| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/21/2008 12:42:43 PM | I have gone through this whole thread and I dont recall this question being asked or answered. If you know the risks (pregnency, STDs) associated with having sex, why do you do it? I mean, I know the orgasm(s) are enjoyable but there are other ways to stimulate (oral, masterbation).
It has been said that men and women have a choice as to whether or not they have sex and the majority of men have more or less stated that in the event of pregnancy, it was more or less up to the woman to raise said child; that the men shouldnt be forced to be a parent or provide financially for the child. So why is it that you can play but shouldnt be forced to pay? If you were going to rob a bank, knowing there is a risk of getting caught and being put in jail but you still did it anyway and you were caught, wouldnt you expect to go to jail? | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/21/2008 12:45:04 PM | Obsidian: You are correct. There isn't equality. There never will be! Biology prevents any true equality when it comes to this issue.
There are lots of things in life that we choose to do knowing the risks and possible outcomes. We make that choice, all of us. Once the outcome (pregnancy in this discussion) has occured we can't then go back and say "Oh, but I didn't mean for that outcome to happen, so I shouldn't be held accountable for it." I'm sorry that it has to be that way, but it does.
Men will never get to decide whether or not a baby is carried to term. This is determined by biology, not by the law. So you are left with changing the law to allow you to opt out prior to the conception of a child or to change the law in how it's dealt with after. My personal opinion is that you will have a lot more luck with the former. Child support is a child's entitlement. I don't think you will get that changed. But I do think that laws and enforcement of laws needs to be more equal when it comes to custody decisions. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/21/2008 12:45:25 PM | I'm use to people not agreeing with me, my own mother doesn't on this topic. But just because a man cannot carry a child does NOT make it anymore of mine then his. Its 9 months of changes and stretching and mood swings sure but 9 months.
In saying if the guy wanted to keep the childand I didnt, its only 9 months compared to the rest of the guys life and childs life that he is willing to give up. This is in the case of the woman not wanting to keep the child and the man wanting it.
Just because you carry a child for 9 months does not give you the right to fully effect the guys life and the childs just because you think you have more of a right because you are carrying it. Yeah he "could have kept it in his pants" but you didnt have to lay on your back and spread your legs either. It just pisses me off as a woman to know other owmen think its my body, but only half of me, but I carry it for 9 months so I'm going to effect a childs life and a mans life by my selfishness and not give him equal say as to the birth and raising of our child. Not me I would never do that to a man nor a child, I want my children to know their father is there by choice not by government mandate and if hes not there I want them to know its because he made that choice.
Unless your a hermaphodite it takes two to equally make a child and I've never heard of a human hermaphodite ever having a child from their own reproductive organs. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/21/2008 12:58:06 PM |
The scenario of what a woman has to go through is irrelevant. The crux of the issue is equality as it pertains to reproductive rights between the genders. Once you, as a woman, find that you are pregnant you have unilateral control over whether that pregnancy continues or is terminated. As a male I was not responsible for 51% of my son's DNA or 49%. Procreation delivers results based on an exact 50/50 pairing.
You dismiss a woman's right to quality of life very easily and the impact of those rights on the child. That is not a scenario it is FACT! Women take more risks and that has to be factored into the reproductive equation which is why there will never be reproductive equality.
Child support is imbalanced and the result of centries of inequality. It will take time to bring balance but denying a woman right to decisions over her own body is not an answer, it is a step backwards.
Enslave? that implies there is no choice. You do have a choice, don't have sex. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/21/2008 1:15:22 PM |
Forcing a women or man into involuntary parenthood is indeed enslavement.
You have got to be kidding! You don't want to be a parent, then don't have sex. If you do have sex, take precautions - and understand that those precautions may fail. Nothing involuntary about that! | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/21/2008 1:27:12 PM | So abortions are involuntary then eh? Bring back the restrictions for abortions.
Imagine over 3,000,000 rape victims so far since '72 and counting. Canada <
Ok so let's just take the man out of it.
So you are saying it is okay and justified to deny any child of a parent because you say it is so? You would subject that child to a impoverished life because he refuses to pay?
You expose him to multiple "uncles" and not teach the child anything about what a normal committed relationship entails because you say it is okay.
You can't stop sex. But in the event of pregnancy a woman can say NO I do not want this child? And that's okay too because you say so.
