sperm any more than girls do to their eggs,
possibly *LESS*, not due to abortion laws, but instead to the fact that
men make MILLIONS of sperm daily, and keep on doing so, so EVERY act of
intercourse carries the risk, but with women, they only ovulate once a
month and and shed *one* of about 400,000 ova in her life per month. SHE
has something resembling "safe" days, a man ZERO.
clearly, if WOMEN are not responsible, then men are definitely not.
especially since they do not control OUTCOMES, only pregnnacy
inducement.
> Child support is the result of your own volitional act.
no, not neccessarliy, see above about rape for semen and adult child
intercourse.
also you OWN argument about the sperm responsiblity is negated by your
own logic. men's child support woes ARE NOT brought about by them, but
by women, as THEY and only THEY control its abortion, so men only
IMPREGNATE, they dont control the *OUTCOME* in any way of the pregnancy
THEY father.
he is *not* respoonsible to pay for a baby whose outcome he cant
control, i.e. any pregnancy SHE and SHE ALONE CHOOSES to countermand by
gestating. *IF* he had say about that outcome, that would not apply and
men would be responsible, but as is they dont, only women control the
whole thing. If its her body, and her choice its her responsibilty alone
unless he agrees.
Since they exert NO control over this whatever, they have no
responsibilty for any pregnancy whose outcome they dont control, as that
would mean he's not controlling his sperm to maturity.
Your argument WOULD hold about male responsibility *IF* women could not
abort themselves after an accident on demand. In that case, the man is
not stopped from controlling his sperm's outcome, a born child, and BOTH
parents have to take responsibility. He may not want the kid, but she
does not either, and BOTH are stuck.
This was natures way, gods way and the right way prior to roe v wade
which tipped the BALANCE between the sexes entirely to women, and that's
why we need to overturn it.
> If it
> is hurting your present family, it is because you voluntarily
> chose to become involved past your ability to support the
> progeny you already had.
>
again nonsense. The suit might be filed late on an older child. he could
have had sex with her 8 years ago, and married a new woman and started a
family. all of the sudden this chick he hardly knew says he has a 8 year
old kid and demands child support and now he's stuck-can NEVER happen to
a woman...
> You can't take back sperm.
then let it grow to maturity like natue intended and hold the mother who
also chose equally to spread her legs take equal responsibility by not
permitting HER to correct her one-night stand accidents of conception
via abortion and hit both for child support. otherwise, allow both sexes
to correct errors of conception via C4M for men and abortion for women.
As it is, only woman can control reproduction...
me.
me
GJP wrote:
>
> Do you know what the CS guidelines are??? Do you know where they came from??? Do
> you have a clue whether they have anything at all to do with the costs of
> raising children??? Do you know if they can be changed by the State and when??
> Do you know when they started??? Just wondering because you would appear to be
> defending them and my guess is you haven't a clue.
>
> Greg Palumbo
>
NOT HAVE TO, AS IF AN ACCIDENT EVER HAPPENS, THEY CANNOT *EVER* BE MADE
TO PAY AS THEY USE ABORTION. AS LONG AS SHE HAS NO MORAL PROBLEM WITH
ABORTION, AND THAT IS ENTIRELY UP TO HER BTW, ONLY IF THEY WANT TO HAVE
IT DO THEY. THEN THEY KNOW THEY ARE RISKING CHILD SUPPORT, BUT THEY KNOW
THAT AND ARE CHOOSING NOT TO AVOID IT. MEN DONT. THEY HAVE ONE TINY
ACCIDENT, AND ITS OVER. THEY ARE POWERLESS EXCEPT TO SIMPLY NEVER HAVE
SEX, EVER IN THEIR LIVES...
ME.
> janelaw wrote:
> >
> > Jonathan Magnus wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > And demanding child support is not controlling someone else?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Well, no. You control your own sperm. What you do with it
> > leads to certain consequences. A woman controls her ova and
> > uterus. What she does has consequences too.
> >
> > Child support is the result of your own volitional act. If it
> > is hurting your present family, it is because you voluntarily
> > chose to become involved past your ability to support the
> > progeny you already had.
> >
Marg Petersen
In article <6dn25o$k...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
me <m...@newsgroup.com> wrote:
>GJP wrote:
>>
>> Do you know what the CS guidelines are??? Do you know where they came from??? Do
>> you have a clue whether they have anything at all to do with the costs of
>> raising children??? Do you know if they can be changed by the State and when??
>> Do you know when they started??? Just wondering because you would appear to be
>> defending them and my guess is you haven't a clue.
>>
>> Greg Palumbo
>>
>greg she dont have to. NOT ONE SINGLE WOMAN KNOWS SHIT ABOUT IT AND DOES
>NOT HAVE TO, AS IF AN ACCIDENT EVER HAPPENS, THEY CANNOT *EVER* BE MADE
>TO PAY AS THEY USE ABORTION. AS LONG AS SHE HAS NO MORAL PROBLEM WITH
>ABORTION, AND THAT IS ENTIRELY UP TO HER BTW, ONLY IF THEY WANT TO HAVE
>IT DO THEY. THEN THEY KNOW THEY ARE RISKING CHILD SUPPORT, BUT THEY KNOW
>THAT AND ARE CHOOSING NOT TO AVOID IT. MEN DONT. THEY HAVE ONE TINY
>ACCIDENT, AND ITS OVER. THEY ARE POWERLESS EXCEPT TO SIMPLY NEVER HAVE
>SEX, EVER IN THEIR LIVES...
>
>ME.
What a childish tantrum this is. Please, tell me that you are
aware of just how men too can be certain that they do not cause
any pregnancies. At least those they do not wish to cause. And
then tell me why they don't do as much as they possibly can to
prevent his from happening.
No, I am certainly not asking (nor demanding) that you never have
sex in your life (or other men's lives). Please, I wouldn't be
that harsh to deny that of anyone. BUT, and you knew there was
a but in there didn't you? I restate, BUT, you DO have some
control over your own sperm, now don't you? You can choose where
they are to be released and just how much *damage* they may cause;
someone else OR you. You are expected, nay it is demanded of you
that you at least be responsible for that much.
From the time my sons were young teens, I cautioned them about
the risks of sex. I told them they were free to do as their
ahem, heart, demanded, but in the long run, they would be held
liable for any pregnancies that they were contributors to. It is
reasonable and it is the law. So, they would have to protect
themselves in the clinches. It is the reasonable and logical
thing to do. Aren't men supposed to be *logical*? Well, they
profess to be so anyway.
So, have all the sex that you desire (and that which you can
find a willing partner), BUT be as careful as you can IF you
don't want to be a co-contributor of a living child. We, as
a society are not about to condemn those women who give birth,
so if you don't want to be a co-contributor of a child then do
what you have to; wear a condom, get a vasectomy, OR don't have
sex. The choice is most definitely yours. ANd isn't it great
that you DO have a choice? I think it is. Far preferable to
take responsibility for your OWN fecundity that it is to yell
and scream about how terrible these women are for giving birth.
Marg
--
Marg Petersen Member PSEB: Official Sonneteer JLP-SOL
god...@peak.org http://www.peak.org/~goddess
"At ease Ensign, before you sprain something." - Capt. Janeway
James Buster
In article <6dmfjp$e...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
me <m...@newsgroup.com> wrote:
>Women do NOT get abortions to "control their own bodies" they get them
>to AVOID Child Support themselves on unwanted kids that if *they* gave
>to the father *THEY* would owe 18+ years of support to!
Actually, the likelihood that the mother would pay support if she
gave the child to the father is extremely low.
--
Planet Bog -- pools of toxic chemicals bubble under a choking
atomsphere of poisonous gases... but aside from that, it's not
much like Earth.
me
James Buster wrote:
>
> In article <6dmfjp$e...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> me <m...@newsgroup.com> wrote:
> >Women do NOT get abortions to "control their own bodies" they get them
> >to AVOID Child Support themselves on unwanted kids that if *they* gave
> >to the father *THEY* would owe 18+ years of support to!
