Yeah like they needed to file a suit for that. Har har har.

I'm surprised it has taken this long.

From the article:
* * *
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."
* * *

Which is the men's point--it's about the rights of the child when the child is born. It's about the rights of the mother before the child is born. Should men have no say?

Have to appreciate the irony.

I caught a bit of this flipping past O'Rielly. The guy made an interesting point.

Say a man and a woman choose to have a one-night-stand. The condom breaks and the woman gets pregnant.

The woman has the power to make a choice. She can get an abortion or carry the child to term. And once born, she can make another choice to give the child up for adoption or keep it.

The man has no choice. If the woman keeps the child, by child support payments he will be financially enslaved for two decades for an accident.
Some murderers don't serve sentances that long.

But why is this so when women are empowered? The woman knows her financial situation. If she can't afford to be a single mother, she has options.
If her choice is to keep the child, then that is her decision, her body, her choice, and her responsibility.

The man has no say, and therefore no responsibility.
Analogous to 'No taxation without representation', one of the founding principals of this country.

Note that none of this applies to a marriage where a woman had an expectation of a providing father who then renigged on the promise.

Well whatever... who gives a shit about the child. It is absolute ignorance to assume that the number one method of making a pregnancy is with out risk of indeed creating a pregnancy. If a man or woman is absolutely commited to not making a baby they know exactly what to do. There are no victims between concenting adults. Just a bunch of whiney weenies.

In the era of the morning after pill, unwanted pregnancies could become a thing of the past.

When I first heard this, it would have been easy to dismiss it as silly, but they really DO have a point given how successful post-sexual birth control is now. It doesn't involve aborting a fetus, since the medication prevents an egg from becoming fertilized, and it likewise poses no threat to the health of the woman (no more than any other form of medication, that is).

So these guys really DO have a point, in that there is technically no longer a reason to use an 'unwanted' pregnancy as economic blackmail, since this medication removes both the ethical and situational issues. In this new era, there are only wanted pregnancies, and negligent pregnancies.

So the real issue is now should the man be forced to pay for someone else's negligence? Legal precedents says no.

Just- if a guy doesn't want to be a dad, he shouldn't leave a "deposit" with the woman.

If a man willingly fucks a woman (which is usually the case) but isn't willing to take responsibility for the possibility of a pregnancy it is a case of neglegence. His. He knows exactly what actions to take to not become a father. This is a frivilous waste of court time. The only victim here is the child. Shame on it for being concieved by two idiots.

What if he has a good career? What if he just isn't ready for children right now? What about in the case of rape or incest? What if he's just settled into a nice new apartment that doesn't allow children? What if he already has three children already, and having another would be unfair to them? What if the extra stress of having a child would cause him to get sick?

I'm well acquainted with a couple of guys that wound up with 18+ year court-ordered "commitments" after being outright lied to about their "partner's" fertility status. This kind of suit is long overdue. The street on this sort of stuff has been one-way for far too long, with all the benefits in almost all aspects of "family law" going to the females.

I'm not saying that all guys should get a "Get out of jail free." card, by any means. But people that lie about their fertility status ("I'm on the pill/have an IUD/Norplant..." "I had a vasectomy/my tubes tied.") deserve a special place in legal hell.

And ladies, getting pregnant will not "save" your relationship. You may succeed in trapping the poor bastard, but he'll resent the hell out of it and you.

I am all for giving men the right to force abortions on stupid irresponsible cunts. A baby needs at least 2 parents, and if the accidental sperm donor is unwilling to be a father, the little bastard blob of cells should be terminated. Seventy percent of all Negroes are fatherless bastards who commit over half the violent crimes committed in this country. Aborting fatherless Negro fetuses would go a long way towards reducing the crime rate in the future.

FNORD- What about Adoption?

Or do we just scrape the "negro cells"?

Look, it isn't fair that men have little choice in the matter of pregnancy. But it also isn't fair that we can't have kids, either.

Take it up with the manufacturer.

A man COULD get a legal document and a lawyer saying that he doesn't have to be responsible for a one-night stand(provided the woman agreed) But 99.9% don't.

Why? Same reason they don't have protected sex. It's easier. That's it. Well, actions have responsibilities.

If men dont want to have to pay for illegitimate children there are options:

-Have a vasectomy
-Use protection and watch her take a pill
-Have sex with women that can't have children
-Don't have sex

Problem solved.

And ladies, getting pregnant will not "save" your relationship. You may succeed in trapping the poor bastard, but he'll resent the hell out of it and you.

Oh give me a break. That is such a victim mentality. It is their sperm and they had a choice where they left it. It is a rare occasion where a woman gathered it without their knowledge or against their will.

This stems from the society the left has created. The whole I'm a victim and shouldn't be held responsible. If a man doesn't want to be a father don't have sex otherwise there is always a chance. They guys who have unwanted kids looked at the situation and said that piece of ass is worth the chance. Now they are pissed at their life long consequences, grow up and stop playing the victim card.

First of all, wow alexandrite, i bet you think that a woman has every right to decide what to do with a child, yet you say that a man has none, can we all say HYPOCRACY together please.

Next thing, It seems only right that a man should have some say when dealing with a pregnancy. It seems that a man should be given a reasonable amount of time to tell the woman that he does not want the baby, i.e. the time in which it is safe to have an abortion, and that if she still chooses to have it, then it will be entirely her responsibility to pay for and care for it. Also it seems that a woman should be required to inform the man that she is pregant in that time frame of a safe abortion so he can decide what he wants, or again she is held solely responsible for the child.

Finally, FNORD, after you were born in some backward ass rural area in a southern state were you dropped repeatedly on your head? Cause it certainly sounds like it with the ignorant bullshit you spewed out. I mean if you're gonna make a claim like that you should at least throw out some statistics (considering your probable IQ that means numbers taken of a population and converted into percents, although you might not understand this either) so we can at least see that someone made up something that you're quoting and that you're not just pulling shit out of your ass.

MCV-
Finally, FNORD, after you were born in some backward ass rural area in a southern state were you dropped repeatedly on your head?

who the hell are you? I recently moved to NY from a " backward ass rural area in a southern state " and have encountered more racism here in 6 months than my entire life in the aforementioned boondocks. I strongly suggest that you place yourself in the same category with those that you are chosing to slander. Racial biggotry is most assuradly not limited to south of the "Mason-Dixon Line." ASSTURKEY!

The man has no choice. If the woman keeps the child, by child support payments he will be financially enslaved for two decades for an accident.
Some murderers don't serve sentances that long.

But why is this so when women are empowered? The woman knows her financial situation. If she can't afford to be a single mother, she has options.
If her choice is to keep the child, then that is her decision, her body, her choice, and her responsibility.

The man has no say, and therefore no responsibility.
Analogous to 'No taxation without representation', one of the founding principals of this country.

Posted by Norm_ at 2006-03-09 11:29 PM | Reply

The man had a choice to not stick his tool in her. You play... you pay.

Having no say is not having no responsibility. You have sex, you bring a child into the world you have a responsibility to that child.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility? This is just another example of the "me first" generation attempting to skip out on their personal obligations.

The fact that there are a group of low lifes that will promote abandoning a child because they will be inconvenienced is sickening.

It is funny how personal responsibility is thrown out the window in the name of premarital sex and greed.

These people disgust me.

If men are given a choice about supporting the child, then the woman needs to have a choice while she is pregnant. So, therefore the bill in South Dakota banning all abortions would be declared unconstituition. Sorry men you cannot say you do not want to support a child, and then not give the mother a choice of what to do. Women have been putting up wtih double standards all our lives, and it is time to stop. So let the man say no, but also let the woman say no to a pregnancy.

Since when is fairness playing the victim? Everyone knows what can happen when people have sex assuming their not of the same sex. Why is it that upon conception women have options available to them that empower them? If a women gets pregnant and the man wants the child but the women doesn't, the man doesn't have the right to force the female to have the child then pay him child support. If a women wants an abortion she has that right regardless of what the man wants.

Fact of the matter is, a lot of women will try to get pregnant in an effort to trap a guy into a long term relationship.

Ever hear of a "keep-a-nigga baby?"

I refer you to Dre & Snoop's Chronic: 2001

Actually, I think this is a brilliant idea. You know, if we lived in a world that sex was only had by married couples and every baby that was born was born into a wonderful loving home, we wouldn't have the problems we have today. Sad to say we don't. And people can can hide their head in the sand and pretend it's not a problem if they like, but that doesn't solve anything. I'm not pro-abortion, but I am pro-choice. I don't think you can be pro-choice without considering this option. In the real world, there are sneaky lying bitches out there that will pop a condom or tell you that they are on the pill just to get the man to have sex. Sometimes women DO get pregnant so that the man will have to marry them (or so they think). Sometimes they even target very wealthy men so they can collect a big fat 18 year check. Sometimes they have as many as they can by as many men as they can to collect welfare from the state and write them off at the end of the year and get a big fat tax return. For those of you that don't believe me, go down to your local walfare office and look around. Tell me what you see. A room full of single mothers with a bunch of babies. Not all situations could apply to this law though. Not all women are evil and not all men go through life letting their dick tell them what to do...well, that might be a bit of a stretch there. There would have to be factors to consider. A married couple could not do this. It would have to be in the begining of a pregnancy. A man couldn't "opt out" after the child is a year old just because the relationship went south and he didn't want the hassle anymore. I think as long as abortion is legal, this is a fair option. Men gets screwed all the way around in my opinion. The courts usually only see men as a wallet, and in my opinion, that's not fair. This might level the field a little bit. It might even cut down on "accidental" pregnancies.

Twenty years ago, a woman got a pHD for writing a fraudulent study on the financial impact of divorce on women. The studies results have never been duplicated, but it became the basis for most child support awards across the country. In fact she admitted twelve years ago that the results were incorrect, offering the excuse of "computer malfunction". Today 100,000 of lawyers and other professionals depend on the child support colledction ystem for their livlihood. They get Federal matching Funds for every dollar they collect, so they overreach. They use children as a moral cover to enrich themselves while knowingly participating in a fraud of monstrous proportions. None will step forward to correct the wrong because it would negatively impact their income. Any individual Father who wanted to right the wrong faces millions of dollars in legal fees, far in excess of the out of control child support awards. Fathers and children are the losers. Too many people harbor ill will towrds the so-called "Deadbeat Dads" and "Welfare Queens" when the real problems are the out of control institutions that administrate the programs, getting rich in the process. We could give simple foodstuffs away more cheaply to everyone than what it costs to let the bureaurcracy run the show.

Not all women are evil and not all men go through life letting their dick tell them what to do...

Posted by Karen561 at 2006-03-10 08:30 AM

Yeah, sometimes I think with my stomach. Usually its when I get the post-coitus munchies.

" not all men "

OK, 99.9999%

RIR: What happens if the woman has a good career or isn't ready to start a family but the talibaptists have their way and force her to carry the child to birth?
Seems to me I remember having to actively participate in the act that created my kids. If the guy is man enough to make the baby, he's man enough to support the baby and he's man enough to be part of the child's life.
It's called personal responsibility. I'm surprised the righties on here aren't big fans of it.