When does it end. When you say so. And you wonder why a statistic like Number one killer of pregnant women is the man who got her pregnant exists? | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/21/2008 1:46:21 PM |
Obsidian: You are correct. There isn't equality. There never will be! Biology prevents any true equality when it comes to this issue....
Men will never get to decide whether or not a baby is carried to term.
Reproductive rights, as they exist today, are granted by our Government. We are supposed to have Equal Protection for all Govt/State laws as deemed by the 14th Amendement Equal Protection Clause. Most men aren't concerned with forcing you to get rid of or keep the baby. We are concerned with our liability with regards to reproduction.
You dismiss a woman's right to quality of life very easily and the impact of those rights on the child...
Enslave? that implies there is no choice. You do have a choice, don't have sex.
I couldn't not dismiss her right to a quality life because a child neither guarantees nor destroys the potential for a good life. What happens to her will be the sum total of her decisions and the fate of life. She had that same choice to abstain from sex..yet after the conception she "still" has the choice whether to let the child proceed to birth or terminate the process. Men do not have this choice..this is a clear and immutable fact.
You have got to be kidding! You don't want to be a parent, then don't have sex. If you do have sex, take precautions - and understand that those precautions may fail. Nothing involuntary about that!.
In 2007 1.3 million American women made the same mistake yet they aren't parents. They had abortions.
Again we have the same issue. Many of you want to secure the right to either terminate the pregnancy when it suits you or proceed with the pregnancy so long as you have the security of the father's money. Your Moral Compass is certainly a bit broken. A man is no more liable for the outcome of sex than you are. We all know the potential results.
Chella81- Thank you for being the voice of reason in this thread. Life has a way of bringing good Karma to those like you. Godspeed.
O | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/21/2008 2:06:39 PM | I couldn't not dismiss her right to a quality life because a child neither guarantees nor destroys the potential for a good life. What happens to her will be the sum total of her decisions and the fate of life. She had that same choice to abstain from sex..yet after the conception she "still" has the choice whether to let the child proceed to birth or terminate the process. Men do not have this choice..this is a clear and immutable fact.
We are damned any decision we make that is the point you are missing. Woman have been held far more accountable for unwanted pregnancy then men over time. It wasn't until paternal libality was brought into law that men started to want a right to choose to terminating a pregnancy.
Again we have the same issue. Many of you want to secure the right to either terminate the pregnancy when it suits you or proceed with the pregnancy so long as you have the security of the father's money. Your Moral Compass is certainly a bit broken. A man is no more liable for the outcome of sex than you are. We all know the potential results.
Chella81- Thank you for being the voice of reason in this thread. Life has a way of bringing good Karma to those like you. Godspeed.
So anyone who disagrees with you, moral compass is out of wack and uses children for financial gain? Nice assumptions. I don't think I can be moderate any longer so I'll take a break. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/21/2008 2:45:35 PM |
And you wonder why a statistic like Number one killer of pregnant women is the man who got her pregnant exists?
Perhaps you might care to share that source of information?
Of all children under age 5 murdered from 1976-2005 --
31% were killed by fathers
29% were killed by mothers
The relationship between the victim and the offender differs for female and male victims
Female victims are more likely than male victims to be killed by an intimate or family member.
Male victims are more likely than female victims to be killed by acquaintances or strangers.
Both male and female offenders are more likely to target male victims than female victims.
Victimization rates for both males and females have declined in recent years
Males were almost 4 times more likely than females to be murdered in 2005.
In 2005 rates for females reached their lowest point recorded; rates for males increased slightly from the low point recorded in 2000.
http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/homicide/gender.htm
So never wanting to minimize the domestic violence issue : Cleansed...the Statistics seem to indicated that the men are in a higher percentage or danger of being murdered than woman are. Are you perhaps placing a higher value then on woman than you are men? But woman do love the role of being the victim! | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/21/2008 2:53:46 PM | http://www.ncadv.org/files/reproductivehealthandpregnancy.pdf
Perhaps you might care to share that source of information?
Not my quote (just realized that and had to edit) but I've got a lot more proof that domestic violence is the number one killer of pregnant women. | |
|
| |
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/21/2008 3:20:08 PM |
So you force a woman to stay pregnant. Pregnancy is going great for a few months and then the woman develops toxemia or something equally as dangerous.
Want more? I've got plenty. Between websites and the information in print sitting in front of me, I can back it up. I'm talking about PREGNANT WOMEN not children.
How about adding anything else about the dangers associated for woman in any other aspect in life?