>
> Actually, the likelihood that the mother would pay support if she
> gave the child to the father is extremely low.
> --
that is also true under the current system, in practice, if not in
actual law, as even though legally they are liable, the courts dont
award to fathers even when they ask for it-at least not anything
tangible or regular, assuming he even GETS custody, which is unlikely.
me.
me
janelaw wrote:
>
> Jonathan Magnus wrote:
> >
> >
> > And demanding child support is not controlling someone else?
> >
> >
>
> Well, no. You control your own sperm.
no, sorry sweetie that would be true if women did not have abortion
rights.
> What you do with it
> leads to certain consequences.
i am not *DOING* anything that LEADS to the "consequences" you speak of,
that's the point. All I do is ejaculate, she chooses to get fertilized
by controlling her ovulating egg. what she does with her egg is her
responsibility, and if SHE did not control the *outcome* like I dont,
the argument of male responsibility would be reasonable, as would if he
had equal say in termination, which he does not.
> A woman controls her ova and
> uterus.
no, she does not. nature does, not an abortionist. and nature says get
knocked up, deliver the brat. nature indicates and dictates that mother
and father created it and must deal with it. only abortion laws fuck
that up and *circumvent* what nature intended.
> What she does has consequences too.
>
no, it does not have ANY consequences for her, only for men due to roe v
wade anti-male madness. that *WOULD* be true if women did not have sole
choice on abortion. as is, she has no responsibility as she can get
preggers and simply abort accidents. The law provides her the right to
correct accidental conception through artificial methods (medical
induced abortion) and does NOTHING for males. If she can correct her
errors, so can males-that's equality. If its her body, its her choice
and her 100% responsibility unless he agrees to it. anything less is
slavery *unless* you girls are willing to renounce abortion rights...
-didnt think so.
> Child support is the result of your own volitional act.
no. its the result of a womans sole choice, acting alone to carry to
term. Since the law does not obligate her to do so under ANY
circumstances, and the father has no rights, he has no responsibilities.
If women renounce abortion, then they *DO* have the right to hold men to
account because now *THEY* are stuck, too.
> If it
> is hurting your present family, it is because you voluntarily
> chose to become involved past your ability to support the
> progeny you already had.
fine, except *I* did not have them-she did. Only if you repeal roe does
this apply, as then *I* have some sort of control over my sperm. then
its fair. since she can kill my progeny on demand without consulting me,
and also have it when i dont want it, i am a slave. You cannot say the
man "had" them if she can simply kill it freely-since in all such
cases-even when women dont exercise that "right" he has no choice and
thus he does not really control his sperm. he only has to have them if
the woman is also forced to have them. this is gender-equity.
> You can't take back sperm.
illogical as I did not *do* anything with it, except ejaculate. she
chose to gestate and deliver, not me and i have no rights to stop her
from aborting or to make her carry to term either. only if the
paticipating female in the above sex act ALSO was stuck with the
consequences (pregnancy *and* birth) would this hold. Because then, once
i had impregnated her, *she* is stuck, too, and must become a mother and
pay 18 years of support for five minutes of pleasure in the same way tat
i am stuck being a father once fertiilization happens and am thus stuck
for 18 years of support for our five minutes of fun...
visit this page, although I *dont* support C4M personally or as law it
deserves a read:
me.
me
Marg Petersen wrote:
> What a childish tantrum this is.
typical feminist bullshit misandrist double standards applied only to
men and mens expense for the benefit of women selfishly. If men are
selfish for wanting reproductive choice methods AFTER an impregnation,
then SO are women, Marge. You want this both ways like a typical
feminazi. You want men to pay for YOUR choices, as only YOU are really
in control and have say here. If its your body, and your choice, then
its 100% YOUR responsibility for the OUTCOME ONLY YOU CONTROL.
Otherwise, give up abortion rights, which makes it equal and if not at
least legalize C4M.
> Please, tell me that you are
> aware of just how men too can be certain that they do not cause
> any pregnancies.
totally false. condoms break, and to boot, men have very few other
options, only recently has male pill and vaccine work begun. And when
men rely on women they get nothing but a baby, as has been proven over
and over. The reason abortion was prized by feminists are exactly the
same reasons YOU USE in denying men the same!
Women argued they needed the right only to become parents when they
wanted to and to control the number and spacing of children. they argued
women did no choose motherhood simply by choosing sex, as accidents
happen-which is what abortion is for-unwanted pregnancies.
Why is it that you think men are not entitled to the same?
further, men only JOINTLY CAUSE pregnancy. it takes TWO to tango! sperm
*and* egg.
men control NOTHING, as they dont control the outcomes of any pregancies
they induce.
therefore, they have no repsonsibilities to those pregnancies they dont
want or agree with unless women renounce abortion, which puts them all
in the same mess together.
>At least those they do not wish to cause.
also stupid. he has no choice even if he wants to cause it, she can kill
his baby on demand without his consent or even notification, and so he
controls NOTHING, so he cannot be held accountable to those pregnancies
she and she alone chooses to gestate and deliver, unless she is willing
to give him veto power or is forced into the same mess he is by having
no reproductive choices beyond contraception itself-and we know that
will never happen, dont we? "causing" is not delivering a full-term
baby, a choice only women control, and as such, she is responsible for
all the support, etc.
If he chooses to cause it, he cannot even be held responsible AS LONG AS
CURRENT ABORTION LAWS FOR WOMEN REMAIN IN PLACE, as a woman can get
pregnant on purpose, admit it, and do so with the full verbal consent of
the intended father and she can STILL do a 180 on him and KILL IT on
demand and the father has 0% rights to stop her or even be informed of
the termination.
> And
> then tell me why they don't do as much as they possibly can to
> prevent his from happening.
they often do, or they trust the female for contraception and she
DELIBERATELY gets pregnant to trap him, which ONLY FEMALES CAN DO, as
once she's preggers he's caught.
If a man replaced his girls pills with sugar pills and knocks her up
against her will she gets an abortion and is off the hook, not so in
reverse-man has no choice.
also, "all they can do" is not reasonable unless equalivant proceedures
are expected of females. men have to simply not ever have sex to do
this, or risk an POSSIBLY UNREVERSABLE vasectomy simply to avoid kids at
THIS PRESENT TIME when having one would be a disaster, but he may want
them later....
> No, I am certainly not asking (nor demanding) that you never have
> sex in your life (or other men's lives).
oh, how good of you! but that *IS* what you are doing, marg. If you
disagree, then tell the same to women, that using the pill is enough for
them, if they get pregnant that IS the same as being a mother, as they
will not get an abortion anymore. You say this to men. If the condom
fails-tough. same for women. isnt equality neat?
> Please, I wouldn't be
> that harsh to deny that of anyone.
you just did so for men but not for women. if you say if he's gonna fuck
it'll have
such harsh consequences, then it does for women, too. you are not saying
this to girls, only to boys. thats cuz only females have choice, and men
do not.
>BUT, and you knew there was
> a but in there didn't you? I restate, BUT, you DO have some
> control over your own sperm, now don't you?
nope. she and she alone controls the OUTCOME(the only relevant question
as long a roe v wade is legal and only applies if if its not) as she has
abortion rights to either terminate or not, so as long as SHE has that
extra choice, equality demands that men also have an extra choice of
artificial means to correct conception errors like women do, at least
C4M does not involve a murder...
> You can choose where
> they are to be released
not always. a 12 year old gets raped by his adult babysitter and he
still is stuck with child support. he cannot consent legally to sex but
he's still powerless to avoid paternity and CS for 18 years. and also
women control their eggs, so if your logic holds, women need to accept
pregnancies and denounce abortion choice rights.
>and just how much *damage* they may cause;
> someone else OR you.
all false. that is not my choice therefore not my responsibility-period.
this is what you fail to see. men dont control abortion, women do. If
they did not have abortion rights, youd be right about that "damage" but
not so here.