Evilness factor or worthlessness factor aside. Equality is a definative state of being and shouldn't be something that would just be nice to achieve.

If a women gets pregnant and the man wants the child but the women doesn't, the man doesn't have the right to force the female to have the child then pay him child support.

Yes he does (on the child support part). Courts grant child support to custodial dads and will garnish the wages of "deadbeat moms."

Men who want full equality in parenthood and child support issues should come up with a way to get pregnant. Until they do, it's always an inequal system, and it isn't the men who are getting screwed.

When two people conceive a child, the only thing the man loses if he runs away from his responsibility is money. The woman has to deal with a lot more -- abortion, adoption, or single parenthood.

I'll rephrase

It a man inpregants a women and the women dosen't want to have the child and elects to have an abortion. The man has no right to force the women to carry the child even just to birth to allow the child to have life upon which the man would take custody of the child.

I practice family law in Illinois. I represent both "dads" and "moms." People who gripe about paying child support kill me. Frequently, the custodial parent is the one getting the financial shaft -- not the child support payor. You should see some of the games people play to avoid paying for their own children -- and I don't mean only "deadbeat" types. My wife and I have two kids. Trust me, they cost way more than 28% of my net income per month to take care of (and I'm happy and privileged to do it BTW). So, stop complaining and pay up. These are your children we're talking about for Pete's sake.

Impregnates . Sorry rcade I have trouble spelling may name on friday

Exactly Anton and how much of your income is dependent on clients seeking child support or otherwise ? Your know the laws are not fair, from taxation to visitation.

And it's not net Anton and you know it it's gross.

Since when is fairness playing the victim? Everyone knows what can happen when people have sex assuming their not of the same sex. Why is it that upon conception women have options available to them that empower them? If a women gets pregnant and the man wants the child but the women doesn't, the man doesn't have the right to force the female to have the child then pay him child support. If a women wants an abortion she has that right regardless of what the man wants.

Posted by THEPOPEISAFOOL at 2006-03-10 08:20 AM

Exactly!! If a woman has a choice post sex, why shouldn't a man? And it's not like men have a lot of options in the birth control arena. This speaks volumes for the need for a non-surgical means of birth control for men, which exists in the form of testosterone shots and patches, only testosterone is evil and we can't have men take that!

""Your know the laws are not fair, from taxation to visitation.""

I don't know what the laws are like in Illinois but here in Florida pretty much the deal is you get joint custody with one parent being made the residential parent. From what I have seen, the court perhaps sometimes does award too much of a man's income in support but usually I think the awards are pretty fair.
Collecting though is the tough part. Everyone thinks the court is going to take care of it for women (or men) who don't get their support but I have seen many cases that slip through the cracks and usually it is the mom stuck supporting the child alone.
The only cases that I have seen where the deal seemed to be good for the child had nothing whatever to do with the court, it was simply mature adults deciding to do what is best for their kid and then not being big whiners when they had to cough up the dough. Their kids seem to be much happier and closer to both parents.
In other words I don't think the courts can make up for immaturity no matter how you change the laws. If parents really considered what was best for their kids they would see that it is in the child's best interest to be fair to both the mom and the dad regardless of what the court decides.

BIGJOHN1972 is right. If men really dont want to be fathers, they should take care of themselves instead of just assuming the woman will avoid pregnancy because she told them she would. The fact that there is little options for birth control for men is result of small demand. Ask for it and youll get it.

And to THEPOPEISAFOOL: of course they dont have that option. I see that its unbalanced, but can you imagine being unable to have a say on your own body for nine months due to a court order? I think a guy that want this should negotiate with the woman in question, but ultimately, she is the one who will have the weigh gain, the sleepyness, the pain, the bladder control issues, the sickness, the hemorroids.

AMEN - men need to be empowered - the current situation is indeed akin to taxation without representation

If a man willingly fucks a woman (which is usually the case) but isn't willing to take responsibility for the possibility of a pregnancy it is a case of neglegence. His. He knows exactly what actions to take to not become a father. This is a frivilous waste of court time. The only victim here is the child. Shame on it for being concieved by two idiots.

Posted by bushskank at 2006-03-10 12:17 A


The most sensible point here (not the only one but the most sensible)

If a man willingly fucks a woman (which is usually the case) but isn't willing to take responsibility for the possibility of a pregnancy it is a case of neglegence. His. He knows exactly what actions to take to not become a father. This is a frivilous waste of court time. The only victim here is the child. Shame on it for being concieved by two idiots.

Posted by bushskank at 2006-03-10 12:17 A


And the woman knows exactly what needs to be done to not make her a mother. So where does that leave abortion using your rationale?

The right thing is always a frivilous waste of the courts time when it endangers the profits of lawyers and livelyhoods of administrators of governmental programs. Negligent sex, good one, irresponcible sex highly likely.

Exactly Anton and how much of your income is dependent on clients seeking child support or otherwise ? Your know the laws are not fair, from taxation to visitation.

Posted by THEPOPEISAFOOL at 2006-03-10 09:33 AM | Reply

And it's not net Anton and you know it it's gross.

Posted by THEPOPEISAFOOL at 2006-03-10 09:35 AM | Reply


Damn little, actually. You should try to get paid on these cases.

Also, if you live in Illinois and are paying child support based upon your monthly gross, you need to file a malpractice suit and report your attorney to the ARDC.

When the woman's physician, using their medical judgment, decided she should have a child, and subsequently, she filed for child support, the man should be filing medical malpractice against the doctor.

"""And the woman knows exactly what needs to be done to not make her a mother. So where does that leave abortion using your rationale?"""

Perhaps people should actually get to know each other before they ever consider sex. Know who you are dealing with. Know who is using protection.
If you don't then face the consequences of your own foolishness. Don't blame your partner when you know you shouldn't have been having sex with someone you hardly even know.

BTW, do as I say in above post NOT as I have done. Trust me.

Anton- Ill. is a little more fair than most states, my apologies to you sir for not being informed, Illionis does well by it's non-custodial parents with regards to the taxation.

If the guy is man enough to make the baby, he's man enough to support the baby and he's man enough to be part of the child's life.
It's called personal responsibility. I'm surprised the righties on here aren't big fans of it.

Posted by northguy3 at 2006-03-10 08:56 AM | Reply

Amen. Saying the man does not have a choice so that makes him not resposible is nothing more than hypocritical bullshit. Don't have sex with a woman that you would not be willing to spend the rest of your life with. End of story. There is your choice. Live with the consequences.

It is called personal responsibility and it about time that more people started living with it.

101:
have never once said that I am pro abortion. That is a barbarity for which there is no excuse in a country as wealthy as this.

The moment she went to the doctor about the baby, the physician had to use his medical judgment to determine if the pregnancy should continue. Since the doctor has ruined her life by allowing the pregancy to continue, his medical judgment must be flawed.

How many other women did this doctor cause to suffer for his negligence.

Men, sue the doctor. Medical Malpractice. Did he ask her for her paystubs, copies of bills, copies of tax returns? Did he really check out her financial ability? Is she mental and is he a phychiatrist - probably practicing the wrong medicine without a license. Sue, sue sue sue sue sue sue.

BIGJOHN1972 is right. If men really dont want to be fathers, they should take care of themselves instead of just assuming the woman will avoid pregnancy because she told them she would. The fact that there is little options for birth control for men is result of small demand. Ask for it and youll get it.

Posted by AleBR at 2006-03-10 10:36 AM

AleBR, believe me I would like to, only steroids are bad mmkay, so I can't. Another example of bullshite ruling the day in the case of law.

There seems to be some arguing room about responsibility and intent. People usually don't have sex with the purpose of conception, for the most part (I would guess 95% of the time) it is for pleasure.
For responsibility, how responsible is it for a women to have sex with a man and have his child when he isn't interested in having one? That isn't responsible either.
Male birth control really needs to be pushed by men in this country, it is the only way to make sure you don't have a kid (yes condoms break, all the time).

There is something to be said about not having to pay for something you didn't want, and something to be said about women getting pregnant from a man who doesn't want a child.

Perhaps a pre-sex contract should be made, where they guy states clearly he does not want to have a child, and if there is one the woman bears the responsibility?

This really is a complex issue; men are taking up the ass right now though.

Holy crap, there is the solution, only anal sex!

"Oh give me a break. That is such a victim mentality. It is their sperm and they had a choice where they left it. It is a rare occasion where a woman gathered it without their knowledge or against their will."

Yes true... and the woman also has the choice on whether or not the guy gets a chance to leave it. What the woman has a choice on that the guy doesn't, is whether leaving that sperm results in a child being born, and/or kept. This lawsuit seeks to even that out. After all? Aren't you one of the same ones that spouts about "women's right to choose"? Well this evens the playing field and gives the man and equal right to choose.

"28% of my net income per month "

Shouldnt it be less for poor dads? rich dads can afford this but can poor dads? Liberals claim that when you tax at such levels, the poor cant survive, so is it a double standard?

"28% of my net income per month "

Plus with taxes taking up to 40% more of the dads income, the dad usually can't move on and remarry because he cannot take care of a new wife and kids. But the mother does move on when she finds another man or boyfriend that she labels "dad" to beat the hell out of your kid and abuse the kids all the while denying you the right to see your kid. These laws SUCK and need to be changed...

"28% of my net income per month"

This is full of crap, unless you are including doctor bills, and insurance, and toys/entertainment. The first two are handled sepeparate from child support by the court which you as a lawyer should know... and the last shouldn't be included in child support at all since it should be the individual parents responsibility to provide these for the kids when in their care.

Housing responsibility should only be figured at TOTAL (not child support value) 1/3 of the average income of both parents... the childs share of that would be SIGNIFICANLT less. Then the resposibilty assessment for the parties should be divided proportionally from their respective incomes.

Assuming a single mother taking care of a single child: A two bedroom apartment rarely cost twice the price of a 1 bedroom one in the same complex... the same could be said of houses. I have noticed the change in electric use when my two oldest children visit... it doesn't double but maybe increases a 1/3, and likewise with other utilities.... if you want me to do the actual math then that would be fine... but 28% of the income is ridiculous.

And when the mother remarries I think that should be taken into account also. When a woman marries another man, even when she has kids prior to their marraige, he takes her for better or worse and everything that comes with her. She and the kids benifit from the new husbands income. If the new husband makes $90,000 (let's say) and the old husband makes $35,000 and year......is it not fair to take into account their new lifestyle? It leaves the non-custodial parent that makes very little with barely anything to survive and he still has to "entertain" the kids when and if she allows him to see them. I know that these child support laws came into effect in part because men were leaving their wives to find new and younger wives, leaving the "old" wife to suffer in having to raise the children on her own. But, it's also true that women leave their husbands when they find a "better" man, and leave him shattered and having to pay until the kids are 18. I just think that there are way too many different cases to set the rules in one lump guideline. It needs to be reformed from the totally one sided way it is now.

"The first two are handled sepeparate from child support by the court which you as a lawyer should know..."

Going to revise my own statement... but not my ultimate conclusion.

Doctor bills are indeed usually held separate from child support. Insurance is sometimes included to a degree... and it is dependant on state law regarding child support guildlines. For example NC does allow a deduction from the total based on the cost of insurance carried. This is not true in all states though.

