Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gunslinger on March 11, 2006, 08:39:45 PM
-
Wooohoooo men have "activists" now. I wonder if they will become menanists.
Lawsuit seeks right to decline financial responsibility for kids
Thursday, March 9, 2006; Posted: 6:52 a.m. EST (11:52 GMT)
Matt Dubay contends his ex-girlfriend assured him she was unable to get pregnant.
Manage Alerts | What Is This? NEW YORK (AP) -- Contending that women have more options than they do in the event of an unintended pregnancy, men's rights activists are mounting a long shot legal campaign aimed at giving them the chance to opt out of financial responsibility for raising a child.
The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit -- nicknamed Roe v. Wade for Men -- to be filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter.
The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose.
"There's such a spectrum of choice that women have -- it's her body, her pregnancy and she has the ultimate right to make decisions," said Mel Feit, director of the men's center. "I'm trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly."
Feit's organization has been trying since the early 1990s to pursue such a lawsuit, and finally found a suitable plaintiff in Matt Dubay of Saginaw, Michigan.
Dubay says he has been ordered to pay $500 a month in child support for a girl born last year to his ex-girlfriend. He contends that the woman knew he didn't want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that -- because of a physical condition -- she could not get pregnant.
Dubay is braced for the lawsuit to fail.
"What I expect to hear [from the court] is that the way things are is not really fair, but that's the way it is," he said in a telephone interview. "Just to create awareness would be enough, to at least get a debate started."
State courts have ruled in the past that any inequity experienced by men like Dubay is outweighed by society's interest in ensuring that children get financial support from two parents. Melanie Jacobs, a Michigan State University law professor, said the federal court might rule similarly in Dubay's case.
"The courts are trying to say it may not be so fair that this gentleman has to support a child he didn't want, but it's less fair to say society has to pay the support," she said.
Feit, however, says a fatherhood opt-out wouldn't necessarily impose higher costs on society or the mother. A woman who balked at abortion but felt she couldn't afford to raise a child could put the baby up for adoption, he said.
'This is so politically incorrect'
Jennifer Brown of the women's rights advocacy group Legal Momentum objected to the men's center comparing Dubay's lawsuit to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling establishing a woman's right to have an abortion.
"Roe is based on an extreme intrusion by the government -- literally to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want," Brown said. "There's nothing equivalent for men. They have the same ability as women to use contraception, to get sterilized."
Feit counters that the suit's reference to abortion rights is apt.
"Roe says a woman can choose to have intimacy and still have control over subsequent consequences," he said. "No one has ever asked a federal court if that means men should have some similar say."
"The problem is this is so politically incorrect," Feit added. "The public is still dealing with the pre-Roe ethic when it comes to men, that if a man fathers a child, he should accept responsibility."
Feit doesn't advocate an unlimited fatherhood opt-out; he proposes a brief period in which a man, after learning of an unintended pregnancy, could decline parental responsibilities if the relationship was one in which neither partner had desired a child.
"If the woman changes her mind and wants the child, she should be responsible," Feit said. "If she can't take care of the child, adoption is a good alternative."
The president of the National Organization for Women, Kim Gandy, acknowledged that disputes over unintended pregnancies can be complex and bitter.
"None of these are easy questions," said Gandy, a former prosecutor. "But most courts say it's not about what he did or didn't do or what she did or didn't do. It's about the rights of the child."
-
I read this in the local paper a few days ago. It was buried beyond the sports section.
My take on this is "Uh huh, keep reaching".
-
A fiscal abortion?
-
Financial responsability starts with buying a box of Trojans.
-
Never trust a woman when it comes to birth control. Women are crazy, sooner or later they all want to get pregnant, and that will allways be a higher priority for them than a man's trust or respect.
What the hell is holding up the birth control pill for men ?
-
See I have no problem with men activists.
If men want to have the right to tell a woman she cant have an abortion.
They should also have the right to absolve themselves from all financial responcability if she insists on giving birth.
It should work both ways or men should just STFU on the issue
Personally I've yet to meet a woman whom a man could get to do or not do much of anything she didnt already decide to before hand.
You got her pregnant
You didnt want her to have a kid yet she had it anyway and now you are responcable for it. Well Tough chit. Your outa luck. You dont have the right to tell a woman not to have a kid.
Like someone else said. shoulda thought about that ahead of time before you doinked her
But Also,
You got her pregnant
You wanted the kid, She didnt and aborted it.
Again. Tough watermelon on you.
You dont have the right to force her to have a kid she doesnt want.