Since the girl CHOOSES and SHE CHOOSES alone independent of him, the
fact that HE inititally impregnated her means NOTHING. if so, he'd have
rights to stop her from aborting his baby and veto power. or he'd have
rights to have that done, a medical abortion to her to stop his
impending unintended fatherhood.
if I get her pregnant, *I* am not causing *ANY* damage here, SHE IS, by
choosing to gestate and deliver a baby i dont want and dont intend to
support.
since it always her choice and hers alone, the final responsbility is to
any childshe and she alone chooses to gestate and deliver. The male
being legitimately responsible for damages ONLY applies if abortion is
also illegal for the girl. that way they ARE both equally responsible
and have the same due process of law, which roe v wade denies the father
of any woman's child.
> You are expected, nay it is demanded of you
> that you at least be responsible for that much.
typical feminist bullshit. you want this both ways. if men are powerless
to stop their own young from getting killed, the least society owes them
is to allow men who dont want kids to avoid CS, and legal fatherhood,
but feminists want that cash cow, its all about money and extortion, and
slavery for men at mens expense for feminists.
> From the time my sons were young teens, I cautioned them about
> the risks of sex.
but didnt for your daughters-if you had any. and you told them they dont
have rights tp the babies they father, only responsibilty on the girls
terms. some mother you are.
> I told them they were free to do as their
> ahem, heart, demanded, but in the long run, they would be held
> liable for any pregnancies that they were contributors to.
no, they are not, or actually they are but should not be since the
girls they fucked are not held to the same laws. they are males and are
thus slaves with few rights an a TON of responsibility. You sons only
can initaite a pregnancy, never can they make it go to term, so they are
not responsible for that outcome, unless they agreed to it concretely.
if its terminated its her choice and if its goes on its her choice as
well, so expecting your boys to be responsible for the outcomes and
products of WOMENS choices is unfair, cruel and sexist, and you, marg,
are also a misandrist for suggesting so.
> It is
> reasonable and it is the law.
it is unreasonable and should not be the law as long as women are not
held to the same standards, which they aint due to legal abortion.
repeal roe v wade and its fair, otherwise its male slaverey, misandry,
and control of mens lives and bodies.
> So, they would have to protect
> themselves in the clinches. It is the reasonable and logical
> thing to do.
they cant as they have *no* reporductive rights and you wont give them
to them by outlawing abortion or granting C4M, marg.
> Aren't men supposed to be *logical*? Well, they
> profess to be so anyway.
>
we are, and thats why in this thread you show why YOU are not logical,
otherewise, youd see the points I am making and agree with me.
> So, have all the sex that you desire (and that which you can
> find a willing partner), BUT be as careful as you can IF you
> don't want to be a co-contributor of a living child.
accidents happen, thats why theres abortion for women, and thats also
why C4M is needed.
if not choice for men, then none for women, thats equality-outlaw
abortion for girls.
that way, both are stuck when pregnancies happen and neither has any
option beyond birth control and sterilization.
> We, as
> a society are not about to condemn those women who give birth,
>
neither do i. but you do condemn, foollishly, men who want them to when
they dont want to, but you also support her doing so when he doesnt want
her to. double standard.
plus, c4m does not affect ANY choice by women to make, only allows them
to opt out of legal fatherhood and the cash cow known as child support.
> so if you don't want to be a co-contributor of a child then do
> what you have to; wear a condom, get a vasectomy, OR don't have
> sex.
lets look at htese "choices". is it fair to expect women to be limited
to FEMALE equavilants to them? I dd not think so, you want to be able to
get an abortion, but want to deny men abortion even on paper.
1) condoms break. thats women use abortion to stop unplanned pregnancies
resultingfrom broken condoms.
2) vasctomies are permanent. that is not a realistic option as it would
mean that men would have to risk permanent sterilization to avoid
pregnancy NOW and they may want kids later. would you want to rely on
tubal ligation? its probably permanent. what if you are a young person
who has no kids yet?
3) no sex. are you saying that seriously??? please!!! and again, say the
same to women, that if they dont want to get preggers, dont have sex
period. no abortion to save you since men dont have that saving their
asses!
> The choice is most definitely yours. ANd isn't it great
> that you DO have a choice? I think it is.
amazing how a typical feminist applauds male "choice" as if it were
real!
men will have real "choice" when a) abortion is illegal or b) c4m is
legal
the first is best since men can CHOOSE fatherhood as a positive choice
and not simply to avoid it as a negative.
> Far preferable to
> take responsibility for your OWN fecundity that it is to yell
> and scream about how terrible these women are for giving birth.
thats not what c4m advocates are saying. c4m does not stop women from
either aborting or carrying to term, it simply gives men the same
reproductive choices (almost, since women can still deny ALL men
fatherhood by aborting pregnancies laready in motion) that women have
through roe v wade. and i can only be expected to take responsibility
when the girl is ALSO made to, like I am once pregnancy happens. as is,
she chooses the outcome alone, so the final responsibility is hers alone
as well. if she had no choice, she could reasonably expect me not to,
but not when she is a pro-choicer for women.
read armin brott's analysis of the problem:
When we talk about women's "right to choice," we usually mean her right
to have an abortion. But
inherent in a woman's right not to become a parent is the right to
become on if SHE so chooses.
Neither of these seemingly fundamental rights, however, apparently
applies to men. The same laws
that protect a woman's parental choices also allow her to either deprive
a man of his right to
become a parent, or force him to become one against his will.
Take the hypothetical case of Jane and Tom. One morning Jane announces
that their birth control
must have failed and that she's pregnant. If Jane decides she's not
financially prepared to become a
parent, society will say, "That's OK, you can always get an abortion."
But what if Tom wants to
keep the child? Doesn't Jane's decision to abort affect him?
Women, we're told, grieve -- often for years -- after an abortion. But
is a man's grief somehow not
as "real" as a woman's? Under the law, Jane can do what she wants, but
when she does, Tom may
be left to mourn the loss of the child he had always dreamed of.
Imagine now that Jane decides to keep the child and that Tom says he is
not financially prepared to
become a parent. Society's reaction? "You should have thought of that
sooner and you'd better
keep those child support checks coming in or we'll throw you in jail."
But what if Tom and Jane are just about to split up when Jane finds out
she's pregnant? Or what if it
was just a one-night stand to begin with? Tom -- in addition to having
to pay 18 years of child
support for a child he never wanted -- will be forced to have an ongoing
relationship with a woman
he doesn't love. Again, under the law, Jane can do whatever she wants,
but Tom has absolutely no
rights. As a man, whether or not he becomes a parent is NOT up to him.
me.
Paternity-DNA blood testing and the like:
http://homepage.usr.com/g/grich/
http://www.peak.org/~jedwards/paternity.html
http://www.divorcenet.com/fla-paternity.html
http://www.ccnet.com/~cbrenner/index.htm
The Utopia Foundation-includes unwed father's rights:
http://www.buyer-link.com/~utopia/utopia.html
The father's manifesto home page:
http://fathers.zq.com/home.htm
The only link you need for father's rights:
http://www.hky.com/FGN/frnhome.html
FREE:
joint custody advocacy page:
Dan Salenger
janelaw wrote:
> Jonathan Magnus wrote:
> >
> >
> > And demanding child support is not controlling someone else?
> >
> >
>
> Well, no. You control your own sperm. What you do with it
> leads to certain consequences. A woman controls her ova and
> uterus. What she does has consequences too.
>
> Child support is the result of your own volitional act. If it
> is hurting your present family, it is because you voluntarily
> chose to become involved past your ability to support the
> progeny you already had.
>
> You can't take back sperm.
Interesting however, pointless. The "Keep your pants on" argument
held little weight before the court in Roe v. Wade, why apply it to
men? I am (perhaps mistakenly) assuming that you support abortion. If
I were to suggest that women had the power to keep their pants on to
avoid pregnancy would you thus give up the abortion alternative?