But then why not look at the dangers men have in life and who is at greater risk in the workforce or who is most likely to be killed or murdered..
But the topic was ??? Woman's choice and No support? And you drop in the emotional imagery of spousal homicide. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/21/2008 3:35:15 PM | All I did was mention that pregnancy was sooo glamorous that women get killed for it. Someone wanted to go questioning my stats, asked someone else for a link, and I gave the link. You all wanted to make a big deal out of it.
How about adding anything else about the dangers associated for woman in any other aspect in life?
Because we're talking about pregnancy. Doh!
The topic had nothing to do with child support either but we've been arguing over that for 11 pages.
Men are more likely to be murdered by strangers according to the stats up above that someone else posted. That has to do with this topic how? | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/21/2008 3:54:04 PM | "the topic had nothing to do with child support either but we've been arguing over that for 11 pages"
That is exatly what the thread topic was about???????????
Do you realize domestic violence in the USA is far lower than in many other nations. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/21/2008 3:57:15 PM | rawrr you are going a little overboard. Women are not getting killed for being pregnant--at least not most of those murders are because the woman is pregnant, that is just a coincidence. Domestic violence is not instigated because a woman is pregnant, but because the person committing hte violence is a bad person, period!
Nutt | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:05:45 PM | Ms. B said:
And there is the small percentage of women who die, in childbirth, domestic violence or as the result postpartum depression
So I replied:
Btw- domestic violence is the number one killer of pregnant women. Yep, pregnancy is pretty glamorous isn't it?
Then someone asked for stats. I obliged. Now you all think I'm wanting to debate that or I'm implying something. I was throwing out a fact in response to Ms. B. lol
Bob, it's really about reproductive rights, which does eventually lead into child support if the child is born. Eta- let me be clear... I know what the thread is about- what I meant was it's gone onto deeper issues with child support, we've taken some other left turns here and there, but we seem to get back on track. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:19:20 PM |
Men do have a choice. They have a choice to not have sex. Each time a woman has sex regardless of contraceptives used she risks becoming pregnant, the post conception decisions she makes will have a long term effect on her life.
Then as I see it with your logic, all men should demand oral sex only. This eliminates the issue.
Think it through now. Men have a choice not to have sex. And if all men suddenly decided not to have sex, what then???? We'll opt to receive oral sex only and that will be the end of it...
Actually seems like a good idea to me.... | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:27:52 PM |
Child support is a child's entitlement. I don't think you will get that changed. But I do think that laws and enforcement of laws needs to be more equal when it comes to custody decisions.
You know, I'm surprised men (or women) can't take out paternity insurance...
Just like car insurance, pay a premium each month...
In the event of an unwanted pregancy, the insurance company then pays support for the child when the father is unable to do so. ie becomes unemployed, jailed or injured.
Or if his income is not high enough to support himself and other dependents etc...
Notice, I'm not saying pay the whole thing, but to provide support and mitigate th financial burden.
At the same time, it would provide some measure of guarantee to the child's welfare.
Premiums could be based on age, sperm count and family history of children. Oddly enough, smokers, alcoholics and laptop users could pay a reduced premium because of lower fertility...
At the same time, once you have a child, your premiums go up. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/21/2008 5:01:29 PM | The problem, Obsidian, is that once a baby is born, it’s no longer a matter of mother’s rights vs father’s rights. Child support is the right of the child!
She had that same choice to abstain from sex..yet after the conception she "still" has the choice whether to let the child proceed to birth or terminate the process. Men do not have this choice..this is a clear and immutable fact.
This is a function of biology! How do you propose we change that?
I have proposed twice that men fight to give up all rights and responsibilities prior to conception, but NOT ONE man has addressed that. I wonder why that is. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/21/2008 5:26:10 PM | Myblue, how would that work? Are you saying give up MORE rights? Why not just repeal the 14th Amendment with regards to gender. In the first place while men don't get custody more than 10-15% of the time as it is, this would reduce it to zero.
In the second place, do you honestly believe the government would stand for it? All the children some men would walk away from would now be wards directly or indirectly of the state.
I know, I got the idea, how about mandatory steralization, after your third by different women? Possibly castration? Yes, I'm sure that would please some. Bob | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/21/2008 5:30:36 PM | "Child support is the right of the child"
True but no child asks to be a result of a partier or hornyass which always ends up in DRAMA!
"function of biology"????