You shoulda thought about that too ahead of time and made sure she wanted to have a kid with you before you doinked her.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Financial responsability starts with buying a box of Trojans.
True, but the girlfriend still defrauded the boyfriend.
I for one support such men's rights movements, and it's a long time coming. If women have full control over thier reproductive capabilities, they should accept full responsibility.
No taxation, without representation!!!....or something like that.
-
The president of the National Organization for Women, Kim Gandy, acknowledged that disputes over unintended pregnancies can be complex and bitter.
"None of these are easy questions," said Gandy, a former prosecutor. "But most courts say it's not about what he did or didn't do or what she did or didn't do. It's about the rights of the child."
This from NOW. "It's about the rights of the child."
I thought rhey said it was about the womans body and her right to choose.
-
If the SC overturns Roe v Wade, the point is moot.
Women have the right to choose abortion. Seems only fair that men should have the right to choose one as well.
It all sounds well and good just as long as the women isn't forced to go to term simply because the father wants the child.
-
Originally posted by dynamt
This from NOW. "It's about the rights of the child."
I thought rhey said it was about the womans body and her right to choose.
It is up until the point of viability, at least in my books. The rights of the child though is bull**** smokescreen, once again in my books. If the mother is deciding alone to give birth to the, without the father having any say than it should be her sole responsibility to bear any burden that having that child might entail.
The law apparently likes father to pay for that decision by the mother. Because, you know women are helpless or whatnot. It's a blast arguing this stuff with feminazis.
All these laws do is help to destroy the fabric of nuclear, let alone extended families.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
It all sounds well and good just as long as the women isn't forced to go to term simply because the father wants the child.
No need to force the woman to do anything. I'm sure she could negotiate whatever terms are best for everyone involve with the father.
-
I can honestly say i'm surprised by some of the good responses in this thread. I for one can't have any more kids so the point is moot for me. But it was brought up in the thread that it finaincial responsibility is "for the best intrest of the child" yet abortion and the "right" to choose is in the best intrest of the mother and NOT the child. Seems kinda bass ackwords to me.
-
Oh sure.... liberalism is all fun and games until...
someone points out that it should be fair.
lazs
-
It's not as good as the Dr that gave the other Dr a bj then impregnated herself with what was left in her mouth and sued him for child support. She won, of course.
-
Yea I remeber seeing a few of those such cases in the press over the years [father wants baby, mother doesnt, he sues to block her from aborting]. Usually those are played out as the evil father forcing his choice on the girl, yada yada.
As to the Roe vs Wade issue, I think it should be reviewed and tossed. This was a case that each state should decide for itself. Rather than it rest of the whims of the court, let it rest with the people and its elected representatives in their state senate and congress.
As I said, its a reach. Sure, be activists all you want. And I know all too many "fathers" who'd love to resign from the role. But this is a human life, not a pet dog or cat where you can just shuck it when its inconvenient.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Yea I remeber seeing a few of those such cases in the press over the years [father wants baby, mother doesnt, he sues to block her from aborting]. Usually those are played out as the evil father forcing his choice on the girl, yada yada.
As to the Roe vs Wade issue, I think it should be reviewed and tossed. This was a case that each state should decide for itself. Rather than it rest of the whims of the court, let it rest with the people and its elected representatives in their state senate and congress.
As I said, its a reach. Sure, be activists all you want. And I know all too many "fathers" who'd love to resign from the role. But this is a human life, not a pet dog or cat where you can just shuck it when its inconvenient.
If I'm understanding that, it's not an escape hatch to use any time you think it's inconvient. You've got a window at the begining of the unwanted pregnency to bail out then.
-
Originally posted by Suave
Never trust a woman when it comes to birth control. Women are crazy, sooner or later they all want to get pregnant, and that will allways be a higher priority for them than a man's trust or respect.
What the hell is holding up the birth control pill for men ?
Excuse me but we are not crazy, we want to get married and live happily ever after too. But we can't always have that can we?
No woman wants to get pregnant just because we can.
As for trust, show me a man that can be trusted.
-
Originally posted by dmf
Excuse me but we are not crazy, we want to get married and live happily ever after too. But we can't always have that can we?
No woman wants to get pregnant just because we can.
As for trust, show me a man that can be trusted.
Many men feel the same way toward women.
As to NO woman wants to get pregnant because she can. I've seen one or two that put the lie to such a statement. Thought they were crazy but after they got on welfare and started bringin in the money I decided perhaps they were crazy like a fox.
Knew one that had 6 children and NO husband. Didn't want one either. Some actually get their oldest daughter to have one and give it to em before the oldest daughter moves out. Keeps the money comin in.