Why do you find it so difficult to give men the same (though less
destructive in the terms of destroying life) right as women? Is it
because this right would leave women powerless? I hate to say it but
abortion rights leave men powerless to stop a woman from destroying a
child (that took two people to create).
> Child support is the result of your own volitional act.
Actually, child support is a result of laws in our society. Nothing in
the state of the natural universe or physical laws mandates this
statement otherwise as fact.
Dan Salenger
replace nospam with gte to reply
me
Dan Salenger wrote:
>
> janelaw wrote:
>
> > Jonathan Magnus wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > And demanding child support is not controlling someone else?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Well, no. You control your own sperm. What you do with it
> > leads to certain consequences. A woman controls her ova and
> > uterus. What she does has consequences too.
> >
> > Child support is the result of your own volitional act. If it
> > is hurting your present family, it is because you voluntarily
> > chose to become involved past your ability to support the
> > progeny you already had.
> >
> > You can't take back sperm.
>
> Interesting however, pointless. The "Keep your pants on" argument
> held little weight before the court in Roe v. Wade, why apply it to
> men?
because feminists want one set of laws for women and one for men,
favorable to an almost surreal extent to women, and so does the law
legal sytem and government. clearly, the whole point of roev wade was
that women had a right to choose-and nobody said that the fact that
nearly every "unwanted" pregnancy they seeked to abort was the result of
SEX they wanted-had ANY impact on that "right" for women to have. But
men, the sex that DOESNT get pregnant, (!!!) HAVE TO CONSENT TO
FATHERHOOD RIGHT WHEN THEY FUCK, EACH AND EVERY TIME.
> I am (perhaps mistakenly) assuming that you support abortion.
ALL FEMINISTS TODAY ARE PRO-CHOICE, BUT ORIGINAL FEMINISTS, WHO DID NOT
HATE MEN OR BEING FEMALE OPPOSED ABORTION AND CALLED IT THE CHILD MURDER
IT IS...
>If
> I were to suggest that women had the power to keep their pants on to
> avoid pregnancy would you thus give up the abortion alternative?
>
OF COURSE NOT. ONLY MEN, THE SEX THAT DOESNT EVEN GESTATE MUST DO THAT,
AND NO CFM FOR YOU BOYS...
> Why do you find it so difficult to give men the same (though less
> destructive in the terms of destroying life) right as women?
BECAUSE WE SAID SO!
> Is it
> because this right would leave women powerless?
WE MUST STOP THE PATRIARCHY!...BY REPLACING IT WITH A MATRIARCHY EVEN
MORE OPPRESSIVE TO ITS OPPOSITE NUMBER!
> I hate to say it but
> abortion rights leave men powerless to stop a woman from destroying a
> child (that took two people to create).
>
yup. but those same women use that very argument (it takes two) to
JUSTIFY why all men have to pay support, yet they seem to feel it means
nothing what the father did regards causation of pregnancy in terms of
him having any prenatal rights or options. if it takes tow, he should
have equal rights to the baby they BOTH are supposedly responsible for.
> > Child support is the result of your own volitional act.
>
> Actually, child support is a result of laws in our society. Nothing in
> the state of the natural universe or physical laws mandates this
> statement otherwise as fact.
>
true but ultimately they DO as the taxpayers aint gonna pay for it, its
your child and your responsibility, mother and father-those are good
laws intrinsically. the right thing to do is expect men and women to pay
for their sexual accidents and this fosters greater selectivity about
sex partners, and thus deters AIDS and fosters commitment and marriage.
and outlaw abortion and expect BOTH to pay child support for their
brats...
me.
Vera Izrailit
In soc.men janelaw <jan...@excite.com> wrote:
: Well, no. You control your own sperm. What you do with it
: leads to certain consequences. A woman controls her ova and
: uterus. What she does has consequences too.
: Child support is the result of your own volitional act. If it
: is hurting your present family, it is because you voluntarily
: chose to become involved past your ability to support the
: progeny you already had.
Consent to sex is not necessarily consent to reproduction. Look at
it this way: women can lead their sexual lives knowing that even if
their birth control fails and an accident happens, they still don't
have to go through pregnancy, childbirth and raising and financing
a child (which is a huge burden if you don't want to do it). It
is generally a very nice right to have, and IMO a very important one.
So why shouldn't men have the same right too?
I am certainly not suggesting that men should have any direct say
in the matter of abortion. It's a woman's body and a woman's choice.
But there should be a possibility for a man in the beginning of the
the woman's pregnancy to decline to be the legal father of the child.
The woman still has a choice to have an abortion, give the child for
adoption or raise it without a father.
Also, in the cases where the woman does not want either the child or
an abortion, but the man wants to raise a child by himself, it should
be possible for them to work out that arrangement too.
--
Vera Izrailit
Intestinal parasites known as senders of unsolicited commercial email will
have their genitals removed by a rusty kitchen knife without anaesthesia,
be painfully sodomized by a herd of elephants and then slowly tortured to
death. Unlikely survivors will be promptly caught and fed to the lawyers.
Jonathan Magnus
GJP <gregory-palumbo@nospam*ouhsc.edu> wrote:
<snip>
>Greg Palumbo
>
>janelaw wrote:
>>
>> >Jonathan Magnus wrote:
>> >
>> > And demanding child support is not controlling someone else?
>> >
>> Well, no. You control your own sperm. What you do with it
>> leads to certain consequences. A woman controls her ova and
>> uterus. What she does has consequences too.
>>
>> Child support is the result of your own volitional act. If it
>> is hurting your present family, it is because you voluntarily
>> chose to become involved past your ability to support the
>> progeny you already had.
>>
>> You can't take back sperm.
*I* control it.
*I* can't take it back, so I don't control it.
These two statements contradict each other.
The fact that a woman has control is the question. How do you balance
these two opposite points?
Just saying men don't, women do is not good enough.
"Equality", remember??
"Equal pay for equal work" can be turned into "Equal government
protection for equal taxes."
You *must* abandon one. Or offer an alternative. I did.
The second argument is good, at least on moral grounds. However it is
impossible to ignore that there may be others who may suffer. Others
who had no part in the original decision.
Suppose some woman who has children falls in love with me. She will
suffer too. What did she have to do with my bad decision?
Since the State can change my obligatoins at any time, why is she
being deliberatly mistreated?
What was her crime?
She is just as innocent as the child I helped create.
Jonathan
Jonathan Magnus
bit...@seal.engr.sgi.com (James Buster) wrote:
>In article <6dmfjp$e...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
>me <m...@newsgroup.com> wrote:
>>Women do NOT get abortions to "control their own bodies" they get them
>>to AVOID Child Support themselves on unwanted kids that if *they* gave
>>to the father *THEY* would owe 18+ years of support to!
That is an interesting point of view.
>Actually, the likelihood that the mother would pay support if she
>gave the child to the father is extremely low.
You are probably correct, but that can and *must* change.
I would argue that it is mostly of the fear of never becoming married.
Either because of having the child, or damage to their looks due to
the pregnancy.
Although I must admit that I have never been a pregnant woman and am
only guessing. It is still my opinion.
Jonathan
Angilion
On Wed, 04 Mar 1998 19:43:34 -0500, Rich <pay...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Angilion wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 28 Feb 1998 18:54:22 -0800, casey purvis
>> <wca...@mail.earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >let's take this a step further. dad should have an equal say about
>> >abortion or not!
>>
>> That's a different thing entirely, as it entails controlling
>> someone else.
>
>Are you saying that there is no basis for this? Are you saying that
>women in general have any qualms about controlling men?
I'm saying it's wrong, whoever is doing it. I don't give a damn
what women in general think, even if I know what it is.
>I used to say that women have a right to freedom from discrimination,
>till I learned that in general they seem to think I have no such
>right. Almost all women who have ever posted in alt.feminsim over the
>years have insisted on this.
And what about the exceptions? Shouldn't you give them the
same rights they would give you?