LOL, NO, it's function of having the HOTS for someone.
"A man fight to give up his rights"????
Go back to Mars. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/21/2008 5:49:54 PM |
The problem, Obsidian, is that once a baby is born, it’s no longer a matter of mother’s rights vs father’s rights. Child support is the right of the child!
Clearly but we must define what is and isn't adequate support and also define where this support is coming from. Because a male supplied 50% of the child's DNA doesn't entitle him to 50% visitation by law so why should he be required to pay %50 of the cost of rearing said child? Not having the biological mother or father in the picture does not preclude that child from receiving adequate support. I'm a testament to that.
This is a function of biology! How do you propose we change that?
I have proposed twice that men fight to give up all rights and responsibilities prior to conception, but NOT ONE man has addressed that. I wonder why that is.
How did you propose this? A pre-coitus waiver of responsibility?
Procreation has always been a joint decision thus it is wholly unnatural to expect good results from disturbing
the natural balance pefection over millions of years of evolution. It appears that only a human could turn something so
simple into an insidious mess.
A child should have two loving parents that focus on the proper rearing of their child on a daily if not hourly basis. Today there
are too many egg/sperm donors that don't do shit but look for the next soul-sucking welfare payout. I contend that the imbalance is likely created intentionally to break up the family and destroy the ability for families to be autonomous. Contrast the performance of today's children educationally with those 40 years ago. How many kids brought guns to school back in 1948?
The reproductive rights of man and woman is like a simple algebraic equation. You cannot find the correct answer by modifying one end without correcting the other.
O | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/21/2008 6:31:04 PM | Bob: My initial proposal is a sort of pre-sex contract. Agree on the terms PRIOR to the existence of a child. A man puts in writing his desire to not have a child, the women signs it acknowledging that if a child is the result of their interaction, she will be solely responsible, or he could stated that he would want custody of the child. The terms would be worked out. Of course, it would need to be notarized so that it can’t later be disputed. That way both parties are aware of where they stand and can make an informed decision about taking the risk. I don’t know if the government would stand for it, but I have stated that I would vote for it.
Klopper: I choose to ignore your infantile rants!
Obsidian: I completely agree that a man should be entitled to 50% of the parental rights. I have stated that I believe the courts need to change this. In some states, like here in Ohio, the law is written that way, but isn’t always carried out the way it’s written.
While I agree that procreation has been **stardized, the results have to be dealt with! There is no way to make it completely equal (read: same) because of the differences in biology, but it is important to address the resulting inequality in the best possible manner. One of those ways is to fight for equality in parenting and visitation! Another way would be to the pre-coitus waiver. At the least it would eliminate the “trapped” scenario that so many men are afraid of. At the most it would create a waiting period for engaging in sex, resulting in things being more carefully considered rather than impulsive decisions. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/21/2008 6:40:43 PM | What about the CHILD'S rights. People are so caught up about the man's right vs. the woman's right. C'mon people, this is a child, a precious LIFE, it cannot be manipulated and bought and signed off on as if it's a house or an automobile.
Children's rights come first. It is the right of all children to be supported by BOTH parents. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/21/2008 7:02:04 PM |
What about the CHILD'S rights. People are so caught up about the man's right vs. the woman's right. C'mon people, this is a child, a precious LIFE, it cannot be manipulated and bought and signed off on as if it's a house or an automobile.
Children's rights come first. It is the right of all children to be supported by BOTH parents.
Childs Rights ended in 1973 with the Roe V Wade decision. This decision pretty much succinctly stated that a child's right
to life can be usurped by a mothers desire to the contrary. It was certainly a huge decision and I doubt that the parties involved
truly understood the ramifications of their actions.
Conventional Wisdom would state that large changes to the reproductive rights of one gender should be offset by changes
to the other gender. Even in procreation there must be some sort of "checks and balances" system setup. Well clearly nothing
happened on the male side so while women got a "get out of jail" card..men's right were actually diminished as a decision just weeks
before set a precedence that even illegitament children were due support from the father (Gomez vs Perez http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=409&invol=535)
So in essence 1973 could be considered a landmark year for hastening the demise of the family. I don't disagree with the Gomez vs Perez decision beyond the total paradox that ensues. The same court decides that illegitament children are protected via 14th Amendment rights and flip flops not two weeks later for Roe v Wade which clearly violates Equal Protection Clauses for expectant fathers.
O | |
|
Home
login 