Me? It don't matter now got fixed. Too many diseases out there to just jump from partner to partner. Got fixed cause got too many kids already.
Man that can be trusted? From your wording I'm inclined to think it wouldn't matter if a man was actually trust worthy, you would be looking so hard for him to betray you no matter what he did he would somehow betray you.
-
Ok now I have to say this, anybody that does that isn't a woman, you guys have a different name for those kind.
-
sounds fair to me. if a woman has the right to opt out of parenthood so should the man.
-
Id agree.
-
Originally posted by dmf
No woman wants to get pregnant just because we can.
As for trust, show me a man that can be trusted.
I wouldnt go that far. I've known a few women who used to get pregnant. just because they could.
Also could have very nearly gotten trapped myself by a chick that thought she was going to intentionally get pregnant without my having anything to say, or even letting me know about it.
Fortunatly for me she spouted off her plans to a mutual friend who in turn told her husband, who in turn clued me in as to her intentions.
I beat feet the hell out of there within the next week.
Damn shame she decided to turn to deceit as I really did like her and something might have eventually come of the relationship had she not broken my golden rule of "Dont make plans for us without talking to me first about it."
Now the words "Dont tell Tom, But Im planning on getting pregnant again" (She already had one kid by a previous boyfriend) Qualifies in spades the breaking of that golden rule.
In my 44 years I have come to several conclusions. Most women are indeed whacked in the head crazy.
And Women can be trusted about as much as men. No more. No less.
Some you can trust, some you cant.
As for myself. I can be trusted so long as you dont give me reason not to break that trust.
Trust works both ways
-
I agree that things should be fair but...
What is sounds like here is that the liberals here not only want to have abortion free and legal but that they want to be able to force it on women so that they don't have to take any responsibility for their acts (getting women pregnant)...
lazs
-
BS, woman want to have children because... they want to have children. And that's irrational.
If they wanted children for selfless reasons they'd all adopt.
-
I have found that there are two kinds of women in the world..
Those on anti depressants and those who should be.
lazs
-
Interesting arguments.
But can the man just opt out of responsibility because he was careless?
I don't believe so. Though I think it should weigh in some on any financial settlements in the future.
But if the pregnancy happened by pure accident or unforseen event, then it could be possible to opt out of responsibility.
If the woman gets pregnant out of pure vindictiveness, then the man should not have any responsibility at all. Unless he chooses so.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
What is sounds like here is that the liberals here not only want to have abortion free and legal but that they want to be able to force it on women so that they don't have to take any responsibility for their acts (getting women pregnant)...
No that's not what it's about. The woman isn't forced to get an abortion. Do you not think that the woman is screwing over the guy in this case? Do you not think she defrauded him and is taking money from him based on an unfair legal situation? Why does everything have to be made into a lib/con issue anyway. Issues get muddled and shifted as people push agendas and play the "my team vs your team" game. Just think for yourself.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
But can the man just opt out of responsibility because he was careless?
I don't believe so. Though I think it should weigh in some on any financial settlements in the future.
Turn it around. Can the woman just opt out of responsibility because she was careless?
In fact, yes she can. For example, she can get an abortion within 3 days of conception. She is given that choice.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Interesting arguments.
But can the man just opt out of responsibility because he was careless?
I don't believe so. Though I think it should weigh in some on any financial settlements in the future.
I think I thought of a way it can be included. Except in the cases of deception or coersion, both are equally responsable for the pregnancy. So the father should share in the financial burden (compensate for a portion of lost wages etc.) if any, of the pregnancy up to the time of abortion or birth. He can't get stretch marks or other physical changes caused by the birth, so he should compensate the mother for those things as well.
-
phoocat... what would you suggest? that if the man says "get an abortion" that it is the magic words that once, absolve him from any responsibility?
Perhaps no man should ever be responsible for the welfare of his child unless it was created in wedlock. That would seem a reasonable thing.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
phoocat... what would you suggest? that if the man says "get an abortion" that it is the magic words that once, absolve him from any responsibility?
Once again, no one is forcing the woman to get an abortion. What is happening now in this case is nothing short of fraudulent extortion by the woman against the man. I assume you agree with that. I also assume you think that is a bad thing. The man should have the right to absolve himself of fiscal responsibility. Now it is up to the woman whether to raise her child herself, or get an abortion. It's her choice, as always. But she shouldn't have the choice to extort from the guy. Equal rights. What if the guy wanted the baby, but she wanted an abortion? Of course she can get an abortion. It goes both ways.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Perhaps no man should ever be responsible for the welfare of his child unless it was created in wedlock. That would seem a reasonable thing.