There is a still a BIG problem over all, however, on how child support is figured in realistic terms.

"I just think that there are way too many different cases to set the rules in one lump guideline. It needs to be reformed from the totally one sided way it is now."

Very well put Karen. I actually knew a lawyer once that argued like the one above... until his wife left him and he had to pay. Then he saw just how screwed up it really was.

Thank you Mooman. I just try to look at it from both sides, because I am actually on both sides. I receive child support and my new husband pays child support. His x-wife is remarried and her new husband pays child support and so on and so forth. Which is really screwed up when you look at it that we are all only exchanging money.

Being a single father myself, who indeed pays child support on his son, this article repulses me to the point of saying that those whom have filed this aggrievance in the court, are truly peckerless responsiblity dodgers...

I mean, GROW SOME F*IN STONES!!!

You know you wanted the woman to Put Out and allow you to Have the Sex, and now you are looking for a CLEAN ESCAPE...

Why, your not Men at All, and your Symptomatic of ALL that is Wrong with this
"Throw Away" Society...

What childlike sniveling idiots, what spineless worms...

If you can't handle the possible outcomes of Having Sex, then you shouldn't Have Any At All...

I can kind of sympathise with the Guy who has the Condom break, but c'mon guys, this is indeed the 2000's. The Morning After Pill, the Pill for Women, Condoms for Men...there are plenty of ways to Avoid
this predicament...

Sorry...cant side w yas this time...

My 2 cents...

Being a single father doesn't make you the authority. I two have children that didn't come by my present marraige. I had one that was concieved due to: condom breakage + pill failure + plus assurances that she couldn't get pregnant (in this case not a lie... a miscalculation on the doctors part that diagnosed her)... and all on a one night stand. I take care of my child, in fact she lives with me after the custody case (mother is a meth addict). I also have two other children by a previous marraige that I fully support, and one from my current (last) marriage. I am not snivelling and wouldn't do anything different were the laws changed. But I agree the law as it currently stands is unfair and unbalanced.

My tit for your tat. Want to say something about MY stones?

"His x-wife is remarried and her new husband pays child support and so on and so forth. Which is really screwed up when you look at it that we are all only exchanging money."

LOL Karen... sounds like a good pyramid scheme.

On the other hand I imagine that having a spouse that has to pay gives a bit of insight and sympathy. Unfortunately not all women have that. Ignorance is only bliss to the ones not getting the shaft due to it.

Sue the physician for malpractice. Gotta know where to fight your fight. Then, sue the State.

The SC said the woman's physician uses his medical judgment in that first trimester up until the State has an interest. Since the doctor and the State have allowed the pregancy to continue, against good judgment, the lawsuit goes to them.

Thank God the SC had the common sense to put the decision in the hands of a doctor first. Always need a scapegoat for the decision.

"only exchanging money"

Safer than bodily fluids.

Mooman,

Here are most of the relevant parts of the Illinois statute. State laws vary, obviously. It appears that most of your concerns are covered. If a court makes a bad decision at the trial level, that is what appellate courts are for.

(1) The Court shall determine the minimum amount of support by using the following guidelines:

Number of Children Percent of Supporting Party's
Net Income

1 20%
2 28%
3 32%
4 40%
5 45%
6 or more 50%

(2) The above guidelines shall be applied in each caseunless the court makes a finding that application of the
guidelines would be inappropriate, after considering the bestinterests of the child in light of evidence including but notlimited to one or more of the following relevant factors:

(a) the financial resources and needs of the child;

(b) the financial resources and needs of the custodial parent;

(c) the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the marriage not been dissolved;

(d) the physical and emotional condition of the child, and his educational needs; and

(e) the financial resources and needs of the non-custodial parent.

(3) "Net income" is defined as the total of all income from all sources, minus the following deductions:

(a) Federal income tax (properly calculated withholding or estimated payments);

(b) State income tax (properly calculated withholding or estimated payments);

(c) Social Security (FICA payments);

(d) Mandatory retirement contributions required by law or as a condition of employment;

(e) Union dues;

(f) Dependent and individual health/hospitalization insurance premiums;

(g) Prior obligations of support or maintenance actually paid pursuant to a court order;

(h) Expenditures for repayment of debts that represent reasonable and necessary expenses for the production of
income, medical expenditures necessary to preserve life or health, reasonable expenditures for the benefit of the child
and the other parent, exclusive of gifts. The court shall reduce net income in determining the minimum amount of
support to be ordered only for the period that such payments are due and shall enter an order containing provisions for its self-executing modification upon termination of such< payment period. (4) In cases where the court order provides for health/hospitalization insurance coverage pursuant to Section 505.2 of this Act, the premiums for that insurance, or that portion of the premiums for which the supporting party is responsible in the case of insurance provided through an employer's health insurance plan where the employer pays a portion of the premiums, shall be subtracted from net income in determining the minimum amount of support to be ordered.

I am hearing the most incredulous arguments for this one. Listen, if a man doesn't want to be a father there are two very simple alternatives for him: 1) CONDOMS ... hey there! You don't want to grow a tree? Don't plant the seed! And if THAT is too much like work, how about the ol' cut 'n snip? That should do the trick nicely! Making a baby takes TWO! You wanna play and not pay? It doesn't work that way, sorry.

I don't think any male who's currently paying child support and involved with the lives of their children would abruptly alter any of what they are currently doing with regards to their children's lives, witness a drastic demise in the quality of there children's lives and then leave them out to dry, for you to assume such is a deficiency within you. An equal system of enforcement that forces each party to agree to terms and conditions the meet with minimum standards and variable expectations that expand in scope to the development of the child would make more sense. The system as is, is adversarial, that situational construct forces the parties which should be working for a common good into a defensive or offensive position. Men who are hell set on avoiding supporting their children are going to do so regardless of what the court of anybody says that's reality. How about reforming the program so that instead of men being outside spectators with a check book in there children's lives, they are actually encouraged to be engaged in the process of fatherhood. How about a program that requires equal participation including bench marks, established duties and responsibilities that are agreed upon by both parties that reflects the total possible income of both members an adjusts to changing conditions ? If reform is supposed to change anything about Child support and helping families it must take both parties to task concerning parenting and the complex interpersonal relationship between the two unwed parents. It shouldn't be enough to say Dad you pay a grand a month get some insurance and fair well to ya. It shouldn't be enough to say Mom you figure out what you think you need we'll start you where we can according to the law and come back every three years and we'll see if we can get you more. If that makes any sense to you then boy you've got it all figured out. As long parents continue to be turned against each other by a system that is unfair, unhealthy and poorly developed the issue will never be resolved and those fussing saying just pay and shut up, say more about yourself as a man if that's the extent of your feeling of self worth in the lives of your kids.

Wow, need to slow down here...

"How about reforming the program so that instead of men being outside spectators with a check book in there children's lives, they are actually encouraged to be engaged in the process of fatherhood."

Don't overlook the fact that some do not want to be fathers no matter what and the government has no right to tell them what they must do... There are plenty of examples of that kind of control in the histroy books.

I agree that a man should have some say in this issue, but does anyone think that it should stretch further than just after birth... I mean that is my child in there and what the mother does effects the health of it, so should a man also have the right to control her health such as diet and exercise through the pregancy, you know in the best intrest of the child?

Ok, who will pay if the father doesn't want to? If the woman can't meet the finacial responsibilities on her own, won't she have to go on welfare? Why should the rest of us have to pay? We had no fun, and no say! We just get to pay!

If we use the same arguments for the man, maybe society should have a say in deciding who gets to have kids.

Neither NC nor Flordia allow appealing to the appellate court if you don't like your decision in family disputes unfortunately. Been there, done that. You get a judge and then THAT is your judge.

As far as the guildlines go, they all sound good on paper... in practice it is another story.

The percentages are still screwed based on reality. I HAVE 4 children who are with me about 1/3 of the year. Not only do they not cost 40% of my meager income to take care of when they are with me, but I am also still required to pay for all the normal stuff during that time AND continue to pay child support effectively meaning the kids are double-dipping (not their fault). This practice of continuing child support even when the non-custodial parent has them is STANDARD practice... anywhere. The few times it hasn't been has been at the mercy of the judge... and as you know most judges just keep the status quo. Also the idea that the kids should keep their standard of living when the parents are together is unrealistic. They are not together, and there is more cost in maintaining two separate households than there is one. So both parents have the same jobs you are expecting the kids to continue on as if nothing happened financially, while the cost to BOTH parents has increased significantly. Again... the percentages and law are unrealistic. If you don't believe me... try living under it.

Take following situation... seen it quite a few times:

parents are both working... parents get a divorce... now instead of both parents working to support one house the cost for lodging has doubled when combined since each have their own rent/mortgage, utilities, etc.... wife remarries... she gets pregnant by new hubby... being a mother of a small child she quits job and stays home... her income for the purposes of the equation are now figured at minimum wage forcing the father to pay MORE support just because she wanted to have another kid, which he couldn't control.... now he has to support his OWN home, pay an increased amount for the kids that aren't with him, all to support a standard of living that is now hypothetical and no longer applies. In the meantime child support still has to be payed by law even if the kids are visiting for a lengthy amount of time.

This happened to me... and a few other people I know of. Wish more law makers had to live by their laws like this... they would realize that they have a pie-in-the-sky outlook on how it all works, but then maybe it works just fine when you make 100k+ a year.

"I am hearing the most incredulous arguments for this one. Listen, if a man doesn't want to be a father there are two very simple alternatives for him: 1) CONDOMS ... hey there! You don't want to grow a tree? Don't plant the seed! And if THAT is too much like work, how about the ol' cut 'n snip? That should do the trick nicely! Making a baby takes TWO! You wanna play and not pay? It doesn't work that way, sorry."

That only works if the guy has the only responsibility and all the options. He doesn't. He can use a condom... whoopie. Condoms fail (on a conservative estimate) 1 in 100 times. Snipping? To borrow an argument from the women... why should he? He might want to have kids at a later time. Women on the other hand have the pill, diaphrams, morning after pill, IUDs, adoption, and currently abortion as options if they don't want one.

However if a mistake happens and the condom breaks... or the woman flat out lies about her fertility... what option does the guy have? None... he has the right to pay for it for 18 years. Seen women pull this one just to get back at a man. So basically we have the right to be blackmailed for 18 years just for sex, and the woman gets to choose whether to be merciful or not? If the guys gets unlucky with his condom or lies about his vasectomy though, the woman can choose several of the above options. So it is definitely unbalanced. LOL... get real. I wish these people the best of luck in court... think it will probably have to go to the SC though.

"Ok, who will pay if the father doesn't want to? If the woman can't meet the finacial responsibilities on her own, won't she have to go on welfare? Why should the rest of us have to pay? We had no fun, and no say! We just get to pay!"

If man chooses an available option at prevention but it didn't work, and the woman didn't take advantage of the options available to her, then SHE should pay for the kid if the father doesn't want to. Since at that point she held all the options and chose not to use them. (morning after pill, abortion, adoption, etc)

If on the other hand you think that he should have no choice on this, then she shouldn't either. If the father wants the child then he should should be able to get an injunction against an abortion. There is equal protection for you. But I guess you feel it is only good when just one side benefits.