>Now I say that women have a right to freedom from discrimination equal
>to men's, no more, no less.
I agree with that.
>I say the same WRT parental rights. If men have no right to control their
>own bodies, women have no such right either.
>
>Equality is a bitch, which is why all organized feminism is hysterically
>opposed to it.
I agree with that as well.
Only a fool or an optimist would think that feminism could possibly
be about sexual equality. It's more about gaining as much as
possible for women, most especially the advantages of children
and the advantages of adults with the disadvantages of neither.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A WAR, | Prejudice can play no part in equality |
| IT'S NOT A CASE OF EITHER/OR! | |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Angilion (The Metaphorical Aardvark) email: ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk |
| |
Angilion
On Thu, 05 Mar 1998 03:12:33 GMT, jma...@remove.this.net1.net
(Jonathan Magnus) wrote:
>ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk (Angilion) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 28 Feb 1998 18:54:22 -0800, casey purvis
>><wca...@mail.earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>let's take this a step further. dad should have an equal say about
>>>abortion or not!
>>
>>That's a different thing entirely, as it entails controlling
>>someone else.
>
>And demanding child support is not controlling someone else?
>Sorry, it does not wash unless you consider the father to not be a
>person.
Good point, but I am not at all happy with him being forced to
pay child support. She has the power, so she should have
the responsibility.
Do you think that the bio father should be able to force
an abortion on the bio mother against her will? I sure as
hell don't.
>Child support could also hurt his future family and deny his next
>children of a better life.
>That is controlling a lot of 'someone elses'.
>She puts up with it for 9 months or more, if she wants to.
>He puts up with it for 18+ hears and has no say?
Not exactly fair.
>Sounds like everybody looses.
>Actually, everybody does.
>This is a tough issue.
>Suppose technology stepped in.
>Everyone is sterilized at birth. If you want kids, up to 2 are paid
>for by insurance/government and done by in vetro. Half of the third,
>etc.
>What do you think?
Hell no. It gives far too much power to the government and would
be abused horribly. Doubleplusungood.
Reversible sterilisation is the best answer from technology, or
control over your own fertility by an act of will if you're looking
for perfection.
The ideal is to ensure that each and every *person* (not just
women) can have or not have a child as and when they please.
That's not possible in the conceivable future (pun intended), but
we can at least give men negative control; the power to choose
not to have a child.
Now, who's going to give me the "he can keep his pants on"
line?
Angilion
On Thu, 05 Mar 1998 09:12:03 -0800, janelaw <jan...@excite.com>
wrote:
>Jonathan Magnus wrote:
>>
>>
>> And demanding child support is not controlling someone else?
>>
>>
>
>Well, no. You control your own sperm. What you do with it
>leads to certain consequences. A woman controls her ova and
>uterus. What she does has consequences too.
>
>Child support is the result of your own volitional act. If it
>is hurting your present family, it is because you voluntarily
>chose to become involved past your ability to support the
>progeny you already had.
>
>You can't take back sperm.
So you think abortion should be outlawed?
After all, you control your own ova. What you do
with them leads to certain consequences. Pregnancy is
the result of your own volitional act. If it is hurting your
life, it is because you voluntarily chose to become
involved past your ability to cope with it.
You can't take back ova.
I've gotta hand it to you; you have come up with a
neat way of saying "he has to keep his pants on, but
she doesn't".
fo...@ipso.facto
Your first mistake was assuming women think. Women do not think. They
feel. Just ask them.
Leslie
In article <3504caa6...@news.tor.sfl.net>, fo...@ipso.facto wrote:
> Your first mistake was assuming women think. Women do not think. They
> feel. Just ask them.
Yes. And don't we feel good?
Leslie
>
>
> ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk (Angilion) wrote:
> I'm saying it's wrong, whoever is doing it. I don't give a damn
> what women in general think, even if I know what it is.
--
*****************************************
Jonathan Magnus
ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk (Angilion) wrote:
>On Thu, 05 Mar 1998 03:12:33 GMT, jma...@remove.this.net1.net
>(Jonathan Magnus) wrote:
>
>>ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk (Angilion) wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 28 Feb 1998 18:54:22 -0800, casey purvis
>>><wca...@mail.earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>Good point, but I am not at all happy with him being forced to
>pay child support. She has the power, so she should have
>the responsibility.
>Do you think that the bio father should be able to force
>an abortion on the bio mother against her will? I sure as
>hell don't.
I don't either.
This is not a simple issue.
The current system is not acceptable, no balance.
How do we work it out?
It is just a matter of time before some lawyer gets enough courage to
argue for a man's right to 'choice'. And then where will we be?
There *must* be some consequence to choosing to continue the pregnancy
if the father chooses not to.
>>Child support could also hurt his future family and deny his next
>>children of a better life.
>>That is controlling a lot of 'someone elses'.
>>She puts up with it for 9 months or more, if she wants to.
>>He puts up with it for 18+ hears and has no say?
>
>Not exactly fair.
What I think is almost laughable is that one woman is actually harming
another! It seems that no matter how women try to make men 'suffer'
for past sins, they almost always end up harming another woman.
>>Sounds like everybody looses.
>>Actually, everybody does.
>>This is a tough issue.
>>Suppose technology stepped in.
>>Everyone is sterilized at birth. If you want kids, up to 2 are paid
>>for by insurance/government and done by in vetro. Half of the third,
>>etc.
>>What do you think?
>Hell no. It gives far too much power to the government and would
>be abused horribly. Doubleplusungood.
I don't trust the government much either, but in the current situation
they seem to be holding most of the cards, so what is there to lose?
>Reversible sterilisation is the best answer from technology, or
>control over your own fertility by an act of will if you're looking
>for perfection.
Several forms are reversible. I was hoping that 'norplant' thing would
work, but I guess it did not.
>The ideal is to ensure that each and every *person* (not just
>women) can have or not have a child as and when they please.
>That's not possible in the conceivable future (pun intended), but
>we can at least give men negative control; the power to choose
>not to have a child.
There are *supposed* to be several male pills in testing.
They should be easily reversible, just stop taking them. And should
prevent pregnancies. What will we do for those who decide to have a
child and then decide to divorce? Same problem all over again.
As much as I hate it, I can only think of some government program to
remedy this situation. I am *sure* no one wants that, but they seem to
get their noses into almost everything else.
(If these male 'pills' are effective, I wonder if they would prevent
sperm from being produced and therefore make it impossible to identify
a rapist.)
>Now, who's going to give me the "he can keep his pants on"
>line?
I was only considering consentual sex.
Of course, that implies that the woman is unable to make sound
decisions to prevent pregnancy either, but that is a seperate can of
worms and adds nothing to this discussion.
>| Angilion (The Metaphorical Aardvark) email: ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk |
Jonathan
human
On Fri, 06 Mar 1998 18:15:27 -0800, Dan Salenger wrote:
:>
:>
:>janelaw wrote:
:>
:>> Jonathan Magnus wrote:
:>> >
:>> >
:>> > And demanding child support is not controlling someone else?
:>> >
:>> >
:>>
:>> Well, no. You control your own sperm. What you do with it
:>> leads to certain consequences. A woman controls her ova and
:>> uterus. What she does has consequences too.
:>>
:>> Child support is the result of your own volitional act. If it
:>> is hurting your present family, it is because you voluntarily
:>> chose to become involved past your ability to support the
:>> progeny you already had.
:>>
:>> You can't take back sperm.
:>
:> Interesting however, pointless. The "Keep your pants on" argument
:>held little weight before the court in Roe v. Wade, why apply it to
:>men? I am (perhaps mistakenly) assuming that you support abortion. If
:>I were to suggest that women had the power to keep their pants on to
:>avoid pregnancy would you thus give up the abortion alternative?
I think it is interesting to see how frequently, including in this newsgroup,
feminists will use the "keep your pants on" reply. As you note it is
unlikely that they would accept this if we were talking about abortion
rights. We are almost forced to conclude that feminists believe that
men have inherently more self control than do women.