That's the way it used to be for a long, long time.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
I wouldnt go that far. I've known a few women who used to get pregnant. just because they could.
Also could have very nearly gotten trapped myself by a chick that thought she was going to intentionally get pregnant without my having anything to say, or even letting me know about it.
Fortunatly for me she spouted off her plans to a mutual friend who in turn told her husband, who in turn clued me in as to her intentions.
I beat feet the hell out of there within the next week.
Damn shame she decided to turn to deceit as I really did like her and something might have eventually come of the relationship had she not broken my golden rule of "Dont make plans for us without talking to me first about it."
Now the words "Dont tell Tom, But Im planning on getting pregnant again" (She already had one kid by a previous boyfriend) Qualifies in spades the breaking of that golden rule.
In my 44 years I have come to several conclusions. Most women are indeed whacked in the head crazy.
And Women can be trusted about as much as men. No more. No less.
Some you can trust, some you cant.
As for myself. I can be trusted so long as you dont give me reason not to break that trust.
Trust works both ways
Last time I trusted a man once, I even married him had a child and actually thought I'd live happily ever after. I grew up a lot after he cheated on me and got caught, I grew up even more after the divorce papers were signed. Maybe its just where I live at, here 50% of the men only want sex, they'll lie, cheat and burn your emotions to a crisp if you let them. The other 50% are married and won't ever cheat on their wives, or at least be smart enought to not get caught.
-
I guess I made your 50%.
-
OK now that I ranted in that last post, let me tell all you guys a bit about women.
1) any girl, woman, female in general, who gets pregnant by mistake, needs a reality check up side her head.
2) NOONE should be able to use abortion as a form of birth control! ( no I'm not an activist).
3) Yes it should be up to both the man and woman, unless either one is useing abortion to get out of their responsibilities.
4) any woman who need that 3 day abortion thing is a slut, and should start chargeing for her services.
5) People should THINK before haveing sex, It takes 2 to do it, so there shoud be 2 thinking about what their doing. Chiuldren are not "things" that can be swept away time.
6) In wedlock or out of wedlock, babies are gonna be born, aborted, and adopted. Its sad, but true. A lot of times children are not wanted. I'm not a religious person, but I believe that babies are a gift form God, that shouldn't be thrown away.
-
Originally posted by dmf
2) NOONE should be able to use abortion as a form of birth control! ( no I'm not an activist).
This abortion issue is actually is somewhat orthogonal to this thread. You have two separate things: the determination of fault, and the possible resolutions available. This case is about the determination of fault. Was it the guy or girl's fault for getting pregnant in this case, or was it "no fault" (purely accidental). In this case it is clear that it was the girl's fault. Now, if you want to make abortions illegal, then there is only one resolution: the girl must have the baby and take fiscal responsibility for him. The guy might be nice and help out, but I don't blame this guy for trying not to be forced into it, given the situation.
Originally posted by dmf
4) any woman who need that 3 day abortion thing is a slut, and should start chargeing for her services.
Is a woman who uses birth control pills also a slut, who should start charging for her services? The effect on her "serviceability" is the same in either case.
Originally posted by dmf
5) People should THINK before haveing sex, It takes 2 to do it, so there shoud be 2 thinking about what their doing. Chiuldren are not "things" that can be swept away time.
He *did* think about it. He asked if she was taking the pill. She deliberately lied about it.
Originally posted by dmf
6) In wedlock or out of wedlock, babies are gonna be born, aborted, and adopted. Its sad, but true. A lot of times children are not wanted. I'm not a religious person, but I believe that babies are a gift form God, that shouldn't be thrown away.
If you believe that, then you are in fact religious. Nothing wrong with that of course. But do you believe sperm and egg cells are also gifts from God which should not be thrown away? Does a single-celled zygote have a soul?
The idea of the God-given gift is a paradoxical one. Normally you wouldn't give a gift to someone if you already know she doesn't want it. Yet God does?
-
Originally posted by phookat
This abortion issue is actually is somewhat orthogonal to this thread. You have two separate things: the determination of fault, and the possible resolutions available. This case is about the determination of fault. Was it the guy or girl's fault for getting pregnant in this case, or was it "no fault" (purely accidental). In this case it is clear that it was the girl's fault. Now, if you want to make abortions illegal, then there is only one resolution: the girl must have the baby and take fiscal responsibility for him. The guy might be nice and help out, but I don't blame this guy for trying not to be forced into it, given the situation.