I think the feminists have it all wrong. Abortion is procedure that benefits men far more than women. When chose by a woman it releases men from both financial and moral responsibility. When a woman terminates her unborn child, she is released from financial responsibility but, more often, then not she bears the brunt of moral responsibility and the emotional trauma for a long time, if not the rest of her life.
Her body, her choice, (her sin), her emotional baggage.
The fact that men want to now use the availability of abortion to divest themselves of financial responsibility, when no abortion is even performed, is the next logical step in the wish of a patriarchal society to use women sexually and be completely free from the enormous responsibility that goes with it. Strangely, women go along with it; think a society that views pregnancy as a hindrance is the way society should be. It doesn't have to be and feminists should be the ones on the forefront of this concern.

Women have been sold a bill of goods in the so called right to choose only to find that they still the remain the victim. This is what they are facing now; in the future our society may very well women under attack as abortions become the means to select gender. It is the reality in India.

The real sad part is that, if the pro-choice people are to be believed in that a fetus is merely a part of a woman's body, then abortion by its very nature is a woman choosing to mutilate violently her body in a way that is more beneficial to a man. In truth, if suicide is self murder then abortion is self rape--the violent attack on a woman's body for the purpose of control and maintaining power.

It is far more violent than than genital mutilation and a great deal more sinister because our society, in its demand that women are no different than men, shapes a woman's mind so that she willingly does it to herself.

It is long past the time that women stand up and claim their reproductive nature as of paramount importance in our society. (For the religious minded the most sacred)

If we as a society revered the ability of women to give the world life as much as we revered a woman's body in its ability to give pleasure, we would not need to draw laws up in regard to abortion. The issue would fade into oblivion.

Sorry about the typos in the previous note; I wrote fast and entered in haste. Still, I think the gist is there.

Cheers

responsibiltiy. a word all but gone from our lexicon.
who'll take it?
he?
she?
them?
we?
someone is going to have to.
the lack of it is everywhere these days and this sort of epotomizes it. but then so does chimp. bringing politics into it seems almost off base but there IS a parrallel,.

peace

Everybody wants to have the fun of makin the kids, too few want to bear the responsibility of being a dad...very sad.

"I think the feminists have it all wrong. Abortion is procedure that benefits men far more than women. When chose by a woman it releases men from both financial and moral responsibility."

faulty argument since it releases them BOTH from that obligation. The question isn't who benefits from an abortion though, but who is in control? Women have all the control in it as it stands now. The proposal in the article above, far from putting men in total control, would give them EQUAL control. Leaving them no room to be exploited by the current situation.

I knew a girl who said she wanted to get pregnant but didn't want child support. She tried to sell it to me but I didn't buy. She bounced around until she found a guy to believe her.

She stuck to her guns. This lasted until she tried to get State Aid. They wanted the name of the father which she gave. Immediately, the State went for child support. Judge didn't care about what she said to him. He had to pay.

This is fair.

Like I said, gotta nail those doctors with Malpractice. It was their medical judgment that got us to this place. His failure to diagnose the problem correctly and fix the problem is the doctor's fault.

Los Angeles County, which had imposed the judgment, knew that Manuel Navarro was not the father of the child in question because DNA testing had proved so. Yet under both federal and state child-support laws, the county was still able to demand Navarro pay child support.


Navarro's case is typical of the false paternity claims and child-support laws that prompt men's-rights activists to condemn the family-court system as being virulently unfair to men.

Based on the information the mother provided, authorities determined that Navarro was the father in question and served him with a complaint.

The county says it made "substitute service" of its complaint by leaving a copy of the summons with "Jane Doe," who was identified as Navarro's "sister" and "co-tenant." Another copy was sent by first-class mail.

The complaint would have asked Navarro to file a written denial of paternity within 30 days, as mandated by federal law. Otherwise, fatherhood would be presumed.

Navarro did not respond to the complaint within the 30-day time period -- he claims he never received it.

In July 1996, a court judgment established Navarro's paternity and ordered $247 a month in child-support payments.

Penalties for evading child-support payments can include the inability to obtain a driver's license and other business or professional "licenses" such as teaching credentials.

Credit ratings can also be ruined and the State Department may refuse to issue the "deadbeat dad" a passport. Thus, even if the court-ordered support is not garnished from wages, falsely named fathers have powerful incentives to pay up.

Navarro's case is not unique. For example, in California, in serving child-support judgments, "substitute service," rather than "personal service," is a common practice.

Indeed, father's-rights advocates argue that there is an incentive for states to bypass costly testing which might rule out fatherhood. In 2002, former California Gov. Gray Davis admitted that $40 million in federal funds could be jeopardized by widespread paternity challenges.

For this reason, among others, in 2002 Davis vetoed the California Paternity Justice Act, (AB 2240), which would have extended the challenge period and vacated judgments against falsely named "fathers." Women who knowingly signed false declarations of paternity would have been liable for criminal prosecution.

(Another factor in Davis' veto was the political pressure of groups like the National Organization of Women, who successfully argued that passing the act would harm children who might lose support payments.)

Excellent post MFIXX... it shows very well what many men have known for years. The system is screwed up when it comes to child support. Unfortunately the facts given only scratch the surface.

Moom... Being a single Mom in today's society in the United States can be very, very difficult, both financially and emotionally. Women historically are paid less for the same jobs that men hold. Our government has cut many programs (HeadStart, etc.) that were designed to help both the low-income children and their parents cope with the problems inherent in raising a child alone. In today's United States, most families have to have two incomes just to make ends meet. I see this time and again in my daycare. The families that are truly struggling are the single-Mom families in which the father plays no role. And that is just from an economic standpoint. The children also suffer emotionally from having no contact with the father.

Listen, adults have sex and adult pro-create. The results of these recreational moments are innocent babies and children who are the helpless victims of their parents behavior. Children don't cause their parents to divorce and the kids didn't ask to be born. So a man decides he doesn't want the responsibility, financially or emotionally of raising a child. Fine. And the woman struggles to hold down a fulltime job and take care of the kids (another fulltime job) when there are only 24 hours in a day. Something has to give and very often it is the physical or emotional health of the mother (again, I've seen this in my daycare). And again the kids are the ones who pay the price for the behavior of the adults in their world.

WE are the adults. WE are the ones charged with caring for the children. HOW they get here isn't the point, in the end. You can gripe and grouse about having been tricked or the condom broke but the results of YOUR behavior, coupled with the behavior of the mother, resulted in a new life being brought into this world. And that life has to eat, has to be clothed, has to have expensive medical care, has to be educated and THAT ultimately is the responsibility of the ADULTS responsible for that life.

Unless you want to send the kids out to work in the coal mines and factories. Hey now...there's an idea! Let the little rugrats support themselves!

Grow up.

"I knew a girl who said she wanted to get pregnant but didn't want child support. "

This same thing happened to a friend of mine. Unlike you though I do not consider it fair, although I understand why it happened as it did.

I think you are missing the point Dawn. No one is saying to take away child support and especially from a single mother. I was a single mother myself for 3 years, with a 2 and 3 year old. (which, btw, I never got a dime in child support until 3 years later) It's not always the man that leaves. It's not always the man that's the "bad guy". You know as well as I that there are women out there that use the system to their advantage. They can ruin men just out of spite....hateful vicious things we can be at times. All Mooman and I are saying is that the system as a whole needs to have a overhaul. Make it fair for everyone. Not everyone has the same circumstances. But, as it is now, everyone pays the same. I personally don't think this mens group will win, but atleast it's bringing some light to it.

"Moom... Being a single Mom in today's society in the United States can be very, very difficult, both financially and emotionally. Women historically are paid less for the same jobs that men hold .... You can gripe and grouse about having been tricked or the condom broke but the results of YOUR behavior,"

First of all... for the first part of your post, explain to me how this is MY fault? There are other activist actions that can be taken to address wage issues. Not my fault if you don't, or they aren't listened to. If I was in government then that would be my problem. I have own problems however so it is no guilt trip on me.

You start off your next section stating "WE"... then abruptly switch it to "YOUR behavior"... there lies the truth. You seem to think that men are the ones in control of all that and bear the responsibility, when we don't have HALF the options women do in that regard... and NO options after the fact, which women CERTAINLY do. Since NOW and other organizations, and many many women have sucessfully gotten abortion made legal. Also there is the morning after pill.

If you think that everyone that has sex, or even most of the time when sex occurs, it is with procreation in mind... you need a reality check. And with all the options available to women to insure that it doesn't happen, your idea that the man bears the responsibility is out dated and hypocritical.

To reiterate... I have 4 children, 2 that live with me. I pay child support. I don't agree with the guidelines that determined how much, but I live by them. I love my children with all my heart. But I also empathize with the men that are being roped into supporting a child that they neither wanted nor expected, with the women holding the majority (and only sure-thing) cards that determine that outside of not having sex at all. So the upshot is, if women want sex but not a baby then let them have choice. If men want sex but not a baby, let them pay.

And I am the one that needs to grow up?

"I personally don't think this mens group will win, but atleast it's bringing some light to it."

I am not so sure on this Karen... either way I am sure we will both agree that it is destined for the SC. With the current makeup there... I wouldn't place odds either way just yet. I would say that if they had to choose a time to go for this, now is the time. Either that or wait to see if Stevens resigns within the next year or two.

This needs reprinting:

if women want sex but not a baby then let them have choice. If men want sex but not a baby, let them pay.

faulty argument since it releases them BOTH from that obligation

No, my argument is that abortion releases men from financial and moral responsibility, but women are not truly released from the moral responsibility. They very often bear the guilt and emotional trauma from the violence they have done to their body. If it is not a man's decision at all, he doesn't have to take on the burden of responsibility for what was done.

faulty argument since it releases them BOTH from that obligation

No, my argument is that abortion releases men from financial and moral responsibility, but women are not truly released from the moral responsibility. They very often bear the guilt and emotional trauma from the violence they have done to their body. If it is not a man's decision at all, he doesn't have to take on the burden of responsibility for what was done.

There are other options other than abortion after the fact... such as the morning after pill. Your argument doesn't apply. That is still a degree of control that women have that men don't, no violence, and no more emotional trauma then taking the pill or using a condom.

There are other options other than abortion after the fact... such as the morning after pill. Your argument doesn't apply. That is still a degree of control that women have that men don't, no violence, and no more emotional trauma then taking the pill or using a condom.

The Morning After Pill is a related but different issue then the one I am addressing--namely abortion.

(BTW, Of course taking a morning after pill is different than using a condom. Preventing conception is different than not allowing a fertilized egg to develop. The pill, of course, sometimes acts as an abortifacient. Such a difference may be significant to a woman.)

Well the issue at hand isn't about abortion. It is about the right that men have to have a choice. You are trying to limit the argument to your narrow scope. The problem is that the arguement is bigger than that. It doesn't fit.

Regardless... whether I am for or against abortion is irrelevant at this point anyway under current SC ruling. The fact is whether they like all the options or not, women have a choice. Men don't. My earlier statement stands:

"if women want sex but not a baby then let them have choice. If men want sex but not a baby, let them pay."

You are trying to limit the argument to your narrow scope.