:>
:>Why do you find it so difficult to give men the same (though less
:>destructive in the terms of destroying life) right as women? Is it
:>because this right would leave women powerless? I hate to say it but
:>abortion rights leave men powerless to stop a woman from destroying a
:>child (that took two people to create).
We could solve the problem in a completely different manner by noting what
janelaw wrote at the top: we control our sperm. Our sperm is our property.
Perhaps we should just pass a new law: felonious possession of genetic
material. If a man demands the return of any genetic material which he
has put in the temporary possession of someone else and that person
refuses then they are charged with a felony - with penalties similar to
say, oh, kidnapping. Of course if the woman can prove that the man
agreed to give her the material "for keeps" she is allowed to keep it.
:>
:>> Child support is the result of your own volitional act.
:>
:>Actually, child support is a result of laws in our society. Nothing in
:>the state of the natural universe or physical laws mandates this
:>statement otherwise as fact.
:>
:>Dan Salenger
:>replace nospam with gte to reply
:>
--
Alternate views of feminism:
"Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women" by Christina Hoff Sommers
"Moral Panic - Biopolitics Rising" by John Fekete
"The New Victorians" by Rene Denfeld
"The Myth of Male Power" by Warren Farrell
"Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales From The Strange World of Women's Studies" by D. Patai & N. Koertge
and related web sites:
http://www.hugin.imat.com/~sheaffer
http://www.vix.com/pub/men/index.html
http://www.kfs.org/~kashka/ammd.html
http://idt.net/~per2/manifest.htm
Pat Winstanley
In article <35000a93...@news2.net1.net>, Jonathan Magnus
<jma...@remove.this.net1.net> writes
>bit...@seal.engr.sgi.com (James Buster) wrote:
>
>>In article <6dmfjp$e...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
>>me <m...@newsgroup.com> wrote:
>>>Women do NOT get abortions to "control their own bodies" they get them
>>>to AVOID Child Support themselves on unwanted kids that if *they* gave
>>>to the father *THEY* would owe 18+ years of support to!
>
>That is an interesting point of view.
Especially since she will (if she has a child) be supporting that child
whether or not the child lives with her. As will the father (if he has a
child) whether or not the child lives with him.
>
>>Actually, the likelihood that the mother would pay support if she
>>gave the child to the father is extremely low.
>
>You are probably correct, but that can and *must* change.
In the US maybe. In the UK a man or a woman whose child lives with the
other parent pays the same CS whatever their sex.
>I would argue that it is mostly of the fear of never becoming married.
>Either because of having the child, or damage to their looks due to
>the pregnancy.
>Although I must admit that I have never been a pregnant woman and am
>only guessing. It is still my opinion.
>
>Jonathan
--
Pat Winstanley
me
Pat Winstanley wrote:
>
> In article <35000a93...@news2.net1.net>, Jonathan Magnus
> <jma...@remove.this.net1.net> writes
> >bit...@seal.engr.sgi.com (James Buster) wrote:
> >
> >>In article <6dmfjp$e...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> >>me <m...@newsgroup.com> wrote:
> >>>Women do NOT get abortions to "control their own bodies" they get them
> >>>to AVOID Child Support themselves on unwanted kids that if *they* gave
> >>>to the father *THEY* would owe 18+ years of support to!
> >
> >That is an interesting point of view.
>
> Especially since she will (if she has a child) be supporting that child
> whether or not the child lives with her. As will the father (if he has a
> child) whether or not the child lives with him.
>
point is the mother will only if she wants to-the father has no choice.
Only SHE *chooses* the *outcome* of any given pregnancy.
Saying a mom is liable for CS is dumb, as she has the option of
pregnancy termination once and accident happens, so she can NEVER be
compelled into CS. She only invites it willingly by continuing the
pregnancy leading to a birth. That's the whole point of C4M.
A man cannot avoid CS as a simple sex act means he consents to
fatherhood and 18 years of CS, as he cannot terminate a pregnancy, or
for that matter stop even a termination. So, he is stuck up the ass
based on her decision, but she is free to do as she wishes.
In any case, the right way is to ban virtually all abortion on demand
medical or paper. That way, the scales are balanced the way they were
meant to be and both sexes are stuck equally and will watch their sexual
behavior more. We then keep all paternity establishment laws which then
become fair to apply to men.
> >
> >>Actually, the likelihood that the mother would pay support if she
> >>gave the child to the father is extremely low.
> >
> >You are probably correct, but that can and *must* change.
>
> In the US maybe. In the UK a man or a woman whose child lives with the
> other parent pays the same CS whatever their sex.
I will believe that when I see it. In most english common law countries
the same sexist sitaution exists some say. But in the US the above mess
is definitely a problem...
me.
Angilion
On Sat, 07 Mar 1998 23:18:10 -0800, lba...@sd61.bc.ca (Leslie) wrote:
>In article <3504caa6...@news.tor.sfl.net>, fo...@ipso.facto wrote:
>
>> Your first mistake was assuming women think. Women do not think. They
>> feel. Just ask them.
What a bag o' shite.
Women, being people, both think and feel. Just like men.
>Yes. And don't we feel good?
LOL.
>> ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk (Angilion) wrote:
>> I'm saying it's wrong, whoever is doing it. I don't give a damn
>> what women in general think, even if I know what it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A WAR, | Prejudice can play no part in equality |
| IT'S NOT A CASE OF EITHER/OR! | |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Angilion (The Metaphorical Aardvark) email: ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk |
| |
Bob
Pat Winstanley wrote:
Somebody wrote:
> >>>Women do NOT get abortions to "control their own bodies" they get them
> >>>to AVOID Child Support themselves on unwanted kids that if *they* gave
> >>>to the father *THEY* would owe 18+ years of support to!
Somebody else responded:
> >That is an interesting point of view.
....and then there's Winstanley:
> Especially since she will (if she has a child) be supporting that child
> whether or not the child lives with her. As will the father (if he has a
> child) whether or not the child lives with him.
The point is that she gets out of the 18+ years of support
through
abortion which is the primary reason females abort. It is not
out
of fear of bodily injury or death.
I can also see instances where a couple has conceived a child
that
she does not want and he does working out an arrangement whereby
she will gestate and give him full custody with the condition
that
she will not have any responsibility in parenting/supporting the
child that is allowed birth. After all, don't we see instances
in
divorce situations where a mother is excused from paying support
on the condition that the father have full custody.
Men must demand the legal right to equality of choice, in order
to
correct errors in conception. A man has every moral right to
refuse
to support children conceived in error and gestated by a female
with the knowledge that the father is not prepared to
parent/support
the child.
--
My e-mail address has been altered in order to discourage spam.
If
you wish to respond via e-mail remove the "$$" from the address.
James Buster
In article <WL3A7bB5...@pierless.demon.co.uk>,
Pat Winstanley <pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Especially since she will (if she has a child) be supporting that child
>whether or not the child lives with her. As will the father (if he has a
>child) whether or not the child lives with him.
In the US, "mother supporting child not living with her" is the exception,
not the rule. Only about 30% of custodial fathers have support orders,
and of those about 50% are in total default.
--
Pat Winstanley
In article <6e57cn$adp$1@nnrp1>, Bob <"bobw45"@$$swbell.net> writes
>Pat Winstanley wrote:
>
>Somebody wrote:
>> >>>Women do NOT get abortions to "control their own bodies" they get them
>> >>>to AVOID Child Support themselves on unwanted kids that if *they* gave
>> >>>to the father *THEY* would owe 18+ years of support to!
>
>Somebody else responded:
>> >That is an interesting point of view.
>
>....and then there's Winstanley:
>> whether or not the child lives with her. As will the father (if he has a
>> child) whether or not the child lives with him.
>
>through
> abortion
Erm... how does she do that if she gives birth to a child and helps
raise the child? Which is waht I was talking about above if you had
bothered to read...