Is a woman who uses birth control pills also a slut, who should start charging for her services? The effect on her "serviceability" is the same in either case.
He *did* think about it. He asked if she was taking the pill. She deliberately lied about it.
If you believe that, then you are in fact religious. Nothing wrong with that of course. But do you believe sperm and egg cells are also gifts from God which should not be thrown away? Does a single-celled zygote have a soul?
The idea of the God-given gift is a paradoxical one. Normally you wouldn't give a gift to someone if you already know she doesn't want it. Yet God does?
A gift can be given, even if unwanted, it may be wanted later.
It's up to the individual as to it's USE.
-
phoocat.. I think I am missing your point... you say that it is not about forcing abortion yet you say that a man should be able to decide that a woman have an operation that will kill what she may consider a human being or... let her pay for their child on her own so long as he says.....
"I don't want to be a father"
Both are too blame. if some kind of trickery were used and can be proven then the one tricked should not pay.
You seem to believe that all pregnancies out of wedlock are the result of gullible males being drugged and then raped by females wanting that $500 or less a month for the next eighteen years so that they can spend another $1000 a month of their own and raise a child.
How is aborthion or.... maybe forced adoption... not a part of this picture?
How bout.... If the man offers to marry her and she refuses then he doesn't have to pay or... he pays a much lower amount than normal (unless he wishes to visit the child and claim fathership)?
leaving out the men who are tricked....I think some men are mad because even with the pill and abortion.... they are still being held respoinsible for their actions.
Seems some here are saying that getting laid is a very small thing and is not worth them having to take responsibility for the results.
But.... back to trickery... if either party is tricked and it can be proven to be on purpose.... the guilty party shouls assume full liability.
lazs
-
lazs-- OK, so we are at least agreed that when there is deception, the deceiving party pays. In a "no fault" accident where both are to blame, you are right that the situation is more difficult when the man and woman disagree as to what should be done. Right now the woman has all the say in the matter, and can force the guy to take the financial burden, and I do think that is unfair. One possible solution in that case is to force an equal sharing of financial burden.
Also, I believe the $500/month thing is indeed used by some women to make an income. Raising a child doesn't cost that much if you don't care. I don't think that always (or even usually) happens, but it does happen.
wrag-- Sorry, to me that looks like a contrived justification for a pre-existing conclusion.
-
Originally posted by dmf
OK now that I ranted in that last post, let me tell all you guys a bit about women.
1) any girl, woman, female in general, who gets pregnant by mistake, needs a reality check up side her head.
2) NOONE should be able to use abortion as a form of birth control! ( no I'm not an activist).
3) Yes it should be up to both the man and woman, unless either one is useing abortion to get out of their responsibilities.
4) any woman who need that 3 day abortion thing is a slut, and should start chargeing for her services.
5) People should THINK before haveing sex, It takes 2 to do it, so there shoud be 2 thinking about what their doing. Chiuldren are not "things" that can be swept away time.
6) In wedlock or out of wedlock, babies are gonna be born, aborted, and adopted. Its sad, but true. A lot of times children are not wanted. I'm not a religious person, but I believe that babies are a gift form God, that shouldn't be thrown away.
1) Her reality differs from your. You're a very interesting person if you're capable of walking other people's shoes 100%.
2) No one should stop me from removing a parasite that's feeding off me.
3) Totally agreed.
4) Any woman who has sex is a slut. It's a dirty thing, sex. Ideally, all impregnations should be done in labs. Sexual standards and morals differ.
5) Absolutely agreed.
6) Babies are a predictable result of certain human interactions. The biology behind it is better understood than aerodynamics. It's the mechanics of biology. A discussion worthy of having is when something goes from being a viable life mass to being a baby. I'm very much undecided on that one.
-
Originally posted by phookat
lazs-- OK, so we are at least agreed that when there is deception, the deceiving party pays. In a "no fault" accident where both are to blame, you are right that the situation is more difficult when the man and woman disagree as to what should be done. Right now the woman has all the say in the matter, and can force the guy to take the financial burden, and I do think that is unfair. One possible solution in that case is to force an equal sharing of financial burden.
Also, I believe the $500/month thing is indeed used by some women to make an income. Raising a child doesn't cost that much if you don't care. I don't think that always (or even usually) happens, but it does happen.
wrag-- Sorry, to me that looks like a contrived justification for a pre-existing conclusion.
On this figure of $500 a month. Where is everyone getting that? It can be a great deal more or somewhat less.