I am not limiting the argument, I am looking at parts of it--it is multifaceted.

"Seldom affirm, never deny, always distinguish."

Thomas Aquinas

Regardless... whether I am for or against abortion is irrelevant at this point anyway under current SC ruling. The fact is whether they like all the options or not, women have a choice. Men don't. My earlier statement stands:

My point wasn't addressing legal realities, but social and ethical ones. This patriarchal society praises women's sexuality to the point of obsession while at the same time diminishes the connected role of motherhood (inconvenience, limiting, etc.) As such women choosing abortion or to terminate their pregnancies are having their decisions seriously influenced. It is not a free choice in that sense. Resisting societal pressure is not easy at all. (Try beinging an American male and refuse to watch sports and drink beer.)

These are important facets of the issue.

RE WOMEN HAVE A CHOICE MEN DON'T:

If you ejaculate in a pussy you should be ready to face the consequences of childrearing. DONE.

But for the slow witted:

That is your chance to be empowered as a man. EJACULATE IN THE PUSSY, OR DON'T EJACULATE IN THE PUSSY, THAT IS THE QUESTION. PERIOD.

But for the retards amond us:

Just because a woman allows a man to ejaculate in her pussy does not deprive a man of choice. DUH!!!

DON'T FUCK THE PUSSY IF YOU DON'T WANT A CHILD. IDIOTS.

"'Seldom affirm, never deny, always distinguish.'

Thomas Aquinas"

Sorry.. but I prefer:

"If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything." -- who made this quote depends on who you ask.

Either way, to take a multifacted argument and bust it up like that only diminishes all the arguments. I think I did rather well with my argument as a whole, thank you very much.

"My point wasn't addressing legal realities, but social and ethical ones."

The point is, the legal realities in this are also social and ethical ones. I am pro-life. I already stated though that in regards to what these men are doing, my position on abortion is irrelevant. What they are doing is correct under the circumstances.

Under the equal protection clause you have only two choices: give both sides a choice, or give neither side a choice. Since the last choice is not likely (abortion may go, but the morning after pill isn't likely to), that leaves the first one. Of course there is also adoption... which also overcomes your arguments against abortion and the morning after pill.

BTW... I am an American male. I have 3 beers a year, by choice (and usually by myself)... and I almost never watch sports. Again, when I do it is usally by myself. I feel no pressure what-so-ever.

Try this if you really can't deal with the choice of ejaculating in a vagina: www.fleshlight.com

By the way, I have a girlfriend and I accept the possibility of having a child each time we have sex. I don't pretend to myself that I don't have a choice because the mere suggestion is idiotic. I knew a guy who had screwed like 150+ women and got royally pissed when he finally got one of them pregnant. I just figured he was a retard and left him to suffer alone.

"If you ejaculate in a pussy you should be ready to face the consequences of childrearing."

Yeah yeah yeah... it is all mens fault. LOL

I counter with this... if you LET yourself be ejaculated in, then be ready to face the consequences. Don't claim you have a choice but the other person doesn't. It takes two... giving rights to one side and not the other is wrong. She could have just as easily kept her legs shut.

"DON'T FUCK THE PUSSY IF YOU DON'T WANT A CHILD. IDIOTS."

I leave you with this quote... tell me how it is wrong:

"if women want sex but not a baby then let them have choice. If men want sex but not a baby, let them pay."

"my argument is that abortion releases men from financial and moral responsibility, but women are not truly released from the moral responsibility. They very often bear the guilt and emotional trauma from the violence they have done to their body. If it is not a man's decision at all, he doesn't have to take on the burden of responsibility for what was done"

grendel - do not think that men do not carry with them the moral acconutablity that women carry. it is not and cannot be the same but it is still there if indeed they are informed by the woman of the pregnancy.

"do not think that men do not carry with them the moral acconutablity that women carry."

Indeed... if I didn't my youngest girl would not currently live with me. I could have easily walked away since her mother wasn't pressing for child support, and with her contact habits due to her meth lifestyle we could have easily parted ways.

However I don't believe this is always the case.

"if women want sex but not a baby then let them have choice. If men want sex but not a baby, let them pay."

Are you saying that we should legalize prostitution? It would solve a whole lot of problems but afraid most women of this country would not like this. It is a control issue, seems the women want the control.

The problem here is that people cannot alter their thinking to fit a new reality.

Pretty soon, there will no longer BE a such thing as an "unwanted pregnancy". Why? Because a woman can take a "morning after" pill, and have 0% chance of becoming pregnant.

Other forms of birth control are fallible, and require preparation. All this requires is taking a pill the day after having sex. Go pick one up at any drug store, even Walmart is going to carry them.

No moral issues involved: it is not killing a fertilized egg (aka. a human being, in the Republifundie version of reality). It is also not putting a woman's life or health at risk like an abortion operation.

So there will only be two types of pregnancies: wanted pregnancies, and negligent ones. The "accidental" pregnancies will soon become a relic of the past.

The negligent pregnancies become the sole responsibility of the woman. Why? Because it's her body, and nobody is going to force-feed her a morning-after pill (unless she is in Gitmo, I guess). There are also other forms of post-sexual birth control which a doctor can prescribe (not limited to the "morning after"). So since there is no excuse for not taking it, she will have to live with the burden of her negligence.

"Are you saying that we should legalize prostitution? It would solve a whole lot of problems but afraid most women of this country would not like this. It is a control issue, seems the women want the control."

hardy-har har har... we have a comedian folks. *roll of the eyes*

Although you do have the correct point on the last part of your statement. LOL

Something like 68% of crimes against women went down in holland once they legalized prostitution.

Now the only thing holding this back is the pushers of religious morals and women afraid they will lose their men.

Kind of amusing to say the least!

"The negligent pregnancies become the sole responsibility of the woman. Why? Because it's her body, and nobody is going to force-feed her a morning-after pill (unless she is in Gitmo, I guess)."

While I disagree with your derogatory tone (since I happen to be a Republican, and have been defending the point of view you just pointed out)... I will agree with your over all statements. The only thing is, is that it is already a reality... just have to get the court to point out that logic. Which is why these guys are doing it in the first place.

Now now, let's not woman bash here. I'm on your side 100%

Heh heh.... I know Karen. And it is appreciated. Speaking mainly of the groups like NOW who are pushing opposition to this. You have to ask yourself "why?".

Heh heh.... I know Karen. And it is appreciated. Speaking mainly of the groups like NOW who are pushing opposition to this. You have to ask yourself "why?".

I have not yet really seen what stance you are taking other than some moralistic religious bull honky stance.

What are you saying, women just want control....this is crap.

If you are saying men just want the control, which is what I think you are saying is just crap too.

It is about equality and the right to choose ones own fate and future.

But what I find funny is, you're a Rep and pro-life. I'm a Dem (or maybe somewhere in the middle) and pro-choice. And this is something we can agree on...imagine that.

Exactly Crassus. Read some of the post, it'll be clearer to you.

"It is about equality and the right to choose ones own fate and future."

Crassus... first of all if you don't understand what I am trying to say either you aren't reading or... well... lets just leave it at that. I have posted enough on this thread if you care to go back and take a look, to make my point abundantly clear. Everyone else understands what I am saying... why don't you? (not to say they all agree) But it is obvious you don't since both of your choices for interpreting me were essentially wrong.

"But what I find funny is, you're a Rep and pro-life."

Karen... don't be so suprised. This issue touches on abortion, but ultimately isn't dependant on it. But even so... in this case we see eye to eye because of what is RIGHT. I will leave the abortion argument to others since likely we WON'T agree on that ever. LOL

Agreed! :o)

The point is, the legal realities in this are also social and ethical ones.

I don't see why this has to be true. In fact if it were true, there would be no issue. Legal realities are very often disconnected from ethical ones--1950 segregation laws anyone?

do not think that men do not carry with them the moral accountability that women carry. it is not and cannot be the same but it is still there if indeed they are informed by the woman of the pregnancy.

If one accepts the pro choice position (which I don't) the fetus is not a person, but merely a blob of cells that are a part of the mother's body. If so a man at the most must accept the responsibility that a woman he was with required a medical procedure that effects this blob of cells. There is no need on his part or her part for accountability for the life of another person. Even so, the woman, however, must deal with the fact that her body, undergoing a normal and healthy process, was mutilated and that she chose to be mutilated. Perhaps you disagree but this has to be a greater burden than what the man feels.

The fact that either one feels accountable for more than this signals that either one believes the fetus to be more than just a fetus. Again such a possibility in the mind of the would- be mother is a greater burden. She had denied a role that is inherently natural for her mind and body.

Men bear no legal right or responsibility for the decision to abort. (Men are not required to pay in any way for an abortion.) This is the law. If as you say that the legal reality is the social and ethical one, then men should feel no responsibility whatsoever--neither legally, ethically, or morally after it happens.

The fact that they do, tell us a great deal about the disconnect between a legal reality and an ethical one.

Finally, a morning after pill will not make the abortion go away for some but nor for all. Such pills, if I understand correctly, do not permit a fertilized egg to become impregnated. For those pro-lifers who believe that person hood begins at conception, the issue still remains.

P.S.

In regard to Aquinas' quote; it is certainly not an evasive tactic for avoiding positions, but a method for understanding issues. Separating an argument into parts does not diminish it. Indeed, the opposite is true. Separating the arguments out into parts demonstrates how huge an issue it is. It also keeps one from making broad generalizations. If there were no need to distinguish in an argument, then the Supreme Court of the US would have little work to do.

PAX

"1950 segregation laws anyone?"

Ummm... you kind of just made my point. Those were repealed on moral and ethical grounds. Much as I hope this situation is corrected for the same reason.

"If one accepts the pro choice position (which I don't) the fetus is not a person, but merely a blob of cells that are a part of the mother's body."

Again, you are busting up facets and ignoring the argument. My argument is not dependant on abortion because abortion is not the only option. You are simply rephrasing an earlier argument you made that I have already addressed. Adoption, if you don't like the "morning after" pill, is another one.

"In regard to Aquinas' quote; it is certainly not an evasive tactic for avoiding positions, but a method for understanding issues."

I understand the arguments perfectly... I just don't agree with yours in this case. You say separating an argument from its parts doesn't diminish it, I wouldn't catagorically agree with this. Regardless what you are doing isn't just separating... you are separating, then IGNORING the aspect you don't want address, and expecting us to take your modified situation.

The fact is, under my argument, you have two choices: either give both parties EQUAL choice, or deny choice to both parties. Since the woman's choice is not limited to abortion, or the "morning after" pill then your argument is rendered useless.

This is exactly the kind of issue the Republifundies were trying to avoid when they sought to ban post-coital birth control medications in the USA.

If you succeed in preventing the majority of unwanted pregnancies, you also succeed in removing 99% of their rhetoric-driven talking points.

You can't rant against abortion when there are only abortions performed to save the life or health of the mother. That's like ranting against heart surgery or any other life-saving procedure. It's a viewpoint for the insane.

Then they can't force guilt upon men, or hardship upon women, who are just having sex like every other living creature in our universe. Guilt against natural drives is a Republifundie plank. It's like forcing someone to be embarrassed for even existing.