--
Pat Winstanley
me
PAT READ:
SHE KNOWS SHE IS INVITING CHILD SUPPORT IF SHE CHOOSES TO CARRY TO TERM.
THE POINT IS THAT SHE *CHOOSES* AND DOES SO ALONE TO DO THIS *ONCE* AN
ACCIDENT HAPPENS. THE MAN DONT GET THAT CHOICE!!!!!! ONE MISTAKE, EVEN A
BROKEN CONDOM MEANS HES A FATHER, PERIOD. AND HE OWES 18+ YEARS OF
SUPPORT, AS HE CAN ONLY HAVE IT ADOPTED WITH HER CONSENT. NO WOMAN CAN
BE FORCED INTO MOTHERHOOD, BUT MEN CAN BE FORCED BEYOND SEX ITSELF WHICH
CONSTITUTES CONSENT ONLY FOR THEM BUT NOT WOMEN. NO WOMAN EVE PAYS CHILD
SUPPORT UNLESS SHE WANTS TO OR HAS A CHILD. MEN ARE ROUTINELY FORECED
INTO PATERNITY AND CHILD SUPPORT AND ALSO FATHERHOOD.
ME.
Bob
Pat Winstanley wrote:
Bob wrote:
> > The point is that she gets out of the 18+ years of support
> >through abortion
>
> Erm... how does she do that if she gives birth to a child and helps
> raise the child? Which is waht I was talking about above if you had
> bothered to read...
Honey, somebody wrote that the reason girls got abortions was not to
control their own bodies but to avoid child support on unwanted
children. It is in very few instances that they use abortion for
any other purpose. However, because there are other purposes, they
like to use those purposes as a strawman argument in order to
ignore the real reason for abortion; especially when the debate is
about equality of choice between men and girls.
And then there is the other choice she has to fully gestate and
deliver the child she has conceived, nature willing. And after
she does that she has ANOTHER choice to support the child or not to
support the child. She can choose not to support the child she has
gestated, of course, by putting the child into adoption either
legally
or sometimes illegally with a minimum of liability on her part.
Frequently, in later years, her courts will turn the other cheek if
she chooses abandon to her child.
And then you ask in response to the statement that "she gets out of
the 18+ years of support through abortion," how does she do that if
she gives birth? What are you, nuts or something?
me
Bob wrote:
>
> Pat Winstanley wrote:
>
> Bob wrote:
> > > The point is that she gets out of the 18+ years of support
> > >through abortion
> >
> > Erm... how does she do that if she gives birth to a child and helps
> > raise the child? Which is waht I was talking about above if you had
> > bothered to read...
>
> Honey, somebody wrote that the reason girls got abortions was not to
> control their own bodies but to avoid child support on unwanted
> children.
WOMEN, bob, not little girls-even though such females are not acting
like adults!
>It is in very few instances that they use abortion for
> any other purpose.
correct but rarely true. they use it for EXACTLY the same purpose men
do: to avoid CS and legal maternity with all its attendent
responsibilities and roles, etc. They feel unready for motherhood at
THIS TIME. Or, they never want children but got pg. The same applies to
men. They dont want one now or pay CS, etc. They dont want them ever
perhaps and they got someone pg as opposed to getting pg.
> However, because there are other purposes, they
> like to use those purposes as a strawman argument in order to
> ignore the real reason for abortion; especially when the debate is
> about equality of choice between men and girls.
>
correct. WOMEN not girls, bob. girls=punky brewster. women=claudia
schiffer.
it is a strawman. this is proved by sick feminazis who want partial
birth abortions to be legal and basically unrestricted. They wont even
accept PBA laws which make provisions for life/safety of the mother as
being enough, because it liimits their freedom of action-never mind that
they had MONTHS to decide after getting pg.
the feminazis DONT want equality, or they would support c4m or better
yet, paper abortions only with unilateral action abilty for both men and
women which is the ultimate state of fairness which allows both men and
women to avoid legal parenthood and CS WITHOUT killing and allowing
EITHER mother or father to keep it and raise it alone.
(This option outside of banning medical ones and holding men accountable
which is my preference as the best total deal for society in the long
run.)
but the current state of abortion for women but no c4m is slavery to men
unless women give up abortion....
> And then there is the other choice she has to fully gestate and
> deliver the child she has conceived, nature willing. And after
> she does that she has ANOTHER choice to support the child or not to
> support the child.
no, not exactly. thats why we need to take away medical abortion and
allow THIS as womens choice to pay or not and be a legal mother, which
she currently cannot disavow exactly.
> She can choose not to support the child she has
> gestated, of course, by putting the child into adoption either
> legally
> or sometimes illegally with a minimum of liability on her part.
this is where you go wrong, bob. she cannot do this exactly. she can
PLACE, but it will not hold if the birthfather blocks and refuses to
sign the papers. He then gets custody, and sues HER for support which
she may have to pay in theory. If illegal thats another story but not a
fair argument, anybody can abuse. If I dont want a baby, I can also
kick my gf stomache against her will repeatedly and force her to abort,
but its illegal.
She is still the legal mother, and if the birthfather is known and
fights it, he will usually win if he responds in time and is given a 30
day notice of impending adoption. Since she is not terminated yet, like
it or not, until finality, HIS taking the baby and suing HER for CS is
legal and technically enforcable. She is forced to be a legal and CS
paying mother if she does not want it BUT gives birth.
So, we need to take medical abortion away, but allow c4m and a c4w legal
code which allows either party unilaterally without consent to TERMINATE
their legal parental relationship and to make eith maternity or
paternity suits legally estopped.
Both men and women get abortion ON PAPER ONLY, and exceptions for women
only in life is in danger and possibly rape or incest,etc. And that way
the FATHER can raise it himself and keep it, he just cant sue her for
support and claim she's the mother for legal purposes-no cs or
visitation ever, etc.
This method is superior to keeping abortion legal for women and simply
getting c4m. By making it ALL on paper, no loss off life, and women do
not control OUR reproductive freedom and men can CHOOSE fatherhood in a
positive sense, if you know what I mean, whereas under c4m without c4w
and no medical abortion, they cannot as the girl can always kill the
fathers baby. hence, in theory, NO man can CHOOSE fatherhood.
> Frequently, in later years, her courts will turn the other cheek if
> she chooses abandon to her child.
>
also true. The bitch can abandon it on a doorstep, it goes into foster
care for a year, and ONLY THEN are her rights terminated and its adopted
against her will. The guy is lucky if he gets 30 DAYS to contest an
adoption even if it was not his idea to get rid of it!
the system routinely hands custody to mothers that abandon kids under
tire wheels, garbage cans, etc, OVER UNWED FATHERS OF THOSE BABIES THAT
STEP FORWARD AND CLAIM IT! People feel sympathy for her like she
deserved it, but let HIM leave only even *DURING* the pregnancy for a
few measly months and he sometimes forfeits adoption opposal rights.
as in that case in florida where the birthfather LOST for doing this and
was charged with abandonment, thus an unfit dad and lost right to
contest adoption according to the supreme court of florida-yet a bitch
could dump it in a trash can and it goes not straight to adption agency,
but foster care for a year and she can get it back up to that time
expiring and no fear of losing or adoption!
> And then you ask in response to the statement that "she gets out of
> the 18+ years of support through abortion," how does she do that if
> she gives birth? What are you, nuts or something?
well, again, she cannot always do that if she gives birth and the father
comes forward. Of course he usually has to be AWARE of the pregnancy to
do this. But if he is he can act using the legal system. Only if hes out
of the picture can she adopt easily.
Even if he is, they will usually prod her for the info and require
disclosure, giving him a chance to claim it, take custody and sue HER
for support and ending the adoption and men can protect themselves
intheory usually by putative father registries, if using them, and this
beats her "I just dont know who he is or where he is or his name" line
to the adoption agency.
the bottom line is:
make PAPER ABORTION the only form allowable for both men and women to
opt out of legal parenthood if you cannot agree to my other
proposal-this is the only fair way. simply using c4m AND keeping
abortion on demand for girls is STILL NOT fair to men...
me.