Depends on what the Judge decideds after getting information from the child support department. Sadly for some judges the information doesn't even have to be true or accurate.
The figure can be so high, and IS for some, that they are left with nothing or very little to live on.
Some have committed sucide, one on record even did so on the court house steps, due to the figures imposed upon them.
In a few instantances the figure is more then they make and they find themselves unable to pay and are put in debtors like prison and then when they get out they go right back in because they still haven't paid!
These are abuses that are on record!
And women are disturbed or upset that many males don't want to play?
-
You can psychoanalize what I posted all you want. Call me religious, maybe I am I don't know.
But I do know this, when ANY of you men can have your emotions totally screwed up by carrying a child, come see me I have some baby clothes that you can have.
Most of the time, if a woman gets pregnant before shes married, the father doesn't want anything to do with her or the baby anymore, so what right does he have to say she needs to have an abortion? But, If a guy is gonna stay with her permanetly, them let them both make the abortion desicion.
As for the original post in this thread about the woman the assured her exboyfriend she couldn't get pregnant, then yea I think he might have a right since she totally lied to him
-
dmf-- I thought we were having a discussion but you seem to have ignored pretty much everything in my post. Take a look, might be something there worth thinking about...or maybe not I guess. Anyway, you say "he might have a right since she totally lied to him"...well, really, I think "might" is far too weak a term. He *definitely* should have this right since she absolutely defrauded him. He doesn't have this right and he's fighting to get it. What sucks about this is that he is being absolutely lambasted in the press, both lib and con. "Deadbeat dad" spin on everything. More evidence of mindless sensationalist journalism.
On the abortion point...once again, this is not about abortion, or forcing abortions. Even if abortions were totally banned, the issue of fair delegation of responsibility would remain, which is what this case is about. On a side note though...I have noticed that, when the "every sperm is sacred" conundrum is brought up, the extreme pro-lifers fall strangely silent.
On the religious issue... yes that notion is very religious and again no there's nothing wrong with that. A "less religious" person might believe that God created the universe, flipped the On switch, and then let it run without any interference. The idea that God gives personalized individual gifts to 6 billion people in this generation alone (as well as 100 billion individual gifts to other animals, and 500 quingigillion individual gifts to bacteria) is about as religious as it gets.
-
Roe vs. Wade uses the Privacy clause to say a womans body is private(private property) from government interference. In the privacy of her own body she can kill her child. This protects cannables in the US from prosecution if you read Roe literally.
This man is using the equal protection clause of the 14th amendmant to protect his right to choose to be a father when a woman is cohersing him, lieing, or has made a mistake. After all, 18 years of $500 a month = $108,00.00. Nice money fund for your old age you won't have when your 75 and need an operation or a nurse to wipe your nose.
Ok, based on this bad and spurous interiptation of the privicy clause, I can kill you if you are on my private property. Roe is saying the government has no jurisdiction on her private property.....a womens private property her body...my private property my land. Equal protection under the 14th amendmant.
Only a woman(feminist) would think there would be no consiqunces to killing if she could argue the insanity succesfully to the Supreme Court. If killing is protected for my Ol'lady under the constitution, then its only fair based on the 14th amendmant that I can kill to!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's only fair under the Secular Socialist States of America.
Or do most of you ignor how the constitution can be finesed under the right circumstances?
-
Haven't even read the thread.
But...No.
RTR
-
One womans take on what we've been discussing............
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/03/13/tide-turns-in-the-gender-wars/
-
phoocat.... let's leave abortion out of it then.
What is left is that it took two people to make the child. What would you do with this child?
Let's also leave out trickery... if the male was somehow tricked into thinking that he could not father the child or, druggted and raped... that is another matter.
Where does that leave us? Both parties have had equal say in creating a child that needs care.
We can consider adoption.. that would place the burden of raising the child they created on someone else... Who would decide tho?
Would it be wise to simply have the court order the person with the most to offer, for them to raise the child and the other parent help as best they can.
Certainly... it is not the childs fault that one of his parents wishes to not support him.
If the father wanted to be fair he would offer to marry the woman and to care for the child they created in that way. If the woman refused then that should be taken into consideration.
Last divorce I had..... I had joint custody with the ex. I kept our daughter half the time and she the other half with no child support ( I was after all, providing half the support).