Next up will be ending the ill-conceived prohibition on drugs. All making drugs illegal has done is allow criminals to make billions of dollars in an underground counter-culture. Lets face it- being strung out on drugs is not cool. Once you take away the lawbreaker mystique, people will see addiction as the mental problem it is, and it can be treated properly.

Imagine how good America (and the world at large) could have it if people would stop tilting at windmills. Instead, they rant and rave against things which really aren't important, like sex and drugs and religion.

"If one accepts the pro choice position (which I don't) the fetus is not a person, but merely a blob of cells that are a part of the mother's body."

"Guilt against natural drives is a Republifundie plank."

Actually there are Republican's (myself being one) and I assume Democrats on the same side on this issue (the one in the article) so your effort to make this a partisan argument (and derogatory) is moot.

"Actually, post-coital birth control completely sidesteps the moral issues of abortion. They prevent an egg from even becoming fertilized.

No fertilized egg, no fetus. No fetus, no abortion. No abortion, no problem."

This is an error in your facts as Grendl has pointed out before... the morning after pill does NOT prevent fertilization, it prevents attachment of the fertilized egg to the uterus walls. There is a big difference.

However my argument has nothing to do with any of that.

The fact is, under my argument, you have two choices: either give both parties EQUAL choice, or deny choice to both parties. Since the woman's choice is not limited to abortion, or the "morning after" pill then your argument is rendered useless.

To be honest, I don't think you argument is all that clear. If I take your statement I above then I would say you are guily of an either/or fallacy. The issue is more complex than you give it credit. Quite simply, a man and a woman have equal roles in creating a baby, but they don't have equal roles in bringing that baby to birth. The fact that a woman takes on the greater responsiblity for that role means that she should have the greater options in regard to how this will be done.

Take a particular situation in which both involved want the baby, but the woman doesn't take very good care of herself or in engages in a behavior that is risky for the pregnancy. The child has sever complications or deformities as a result. If both share equal resposniblity as you suggest then he may have the right to sue for damages.

No, though I think abortion should not be legal, I think a woman has a greater role and therefore greater responsibility in terms of decisions for the pregnancy. If not a man could force a woman who is pregant with their child to engage in all sorts procedures he thinks beneficial.

The issue does not completly go away, however when you declare the unborn child as a person with rights. Certainly the mother takes on the greater responsibilty for this life. The father is responsible but is can't by nature of the process be 50/50

Anyway running late, must go.

cheers

"Again such a possibility in the mind of the would- be mother is a greater burden"

weighing emotions is impossible... what does responsibility, happiness or guilt taste like... and for either gender to entirely understand the other's pov is impossible though that in no way should prevent us from trying.

also, we are different in more ways than those discussed here as well.

one final note from here, and it isn't an original thought - but if men were the ones getting pregnant, abortion would be legal in every state.

"but if men were the ones getting pregnant, abortion would be legal in every state."

No truer words have ever been spoken. Sorry, Mooman, I couldn't help myself. Erase that from your memory please.

THERES NO ARGUMENT TO BE HAD HERE...

CHOOSE TO PLACE YOUR CUM IN A HARMLESS RECEPTICLE AND EVERYTHING IS HUNKY DORY.

Yes, if a woman fucks a man and ends up with a child she didn't want she has to care for that child for 20 years... How is that easier than paying a monthly bill??

By comparison, idiots like Bill O'Reilly are crying because they have to pay a meager child support wage??

GET A FUCKING JOB YOU LOSERS!!!

What are you fucking dead beat dads working at McDonalds or something??

You shouldn't be placing your cum in an inappropriate recpeticle if you can't deal with the consequences.

Yes a woman chooses to spread her legs, but thats HER choice, YOUR choice is to stick your dick in and squirt. Sorry to be so graphic but lets face facts, in 99.9999% of cases women are not forcing men to put their dicks in at that point. THE MEN CHOOSE TO DO SO, and in so doing, THEY CHOOSE TO DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES.

Again, if you think otherwise... YOU ARE PROBABLY A BURGER FLIPPING IDIOT. Not that everyone who flips burgers is an idiot, many people make stops in food service on their way to better careers, but lets face facts, child support is not insanely high, if you can't pay it you are a fucking nitwit who probably shouldn't be reproducing anyways, so it serves as a good deterrent to future incidences of misplacing bodily fluids that only result in the general lowering of the country's intelligence level.

"To be honest, I don't think you argument is all that clear. If I take your statement I above then I would say you are guily of an either/or fallacy. The issue is more complex than you give it credit. Quite simply, a man and a woman have equal roles in creating a baby, but they don't have equal roles in bringing that baby to birth."

Actually you are picking the wrong part of the argument to mount this defense on. My position has nothing to do with the difficulties of carrying to term other than how it might relate to adoption. You have admitted they have equal responsibility in the situation that can create a child... after a child is born they have equal responsibility to care for it currently. However where it isn't equal is in the matter of choosing whether the baby is carried to term or indeed even kept if it is. That is all the woman's choice. That is the unbalance.

The fact is, whether you like it or not abortion is a reality at present. So is the morning after pill. So is adoption. All are currently a choice that women have, whether you like it or not. And many women take advantage of them. However the man does NOT have a say in this choice. Since ultimately the man has no legal say in the ultimate birth of the child, he should have the choice to opt out of the responisibility of raising a child he did not agree with having. In other words... just because you are a woman and CAN, doesn't mean you can make someone else pay for the fact that you DID.

Again... I don't agree with abortion, or the morning after pill. But by law I have to accept that they are a reality. Therefor there are other realities we should consider when it comes to the Equal Protection Clause.

"but if men were the ones getting pregnant, abortion would be legal in every state."

That is an unprovable argument, therefore worthless. Regardless it is also false. It assumes that men are the only ones against abortion which is a falsehood by a long shot.

MOOMANFL

Thats not the thrust of the argument. The thrust of it is, if you PUT MEN IN THAT SITUATION, abortion would be legal.

Ass.

WOW.

So are we going to punish women for being chosen by nature to give birth to a child??

Since it is her choice to give birth it is no longer the mans personal responsibility having fucked her and enjoyed it apparently???

Give me a fucking break. You can't make this situation perfectly balanced because it isn't in a biological sense. After you let release your little soldiers, its game over man, GAME OVER MAN. You can't say oh and by the way, if this sperm works its magic, I DONT WANT THE KID, and, I DONT WANT TO PAY FOR IT.

Did you even read the article ProAmerica?

"The thrust of it is, if you PUT MEN IN THAT SITUATION, abortion would be legal."

As I said... it is an unprovable argument. Therefore it is worthless. If you don't believe me... try and prove it. You might BELIEVE it... but that is another story. Being a clever saying lends no extra weight to it's veracity.

"Since it is her choice to give birth it is no longer the mans personal responsibility having fucked her and enjoyed it apparently???"

sorry proam... but she had equal responisibility. She could have closed her legs... or chose some birth control herself... or availed of any of the post-coital options available. That takes the responsibility away from the man and places it squarely back on her if the man even ATTEMPTED to prevent the pregnancy.

Give me a break, this is what psychologists do for a living, they provide veracity for theoretical statements by analyzing the human condition. That is the nature of its cleverness, by capitalizing on the fact that we know men in general would sympathize with their plight more than they will sympathize with anothers.

Yes I read the article, and all I see is bullshit. A man can claim all he wants, fact = sperm + egg = baby = child support.

The fact that a man says, oh we had a mutual agreement not to ever have kids, that means nothing, its not a verifiable statement. Now if you sign a contract, which is something I was going to post in my previous post but didn't, thats a different story.

Since ultimately the man has no legal say in the ultimate birth of the child, he should have the choice to opt out of the responsibility of raising a child he did not agree with having.

I disagree. Engaging in sex is an implicit agreement that he will accept the responsibility of his actions. If you want to talk about reality rather than the way things should be, than a men engaging in sex should know the reality is this: when a woman gets pregnant, the future of the man's involvement in that pregnancy rests in her hands. That is the current reality. If a man does not like it, then he is more than welcome not to take the risk.


But by law I have to accept that they [abortion and MAP] are a reality.

You are not arguing that it frees you from working to change that reality?

My original point, way back when, was not tangential to the whole question. In fact it cut to the heart of the problem by suggesting that abortion, morning after pills, men's responsibility etc. would not be a problem in a world in which our values are not unbalanced in regard to woman's sexuality. Create this balance and we effectively can eliminate the problems as their most basic level. It is better to deal with the roots than the branches.

This was my original point:

If we as a society revered the ability of women to give the world life as much as we revered a woman's body in its ability to give pleasure, we would not need to draw laws up in regard to abortion [and I would add responsibility for a pregnancy and resulting child]. The issue would fade into oblivion.

If this was the case then this thread would not even be an issue.

So, I am not a hard and fast realist; there is still a great deal of an idealist in me. (It's what happens when you are a Christian. You strive for perfection even though you know you will not achieve it.)

Thanks for the exchange. You can have the last word. Good night.

You know what, every single one of us knows how to make a baby. Every single one of us KNOWS that there is chance that when you fuck you could get pregnant, NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO. There is always a chance that birth-control, condoms, whatever WON'T WORK. In the case that they don't SORRY PAL BAD LUCK.

If you really don't want a kid... DONT FUCK.

K??

IS IT DIFFICULT?

NO.

Or, get your tubes tied, they can undo that now, doesn't have to be permanent.

Anyway, thanks for playing, see ya next time!

This shouldn't be an argument. The problem is that whiney fucking babies who can't handle the consequences of their actions are going apeshit over a situation that is their own goddamn fault.

Father's should and can provide child support.

Father's should be entitled to the tax exemption so long as they pay.

Both parents have a responsibility to support their children. It would be nice if Corporate America would pay enough to permit most people to live that way, as it used to be, but it ain't gonna happen. Thus it is absurd to suggest that divorce should provide women that privelege, while preventing the Father from having enough money to visit his childtren that he is legally held reponsosble for.


Child support as much as $25,000/month has been awarded in American Courts. This is not child support, this is alimony parading as child support. Their is too much of this going on because an Industry has emerged whose sole purpose is to collect as much child support as possible in order to collect Federal matching Funds.

One sick example is a woman paid $10,000 to her fiances ex-wife in order to free him up for matrimony. Because the payment was not made through the child support bureaucracy, it does not count. The power players are not honest people, not the woman scorned, not the lawyers and not the Judges. Anyone see a pattern here considering our history of Witch Hunting, Nigger lynching, Savings & Loans scandal, Enron, Dubai indentured servant camps, Diebold Machines, the California Energy Crisis, Privatized Prisons? We are part of the history of man's enslavement of man and collapsing into a debt ridden Facist Society.

"Engaging in sex is an implicit agreement that he will accept the responsibility of his actions."

With all the other options available this is a false statement.

"That is the current reality. If a man does not like it, then he is more than welcome not to take the risk."

That is the current legal reality. These men aim to change that. And more power to them I say.

"You are not arguing that it frees you from working to change that reality?"

Not at all... but neither does it allow me to ignore it either. That being the current reality, things are unbalanced. The men in the article aim to change that. "what-if" and "pie-in-the-sky" wishes for a total value overhaul are exactly that... and not current reality. You can work for it... but for the time being you have to work with the fact that it isn't so.