Pat Winstanley
In article <6e8gad$hpi$1@nnrp1>, Bob <"bobw45"@$$swbell.net> writes
>Pat Winstanley wrote:
>
>Bob wrote:
>> > The point is that she gets out of the 18+ years of support
>> >through abortion
>>
>> Erm... how does she do that if she gives birth to a child and helps
>> raise the child? Which is waht I was talking about above if you had
>> bothered to read...
>
> Honey, somebody wrote that the reason girls got abortions
Girls having abortions (and their reasons for doing so) is rather
different tyhan women having abortions.
Why are you only refering to paedophile caused pregnancies?
> was not to
> control their own bodies but to avoid child support on unwanted
> children. It is in very few instances that they use abortion for
> any other purpose. However, because there are other purposes, they
> like to use those purposes as a strawman argument in order to
> ignore the real reason for abortion; especially when the debate is
> about equality of choice between men and girls.
>
> And then there is the other choice she has to fully gestate and
> deliver the child she has conceived, nature willing. And after
> she does that she has ANOTHER choice to support the child or not to
> support the child. She can choose not to support the child she has
> gestated, of course, by putting the child into adoption either
>legally
> or sometimes illegally with a minimum of liability on her part.
> Frequently, in later years, her courts will turn the other cheek if
> she chooses abandon to her child.
>
> And then you ask in response to the statement that "she gets out of
> the 18+ years of support through abortion," how does she do that if
> she gives birth? What are you, nuts or something?
--
Pat Winstanley
humon
On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 05:18:53 -0600, Bob wrote:
:>Pat Winstanley wrote:
:>
:>Bob wrote:
:>> > The point is that she gets out of the 18+ years of support
:>> >through abortion
:>>
:>> Erm... how does she do that if she gives birth to a child and helps
:>> raise the child? Which is waht I was talking about above if you had
:>> bothered to read...
:>
:> Honey, somebody wrote that the reason girls got abortions was not to
:> control their own bodies but to avoid child support on unwanted
:> children. It is in very few instances that they use abortion for
:> any other purpose. However, because there are other purposes, they
:> like to use those purposes as a strawman argument in order to
:> ignore the real reason for abortion; especially when the debate is
:> about equality of choice between men and girls.
:>
:> And then there is the other choice she has to fully gestate and
:> deliver the child she has conceived, nature willing. And after
:> she does that she has ANOTHER choice to support the child or not to
:> support the child. She can choose not to support the child she has
:> gestated, of course, by putting the child into adoption either
:>legally
:> or sometimes illegally with a minimum of liability on her part.
:> Frequently, in later years, her courts will turn the other cheek if
:> she chooses abandon to her child.
:>
:> And then you ask in response to the statement that "she gets out of
:> the 18+ years of support through abortion," how does she do that if
:> she gives birth? What are you, nuts or something?
Hmm, that brings up another interesting point. Where I live NCPs do in fact
have to pay child support to the CP for 18 years. Oh, what the heck, let's
be accurate: the father has to pay money to the mother until the child
is 18 years old. But intact families can legally kick the kid out, and not pay
any support, when the kid is 16. IOW, single men with children are yet again
being held to a higher standard.
humon
On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 19:13:10 +0000, Pat Winstanley wrote:
:>In article <6e8gad$hpi$1@nnrp1>, Bob <"bobw45"@$$swbell.net> writes
:>>Pat Winstanley wrote:
:>>
:>>Bob wrote:
:>>> > The point is that she gets out of the 18+ years of support
:>>> >through abortion
:>>>
:>>> Erm... how does she do that if she gives birth to a child and helps
:>>> raise the child? Which is waht I was talking about above if you had
:>>> bothered to read...
:>>
:>> Honey, somebody wrote that the reason girls got abortions
:>
:>Girls having abortions (and their reasons for doing so) is rather
:>different tyhan women having abortions.
:>
:>Why are you only refering to paedophile caused pregnancies?
All pregnant young women (ie. girls) are paedophiles?
--
Most men who are court-ordered to pay child support
do pay it. Cici in Texas, Feb 18, 1998
Laurel Halbany
On Thu, 12 Mar 98 16:38:54, "humon" <per...@aplanet.com> wrote:
>Hmm, that brings up another interesting point. Where I live NCPs do in fact
>have to pay child support to the CP for 18 years. Oh, what the heck, let's
>be accurate: the father has to pay money to the mother until the child
>is 18 years old. But intact families can legally kick the kid out, and not pay
>any support, when the kid is 16. IOW, single men with children are yet again
>being held to a higher standard.
....than married men with children.
humon
On Fri, 13 Mar 1998 17:57:01 +1100, Julie Simpson wrote:
:>In article <dovmqsciza...@discovery.intergate.bc.ca>, "humon"
:><per...@aplanet.com> wrote:
:>
:>> Hmm, that brings up another interesting point. Where I live NCPs do in fact
:>> have to pay child support to the CP for 18 years. Oh, what the heck, let's
:>> be accurate: the father has to pay money to the mother until the child
:>> is 18 years old. But intact families can legally kick the kid out, and
:>not pay
:>> any support, when the kid is 16. IOW, single men with children are yet again
:>> being held to a higher standard.
:>
:>Yes, but since the support is for the benefit of the child it is probably
:>wiser to say that the intact family _should_ be responsible for the child
:>until majority rather than reverse the decision making NCP's pay support
:>until then. It is not so much that single men are held to a higher
:>standard as much as families are held to a lower one.
:>
:>Cheers
:>
:>Julie
It is just constitutionally impossible for a feminist to admit to men
having the worst of some situation, isn't it?
Jean Coyle
Laurel Halbany wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Mar 98 16:38:54, "humon" <per...@aplanet.com> wrote:
>
>>Hmm, that brings up another interesting point. Where I live NCPs do in >>fact have to pay child support to the CP for 18 years. Oh, what the >>heck,let's be accurate: the father has to pay money to the mother >>until the child is 18 years old. But intact families can legally kick >>the kid out, and not pay any support, when the kid is 16. IOW, single >>men with children are yet again >being held to a higher standard.
Try kicking a 16 yr old without a steady job or a place to live
out into the street in NY or MA. You will very quickly find yourself in
court being charged with child abuse and abandonment. You will also
be presented with a hefty foster care bill. If your minor becomes
pregnant you will be held legally liable for their support and the
support of as many babies as they can bear before age 21 in NY and
age 20 in MA.
and those laws apply to all parents,even married ones
Jean
Pat Winstanley
In article <dujxapwuve...@discovery.intergate.bc.ca>, humon
<per...@aplanet.com> writes
>On Fri, 13 Mar 1998 17:57:01 +1100, Julie Simpson wrote:
>
>:><per...@aplanet.com> wrote:
>:>
>:>> Hmm, that brings up another interesting point. Where I live NCPs do in fact
>:>> be accurate: the father has to pay money to the mother until the child
>:>> is 18 years old. But intact families can legally kick the kid out, and
>:>not pay
>:>> any support, when the kid is 16. IOW, single men with children are yet
>again
>:>> being held to a higher standard.
>:>Yes, but since the support is for the benefit of the child it is probably
>:>wiser to say that the intact family _should_ be responsible for the child
>:>until majority rather than reverse the decision making NCP's pay support
>:>until then. It is not so much that single men are held to a higher
>:>standard as much as families are held to a lower one.
>:>
>:>Cheers
>:>
>:>Julie
>
>It is just constitutionally impossible for a feminist to admit to men
>having the worst of some situation, isn't it?
>
Aren't lone mothers *also* liable to support their children until the
children turn 18? Even if the 'child' doesn't live with them?
--
Pat Winstanley
human
On Fri, 13 Mar 1998 16:52:43 +0000, Pat Winstanley wrote:
:>In article <dujxapwuve...@discovery.intergate.bc.ca>, humon
Nope, at least where I live, apparently not.