This to me is the ideal solution.... you either marry, stay married or... you commit to raising the child jointly.
lazs
-
wrag-- Good find on that article. I wish mainstream media would pick up on the considerations described there.
lazs-- Sure we can discuss the no-fault post-birth-disagreement problem. It is not the same situation as the article Gunslinger posted, but we can discuss it. As I said above I think a 50/50 split of financial responsibility is fair. Allowing the same options and outcomes to both parents is fair. Even an uneven split based on means (as was the case in your experience) can be fair, if it truly applies to the woman as much as the man. But this is probably not the case in general. For example, as the article wrag found points out, if a woman wants to put the baby up for adoption and the guy doesn't, the guy can take custody of the kid but the woman will prolly get out of paying any child support. Not so if it was the other way around. If the playing field is truly level, what we have now works in the case of no deception.
But the nuances we are discussing are in the noise compared to the ridiculous injustice being brought to light in this guy's court case...which legally protects (nay, actually *promotes*) the behavior of this lying woman.
-
I will be willing to discuss any of the points. Adoption should only be legal if both parties agree.
I would also agree that in the vast majority of the cases men are treated unfairly but... they do have half the responsibility. I simply don't think that abortion or adoption should be the sole decision of one parent nor, should simply saying you are for it absolve you of responsibilty.
lazs
-
Originally posted by dmf
2) NOONE should be able to use abortion as a form of birth control! ( no I'm not an activist).
Abortion IS a form of birth control.
-
Originally posted by phookat
dmf-- I thought we were having a discussion but you seem to have ignored pretty much everything in my post. Take a look, might be something there worth thinking about...or maybe not I guess. Anyway, you say "he might have a right since she totally lied to him"...well, really, I think "might" is far too weak a term. He *definitely* should have this right since she absolutely defrauded him. He doesn't have this right and he's fighting to get it. What sucks about this is that he is being absolutely lambasted in the press, both lib and con. "Deadbeat dad" spin on everything. More evidence of mindless sensationalist journalism.
On the abortion point...once again, this is not about abortion, or forcing abortions. Even if abortions were totally banned, the issue of fair delegation of responsibility would remain, which is what this case is about. On a side note though...I have noticed that, when the "every sperm is sacred" conundrum is brought up, the extreme pro-lifers fall strangely silent.
On the religious issue... yes that notion is very religious and again no there's nothing wrong with that. A "less religious" person might believe that God created the universe, flipped the On switch, and then let it run without any interference. The idea that God gives personalized individual gifts to 6 billion people in this generation alone (as well as 100 billion individual gifts to other animals, and 500 quingigillion individual gifts to bacteria) is about as religious as it gets.
Ok I'll give men that one, if a woman defrauds a man by saying theres no way she can get pregnant then yea, let the man have the right to say yea or nay.
As far as the religious aspect, I couldn't care less about that, I gave up on God and religion 2 years ago.
I read your post pookat, I just didn't reply to it cause if I do I'm gonna open a whole new can or worms for the fishermen on this thread.
I really think that "some" men want the rights just so they won't have to support the child, I kow if my ex had the chance thats what he'd do.
I'm not telling sombody I can't "get pregnant right now" cause even on the pill, a woman can get pegnant on the pill.
I don't need walfare to support my daughter, I make enough money to get by without leaching off society, and I don't have any respect for women who lie to men or leach off welfare cause they can.
-
I got a girl pregnant. We were in a long distance relationship and met up on a business trip I took.
A month later she called me to tell me what happened. A month after that....I married her. At the time I was accepting responsibility and didn't really want to get married.
Best decision I ever made. Six months later my first son was born. He had a mommy AND a daddy.
My wife and I had the odd experience of falling in love after we got married.
:aok
-
I have the same attitude Curval. Hardly a week goes by where I don't have to marry some women because I knocked her up.
-
Good for you man. Spread the joy.:aok
-
Originally posted by dmf
Ok I'll give men that one, if a woman defrauds a man by saying theres no way she can get pregnant then yea, let the man have the right to say yea or nay.
As far as the religious aspect, I couldn't care less about that, I gave up on God and religion 2 years ago.
I read your post pookat, I just didn't reply to it cause if I do I'm gonna open a whole new can or worms for the fishermen on this thread.
I really think that "some" men want the rights just so they won't have to support the child, I kow if my ex had the chance thats what he'd do.
I'm not telling sombody I can't "get pregnant right now" cause even on the pill, a woman can get pegnant on the pill.
I don't need walfare to support my daughter, I make enough money to get by without leaching off society, and I don't have any respect for women who lie to men or leach off welfare cause they can.
Hmmmm..........
Think we need to get some things sorted out here.