"If this was the case then this thread would not even be an issue."

But it IS an issue. Therefore all the "wish it would go away" means nothing. The men in the article are working in the current framework. Deal with reality. Work to change it if you must. But don't ignore it... that is just burying your head in the sand.

Grendl... you and I agree on one thing. We wish abortion weren't a fact. We would both like that to change. Our difference comes in recognizing that it IS a fact, and therefore certain other issues also have to be addressed.

"You know what, every single one of us knows how to make a baby. Every single one of us KNOWS that there is chance that when you fuck you could get pregnant, NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO."

PROAMERICA.... Do you support abortion rights for women? That is after the fact... yes it is her choice. The man gets none after the fact currently. I think these men just might change that for the better. Rant all you want.

"If you really don't want a kid... DONT FUCK."

I reject your reality and substitute my own. heh heh

Seriously, that statement could apply to both parties. But with the current situation with abortions being legal, the morning after pill, and adoptions obviously conception isn't the end-all of the situation... more can be done. If the woman chooses not to, then that is her choice and her responsibility. Don't like it? Don't give her the choice then. I think the guys in the article just might succeed in giving men a little choice of their own.

"Anyway, thanks for playing, see ya next time!"

Ditto there, big guy. Heh heh

Mooman,

There are a range of opinions when it comes to pro-life/choice thing. On one side, you have people that will use abortion as a form of birth control. On the other end of the scale you have the people that think you shouldn't have sex unless you are married. We are somewhere in the midle I think. God made us sexual beings. It's very nobel to preach "don't have sex", but it's also very unrealistic. If it were so, we wouldn't have about 1 million teens in America every year getting pregnant. So, with that said.....no matter what, those people on the very far ends of either side of the scale will never agree with this no matter how it's presented, just like the abortion debate. But I do think there are more people in the middle that would agree, kinda like us.

"PROAMERICA.... Do you support abortion rights for women? That is after the fact... yes it is her choice. The man gets none after the fact currently. I think these men just might change that for the better. Rant all you want."

Ok, listen. BIOLOGY. Its not fair, sorry man. The situation just isn't fair. Its not, but its natures will that it be this way. The man doesn't have a choice because the CHILD is not IN HIS BODY. Please please please understand.

If we did take this step we'd open up a WHOLE CAN of fucking worms, and you know it.

"Father's should and can provide child support.

Father's should be entitled to the tax exemption so long as they pay."

Your post while pointing out some of the flaws in existing child support law does very little to address the actual issue.

What if the man in good faith used a condom, or the woman lied about her fertility. Then the man is trapped having no options, while the woman still has some. That is what these men are addressing. I wish them the best of luck.

KAREN:

Yeah god made us sexual beings, whatever. Listen, if you FUCK, you will have a CHILD, that CHILD, is your RESPONSIBILITY. Letting people shuck their responsibility is just pathetic. Chalking it up to being a sexual being is irrelevant.

I'm not the type who would ever say "Don't have sex."

Seriously.

What I am saying is DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES and the mere POSSIBILITY of consequences OR DONT HAVE SEX

"Ok, listen. BIOLOGY. Its not fair, sorry man. The situation just isn't fair."

Biology only works as an argument so far as biology ends the discussion. Nice dodge on not answering my question. Do you support abortion on demand or not? If you do then you can't keep claiming "biology just isn't fair so deal with it". That is beyond the normal biological functions. That is what choice is. This suit aims to give men some choice to equal woman's. Currently her choice is "to make the man pay; or to not make the pay"... THAT is the question. If this suit succeeds it will be "do I want a child that I have to raise myself, or not?"

"Listen, if you FUCK, you will have a CHILD, that CHILD, is your RESPONSIBILITY."

You keep stating this despite evidence to the contrary... the fact is you only have a child if you WANT TO. Isn't that what the whole abortion issue was about? Choice?

Ah, this lawsuit is going to go nowhere. It's frivious.

"We are somewhere in the midle I think. God made us sexual beings."

Actually I do believe that sex should be saved for marriage. Not saying I am perfect in that regard, but that is what I believe. I did marry the one I had sex with. LOL

The big point is that not everyone believes that. So we have to deal with the reality.

"So, with that said.....no matter what, those people on the very far ends of either side of the scale will never agree with this no matter how it's presented, just like the abortion debate."

True... and most times I would avoid jumping in the argument because there is so much that can't be proven. This can. There are options for women after conception.... the man has no choice on whether these options are enacted on or not, so acceptance of the responsibility should be up to him. The funny thing is I think a lot of guys would accept the responsibility anyway. Should they be FORCED to accept someone elses decision for the next 18 years? No, in my opinion.

I also have a problem with people like ProAmerica that are beyond the disagreement phase, and in to irrationality and repeated the same worn-out, disproven arguments over and over again hoping that volume will make up for substance.

"Ah, this lawsuit is going to go nowhere. It's frivious."

I am sure there are literally thousands of men and women in the USA that would not agree with you. It suprised me that even my mom, one of the most conservative Christian women I know agrees with me on this.

I AGREE! But there are some points to this article I agree with also. As I said earlier, I'm on both ends of this deal. I receive child support and my current husband pays child support. The current system SUCKS! It all leans toward the woman and the father has little rights except to fork over his wallet. And what exactly do you think child support payments run? You said you thought payments weren't insanely high. Some would disagree with you on that. Maybe you don't know how the current system works. If a woman wants to get child support, she goes down to the Attorney General (or whatever office handles it in your state) and files for free, or $25 depending. They do all the work for her. She can go back every 3 years and up it. She can get remarried and her household income could go up to $100,000, but they will still take that $600 - $800 a month from the man making $25,000 a year and still expect him to live. And then call him a deadbeat dad cuz he can't pay the full amount. And even if he does pay, she can tell him that he can't see the kids. Sure, it's his right, but then he has to get a lawyer (paid for from his pocket) and fight it in court for God only knows how long. Who loses in this case? The kids, they always do. I'm just saying that SOMETHING has to change. If this lawsuit brings these issues into the light, then so be it. Women can be vicious, and this is where the law works on their side everytime (and for almost free) and they know it. I would just like to see fairness. Not all situations fall in the way I described above, but a lot do. I would just liked to see the system work with the circumstances, not one general rule for all.

"If we did take this step we'd open up a WHOLE CAN of fucking worms, and you know it."

What do you think is in that can of worms that you are afraid of. Actually I hope it does. It is about time they were opened.

I was talking to Proamerica on that last post, I forgot to add that.

Moomamfl

Whether they agree or not, the courts have been steadfast about holding fathers responsible for their children. That said, I can tell you from my divorce experience, the courts are overzealous about overcharging for child support. And they are ruthless about collecting even when fathers fall on hard times. That's the part where I disagree.

"Whether they agree or not, the courts have been steadfast about holding fathers responsible for their children."

True... but it is the state and local courts that get the benefit from this. I anticipate that this will make it all the way to the SC... I have hope that THEY can be convinced. At the very least as Karen says, maybe this will pull the other issues to light as well.

the courts are overzealous about overcharging for child support.

Overcharging for chil support.? How fucking stupid is that? It never happens. Kids are expensive asshole.

If you aren't willing to pay don't let your swimmers out of your sight.

My Two Cents Worth:

1. Whoever told you that sex should be without consequences, guaranteed, was wrong. You risk pregnancy, you risk contracting nasty STD's. Wear a condom. And be careful where you stick that thing.

2. Equal protection arguments aren't going to get you there. There are limits to equal protection under the law; the military has to let women in, but they don't have to let them into combat roles. If a woman decides to have a child, she goes on the mommy track at work: there is no equal protection from the fact that she will now make sixty percent of what you would make for doing the same job... Equal Protection won't protect you from child support, this argument is going nowhere.

3. It's not all about you. Laws are made for the benefit of society as a whole, and not for you in particular. If you make a woman pregnant and you didn't want to, gee, that's too bad. But why should I have to pay (in the form of taxes for welfare, etc.) for your louche behavior?

4. What if the woman you make pregnant is morally opposed to abortion, and believes that life begins at conception, thus denying her the option of the morning after pill? You are saying she has the 'option' of committing murder, as she considers it, so that you don't have to be responsible for your actions. Sorry, that won't fly.

5. Here's what's fair: women control their actions and bodies, you control yours. You want consequence-free sex? Hire a prostitute.

Bushskank
Overcharging for chil support.? How fucking stupid is that? It never happens. Kids are expensive asshole.

The damn courts charged more than I earned and took the house too. Left me in debt for years after the kids were emancipated. To this day, my ex-wife isn't working, a college graduate too. She remarried and now sponges off her husband. I had no problem supporting the kids, but I had to support her too. Jerk!

"1. Whoever told you that sex should be without consequences, guaranteed, was wrong. You risk pregnancy, you risk contracting nasty STD's. Wear a condom. And be careful where you stick that thing."

As for disease, you are correct. As for the rest, something can be done about that. Notice my argument also brought up that this should only work in a case where a man took the precautions he could. (ie condom)

"Equal protection arguments aren't going to get you there."

There are cases for it and against it. I will wait and see. I think it is a good argument, but whether it will fly is another story. The proof will be in the pudding.

"It's not all about you. Laws are made for the benefit of society as a whole, and not for you in particular."

Laws are also made to correct wrongs. And enough individuals in the same boat make a good portion of society. Lets not get on what you think you should and shouldn't pay. There are things I think I currently shouldn't have to be paying for but am because the government supports it. That sword cuts in many different directions and there are always winners and losers.

"What if the woman you make pregnant is morally opposed to abortion, and believes that life begins at conception, thus denying her the option of the morning after pill?"

Just because you don't like an option doesn't make it any less of an option. That is where choice comes in. And if you don't like abortion or the morning after pill, there is always adoption. Nobody is going to tell her she has to keep it if she doesn't want to. Her choice. The man should have an equal choice however, providing he did what part he could to help prevent it in the first place.

"Here's what's fair: women control their actions and bodies, you control yours."

LOL... It goes beyond that when "control" of your body effects others. I submit that under your logic then she has the same choice... sex and risk, or not. If she takes the risk then she deals with the consequence. Don't like it that way? Then we are back at my old quote:

"if women want sex but not a baby then let them have choice. If men want sex but not a baby, let them pay."

I reject that as right and proper... I think many other people do too. We will probably hear in the future what the court thinks. In the end one of us will be wrong and one will be right. At the very least though it has gotten us to think about some of the issues.

On the whole neither you nor Bushskank said anything that hasn't been addressed before in this thread. And just so you know in case you missed it... I have 4 kids, 2 don't live with me. I pay child support, and am happy to do it. I love my kids very much and wouldn't change it. But I will not expect everyone to feel the same as me.

Clearly the U.S. needs a new federal agency to terminate pregnancies that are not wanted by the sperm donors. Perhaps this new agency could be called the Homeland Dept. of Uterine Monitoring. When an unwanted pregnancy is reported by a negligent sperm squirter, parents of an unmarried minor female, or a concerned taxpayer who noticed an impending illegitimate birth, this agency would be called into action to put a stop to the pregnancy.

Regarding my example of the woman who didn't believe in abortion: you said that adoption was an option. You have already admitted above that in that case, biological differences make the womans situation (nine months of pregnancy) very different from the mans (a moment of pleasure).

Its all well and good to say that pregnancy is natural and 'healthy'. It was quite natural to die of infection after childbirth too, until relatively recently. Women still come out of pregnancy with lingering health problems (hypertension, diabetes) that the pregnancy initiated, or exacerbated. THe process is not entirely benign. I can think of a handful of women that I have known of who have died from complications of childbirth, over the years... There is no comparing a mans role and a womans. Sorry. Apples and oranges.

There is no equal protection argument here, there has never been one. There have been other legal challenges along these lines before and they never make it very far. This topic has been covered pretty thoroughly in constitutional law. Don't expect Roberts and Alito to change precedent here. Remember, they are both catholics...

There. I have added some new ideas to the argument. You OTOH are just saying the same things over and over and over and over...do you have a second legal theory, or does it all stand and, inevitably, fall on equal protection?

"Clearly the U.S. needs a new federal agency to terminate pregnancies that are not wanted by the sperm donors. Perhaps this new agency could be called the Homeland Dept. of Uterine Monitoring."

Typical extremist overreaction. Let her have her choice, just recognize that it is HER choice, not the choice for BOTH of us. She could have as easily said no and the man... she has more options for protection both before and after the fact... if the man did his part to try and protect against it, and she chooses to have one anyway, then let HER live with it.

Despise the man if you want for making his choice, just as most pro-lifers despise the decision that woman that have abortions make. Regardless it should be his decision as long as he did his part to try and prevent it. Funny to hear the hypocrisy from those that support teaching condoms as part of sex ed and not abstinance because it is unrealistic to think people won't have sex... yet those same people fume when you bring up the idea of giving the man some choice. They simply say "He shouldn't have sex then."

LOL... too amusing. Funny how the argument doesn't work for choice for men. LOL hypocrits.

"Regarding my example of the woman who didn't believe in abortion: you said that adoption was an option. You have already admitted above that in that case, biological differences make the womans situation (nine months of pregnancy) very different from the mans (a moment of pleasure)."

Not sure which admittance you are talking about, and fear you may be taking me out of context, but I will address your point:

The argument you give doesn't apply because the woman CHOOSES to take on the nine months of pregnancy by not exercising the options she has. He like or dislike of the options doesn't matter... they are there. The man doesn't have that choice. Of course this point has been addressed at LEAST 5 times before in this thread so your argument isn't new, you just don't like the answer.

"...There is no equal protection argument here, there has never been one..."

Again... their choice not to exercise the options available, not the mans. if they suffer bodily harm because they chose to go through with a pregnancy that the man didn't want and tried to prevent... that is her choice, she had other options.

"There. I have added some new ideas to the argument."

Actually you still haven't changed your argument, or made a new one... you have just restated your old arguments with new examples. Therefore the answers to your arguments remain the same. No need to change my answer if the old one still applies.

Once again it strikes me as funny that those that push so hard for choice, and the womans right to chose abortion want to, at the same time, take the option away from them in a sense. Either they have the option to choose that or they don't. If they do then they have control to stop it. If they have that control then the male that tried to prevent it in the first place shouldn't be held responsible for the woman choosing to do otherwise, since that is ENTIRELY her decision. Don't like abortion? There are other options. *sigh* Hipocrisy abounds.

Anyway... time for me to go to bed. I will check back in the afternoon to see any responses, but if the thread is archived, nobody will see my responses. Never the less I WILL respond. However my hopes for an actual new argument against what I have said all along is slim. My hopes that people will suddenly become intellectually honest are even more slim. Hypocrisy people... really think about what you support and why. If you are for choice then you are for choice... you can't claim later that there was NO choice. If she has a choice then it is HER decision... if you are punishing him for something that wasn't his decision (he tried to prevent or was misled) then you are no better than the people you say are running Guantanamo, and consigning a man who didn't want that to 18 years of what he will see as financial and emotional torture.

If on the other hand you think that he should have no choice on this, then she shouldn't either.

This argument kills me. If you're a man, you know with absolute certainty that a woman you sleep with gets to make the decision of whether to carry a resulting pregnancy to term.

If you don't want to play the game by those rules, do what the Repubs are always telling teens to do -- abstain.

I am a life-long computer geek who didn't get a lot of experience in horizontal decisionmaking before I got married. But every time I did, I knew I'd be willing to support the child if an accident happened (exactly what you're doing today).

Growing up, that's one of the things I thought "being a man" was all about -- taking responsibility for your children.

How can any man stand up and defend a position where men get someone pregnant and then complain for the rest of their lives about financially supporting the child?

I don't want to sound all Promise Keepers here, but for Christ's sake: Let's stand up and be men.

... and consigning a man who didn't want that to 18 years of what he will see as financial and emotional torture.

If you think paying for a child you didn't want for 18 years amounts to "financial and emotional torture," imagine what it's like to be that child.

"The man has no choice."

You couldn't be more wrong Norm! He had plenty of choices.... prior to sex. Abstain. To use a condom. Rythm method. There's three for you.

Problem is, most men don't think about the consequences until after it's too late and society has found it much easier to blame women than to insist that men stand up and be men.

"Some murderers don't serve sentances that long."

This is a whole different subject, but a very telling statement about your attitude in this discussion.

If you think paying for a child you didn't want for 18 years amounts to "financial and emotional torture," imagine what it's like to be that child.

Posted by rcade at 2006-03-11 07:28 AM | Reply

But that's the point Rcade, they do not want to personal responsibility.

That is the new mantra being promoted by society today.... I got mine to hell with you. That is the neocon agenda.

Sure they talk a good game about personal responsibility, but when that responsibility is going to land in the wallets they want someone else to be responsible.

Every time you have sex you know that the outcome could be a child. That is what sex is for. Yet if they can't kill the child before it is born then the hell with supporting it. You made your choice now live with it.

Every time you have sex you know that the outcome could be a child

The unwanted pregnancy.

The curse of heterosexual sex.

The advantage of homosexual sex.

The advantage of homosexual sex.

Well Mr. Peanut solved that problem.

Hell they now have Male contraseptive injections akin to the Norplant one Women take. Or they could always use a clamp of some kind which constricts the mans Pecker so He doesn't ejaculate.

Larry

I think alot of you are missing the big picture. as a victim of someone who outright lied about her fertility status, the laws in place do not adequately cover these situations. If this law were to ever go into place, it probably wouldnt apply to those irresponsible people that everyone keeps talking about. as far as the equality issue, yes, the man made his decision. but so did the woman. the problem that these two pioneers are addressing is that, after conception, the man has no legal alternative except to do whatever the "female" wants. this is especially true when the woman has an abortion, without telling the man, and expect him to pay for it. as for abstaining, well, in todays immoral society of instant gratification, this is not a likely alternative. perhaps the most responsible, but least likely. i am by no means claiming that that i am innocent of anything i have subjected to critisism, but mearly trying to bring about the point that, while the woman has all the say in the world AFTER CONCEPTION, the man is left "pissing in the wind" hoping the breeze will blow the way he needs it to.

I'm not sure there has been another subject on here that has hit home like this has for me. I think it's because I personally know how screwed up the child support system is. For every case of some guy that leaves his wife and kids for a "newer younger" woman, there's one just like it where the woman finds a "newer younger" man and takes her husband for everything he has, plus makes him pay out the ass until the kid(s) are 18. There's also the teens. There's 1 million teen pregnancies a year. That's staggering. We all know how most teen marraiges (if they even get married) last. By the time they are are both 25 or so, they are usually married to someone else, after having matured. I know that there are men that will run from having to pay child support, but there are more that pay it, and pay it willingly, and not only pay it, but do extra for the kids. Then there are the women that can't stand to see that man happy, and go after him to try to make his life miserable out of spite. Yes, you play you pay. I don't think there are many that disagree, I just would like to see the system be fair to the man.

Now, I have thought about this article all night. I might have to change my position (sorry Mooman). It's not exactly a flip-flop, it's just I think I see now what this is really about. It's not so much "fixing" the system (which is what I have a strong feeling about), it's about trying to chip away a RvW. There is where I have to part ways. All the arguments I made above still stand. I think there are women that will use a baby to trap a man. I think there are women that will suck the life right out of a man to live a good life at his expense and do it all in the name of a child. But that is the system. And that is why I think it needs to be reformed to fit the needs of the individual, NOT a across the board thing like it is now.

Karen:

Good post.

However, I think there are more men that leave their wives for the reasons you stated, moreso than women doing it.

I strongly agree with you regarding some women who will use a child to trap a man as well as going after every cent they can get, using their child/children to do so. I despise that.

I'm not sure how to fix the system, but something needs to be done.

Karen
You remind me of a guy I once met who married a single mother and adopted her infant son. Thereafter, she divorced him and sued for child support. Boy was he screwed.

I know the system first hand too. The courts insist that the children must maintain their original standard of living, virtually turning the father into a wallet. Then they scream "deadbeat fathers" because the fathers can't afford the heavy payment schedule and have much left to support themselves. I had no say on how my ex spent money on the kids, no matter how frivolous.

Another case I remember, the father had a bad car accident, disabling him for months with no income. There he was in court, because the child support payments had accumulated to small fortune.

As I remember, it was because divorce settlements were so one sided, that the courts found it necessary to use metal detectors. Some fathers went beserk out of frustration and went shootting judges. One guy I knew, killed his kids and himself.

Morning Ray:

I think deadbeat fathers are those who don't pay ANY chid support.

That said, I think men do get a raw deal.

I have no respect for women who go after every red cent, leaving a man with little to survive on.

I never did that. I requested the bare minimum when it came to child support, for a straight 40 hour work week only....not to include any overtime or any other income he had.

I'm quite capable of working. So are a lot of those other women.

Shame on them.

We agree Wis. Paying child support was never an issue for me. The courts gave my ex power ove me she never had while we were married. I took her to court once for not finding a job only to be astonished to when the judge made excuses for her.

This goes to a deeper issue of how the courts destroy families and enrich the lawyers.

My divorce years created a lot of tensions between me and my kids because they were getting a one sided view of what was happening. Fortunately we recovered our close ties, but some fathers don't.

Moomanfl,
Women lie and accidents happen. These problems may be outside of our control but our system could be improved on. The system is rigged to increase insider revenue. Any Judge (other than the Supreme Court) that doesn't play will get a bad rating from the ABA. In order to get a seat on the Supreme Court one has to first appease the ABA. Inwi is right, the case will go nowhere. There is too much money at stake. What we're talking about here is taxation at rates which exceed all other collection systems.

Karen,
Big government element is the heart of the problem. Fathers and taxpayers are being screwed blue and tattooed. Most of it is about spending $3 to decide how to distribute $1. Judges, Attorneys, Court Reporters all love it. Men have returned from Iraq to be thrown in jail for not making their regular support payments. One runaway Father who was tracked down owed the system $500,0000. Meanwhile insiders suck at the Federal matching Fund feed trough.

"Men have returned from Iraq to be thrown in jail for not making their regular support payments."

Agreed. And then labeled "deadbeat dads".