1st point........ if it is the child of a specific male AND the child was conceived WITHOUT some form of deception by the mother/female then YES it's his child he should SHARE in the child upbringing with funds and be a part of the childs life. (So your Ex would still have to pay)
2nd point.... there are males that will happily support or even take a child that the mother instead elected to abort. These males are not HAPPY!
3rd point... any charges of domestic violence or abuse should be PROVEN before the courts make decissions!
4th point.... when the amount of support is set by the courts it should be realistic and leave the male (or female) enough to live on.
5th point.... IF it is at anytime PROVEN that the child is NOT the males, that male should be releaved of ALL responsibilities for that child with the understanding that he may continue such responsibilites should he so desire. Should the male continue by choice then any responsibilities taken up MUST be continued there after with all perttenant rights instated. (What I mean here is some males after a period of time rasing a child reach a point where in their heart the child is theirs no matter what!)
I guess I could go on but all I'm really trying to say here is things need to be EQUAL under the law which IMHO the now are NOT.
-
I did the same... married the woman. It did not work out but...
reality is... it did work out. my now grown son is the most important thing in my life next to my daughter and grand daughter.
It was rough going through the relationships and divorces and money issues but.... having those children made it all seem like a laughable trifle.
lazs
-
Originally posted by wrag
Hmmmm..........
Think we need to get some things sorted out here.
1st point........ if it is the child of a specific male AND the child was conceived WITHOUT some form of deception by the mother/female then YES it's his child he should SHARE in the child upbringing with funds and be a part of the childs life. (So your Ex would still have to pay)
2nd point.... there are males that will happily support or even take a child that the mother instead elected to abort. These males are not HAPPY!
3rd point... any charges of domestic violence or abuse should be PROVEN before the courts make decissions!
4th point.... when the amount of support is set by the courts it should be realistic and leave the male (or female) enough to live on.
5th point.... IF it is at anytime PROVEN that the child is NOT the males, that male should be releaved of ALL responsibilities for that child with the understanding that he may continue such responsibilites should he so desire. Should the male continue by choice then any responsibilities taken up MUST be continued there after with all perttenant rights instated. (What I mean here is some males after a period of time rasing a child reach a point where in their heart the child is theirs no matter what!)
I guess I could go on but all I'm really trying to say here is things need to be EQUAL under the law which IMHO the now are NOT.
1st point... The only thing I want from my ex is to be left alone.
His idea of child support is a phone call to ask if I'm remarried yet so teh man can adopt my daugher, so he can be free. ( like I ever reciece any child support from him anyway )
2nd point... I wouldn't know theres no way I could ever abort a child.
3rd... point Doemstic violence, or abuse. Does that include mental abuse? Not all violence or abuse is physical.
4th point... I agree, takeing sombody to the cleaners because you want a new car is just wrong.
5th point... Alos if its proven that a male is not teh father, and he has been paying child support he should be reinbursed in full.
-
I think as humans we all want fairness. Lets face it... deception is not acceptable.
It also takes two to make a child. The man has at least as much responsibility.
He should also have as much say in raising said child along with the finacial responsibility.... both should share the raising of the child...
obviously, it would be best if marriage were in the cards but... barring that, and given both parties are sane.... joint custody is the answer. There is no child support involved with joint custody.
Want to move? fine... leave the child and send money. Too harsh? no.... making a child and not careing for it is harsh.
lazs
-
Originally posted by dmf
1st point... The only thing I want from my ex is to be left alone.
His idea of child support is a phone call to ask if I'm remarried yet so teh man can adopt my daugher, so he can be free. ( like I ever reciece any child support from him anyway )
2nd point... I wouldn't know theres no way I could ever abort a child.
3rd... point Doemstic violence, or abuse. Does that include mental abuse? Not all violence or abuse is physical.
4th point... I agree, takeing sombody to the cleaners because you want a new car is just wrong.
5th point... Alos if its proven that a male is not teh father, and he has been paying child support he should be reinbursed in full.
Your pardon, mental abuse is included in my statement YES. Mental abuse can be in many ways as just as bad as physical.
-
Originally posted by wrag
Your pardon, mental abuse is included in my statement YES. Mental abuse can be in many ways as just as bad as physical.
Thank you I just wanted to make sure
-
I don't know... I been beat up before... I thought it was pretty bad.
lazs
-
I got the mental/emotional warfare
-
I been beat up but I am immune to mental/emotional warfare.
lazs
-
Hmmmm...........
Maybe they are listening????
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/atlanta/stories/0316legchild.html
There are Fathers that care very much about their children...........
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/national/19fathers.html?ei=5070&en=d7bda525ca1e13f8&ex=1143349200&emc=eta1&pagewanted=print