|
|
|
|
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/21/2008 7:18:29 PM | I didn't say fetus, I said child.
I'm talking about the people that say signing rights to the child away to avoid paying support. The child that is going to be BORN. (therefore, a human being with rights)
CHILDREN have rights. Period. | |
|
| |
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/21/2008 8:15:08 PM | | I think all this talk about equitability and fairness is a bunch of hooey, no disrespect intended to anyone. Life's not fair. It's not even really supposed to be fair. You just do the best you can to treat people right. Women bear the children, that's just the way it is. As much as I might like to have a say about a woman's child bearing decisions, ultimately, it's not up to me. If I want to make sure that I don't end up paying child support for a kid I didn't intend to father, there's only one way do ensure that. Now, I can tell you that you sure can make a woman pay child support if she takes off and leaves you with a kid. Child support laws exist to serve kids, and kids ought not to be shafted out of 50% of their support just because their selfish dads didn't feel included on the decision of whether or not to abort. This isn't elementary school. Life's not fair. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/21/2008 9:50:37 PM | Roe vs. Wade has nothing to do with a child's rights, there is no child by law until birth. But once a child is born, it has the right to be supported. Yes, a one parent child can make it but it has a severe disadvantage and if possible it should be enforced.
You're right, men don't have as many choices, as I said. Men get a choice pre-conception, women can choose pre or post conception. But equality isn't about making everything exactly the same for both genders. That's an impossibility in some ways due to the inherent differences between the genders. Women are the ones who carry children so they get that choice. If men carried children, we'd get that choice and they'd have no say over it. If you believe in this thread, then you should believe women should get something legally extra to make up for the fact that men don't have to carry children yet still get to be one of the two parents, they still get to be a full parent without going through 9 months of labor. (and don't even go into the fact that they don't get as many rights, another topic for another time, though that's the problem that needs addressing, not something as absurd as this) You'll never have to carry a child to have one, but the woman who has it with you will, that's far more inequal than this. Because you still have a choice, just not as late term. Its not like men have to carry children, just not for as long. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/22/2008 6:14:36 AM |
I think all this talk about equitability and fairness is a bunch of hooey, no disrespect intended to anyone. Life's not fair. It's not even really supposed to be fair. You just do the best you can to treat people right. Women bear the children, that's just the way it is. As much as I might like to have a say about a woman's child bearing decisions, ultimately, it's not up to me.
Life can be fair in plenty of areas. Government intervention that builds in inequity though is silly. I don't think men want to control whether a woman has a child or not but rather absolve themselves from the fatherhoood responsibility. We've heard all the excuses.
"Well then don't have sex" ....well we're not asexual creatures. The onus shouldn't be on me to abstain if women are also guilty of the same act.
"It's her body" - Great ..have the child or don't have the child..at any rate if I don't want to be a father I should be able to exercise that right.
Equality my ass. Once a male is able to bear a child, come back, we'll talk about equality. hah.
No one here is attempting to tell you that child bearth is easy however it is irrelevant within the context of reproductive
rights. You get to CHOOSE whether you want to proceed up until the birth of that child. An expectant father has no choice
he could want that child with every fiber of his being and have the woman obliterate it's existence.
Roe vs. Wade has nothing to do with a child's rights, there is no child by law until birth. But once a child is born, it has the right to be supported. Yes, a one parent child can make it but it has a severe disadvantage and if possible it should be enforced.
This this incorrect hence the reason why women cannot abort after a certain time. Roe v Wade determines that abortion can happen up until the point where a fetus is "Viable" meaning that it can life unaided outside of the woman. This happens at varying times for children but typically it happens roughly around 7 months for most women.
You're right, men don't have as many choices, as I said. Men get a choice pre-conception, women can choose pre or post conception. But equality isn't about making everything exactly the same for both genders. That's an impossibility in some ways due to the inherent differences between the genders. Women are the ones who carry children so they get that choice.
It's not an impossibility in this arena. No one's forcing you to be a mother even if the father wants you to have that child that is 50% his. In the flipside if the mother wants the child yet the father doesn't want the responsibility he should be able absolve himself of all rights and responsibilities. He's not harming the child because he wouldn't be in that child's life anyways. You as the mother still get to decide whether you want the child or not and if you cannot find a partner you will have the benefit of services and programs to help you obtain low cost rent, get food and education even.
Let's be honest here. This isn't about Child Rights, this isn't about duty or honor. This is about Welfare. This is about getting a check every two weeks for nothing. This is about trying to maintain the hightest lifestyle possible for the least amount of work.
O | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/22/2008 6:45:38 AM | Really
wel·fare (wĕl'fâr')
n.
Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being.
Prosperity.
Welfare work.
Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need.
Corporate welfare.
Thus if a mother seeks Child Support that goes through a State Government division to collect funds from
the father and disburse them to you. That's Welfare.
Please note that I do not look negatively at people who choose to obtain welfare. Though I do realize that
Welfare that doesn't sunset creates an unfavorable environment and breeds laziness.
O | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/22/2008 7:14:11 AM |
"Well then don't have sex" ....well we're not asexual creatures. The onus shouldn't be on me to abstain if women are also guilty of the same act.
I gave up sex with other people for 7 years because I knew I was unable to make the right choices. I have always had a rule to only have sex with someone I could live with being inpregnanted by. I know other men and women who hold my values so I'm not isolated on this view. Just because it's not within your experience does not mean it doesn't exsist.
You as the mother still get to decide whether you want the child or not and if you cannot find a partner you will have the benefit of services and programs to help you obtain low cost rent, get food and education even.
I understand you're living in your own narrow perspective but there are woman who stand on their own two feet other then your mother. And obviously you have no idea how expensive it is to raise a self actualized child.
No one here is attempting to tell you that child bearth is easy however it is irrelevant within the context of reproductive
rights.
Regardless of how many times you repeat that a womans quality of life is irrelevant it is nullify by the fact you believe a man deserves more right to quality of life.
"It's her body" - Great ..have the child or don't have the child..at any rate if I don't want to be a father I should be able to exercise that right.
So sex is an act with no liablity and any complication are woman's responsibility, the repercussion are hers alone. Even an abortion has repercussions, maybe men who knock up a woman should be required to go with the woman for the abortion since the experiece is so irrelevant to reproductive rights.
A woman can screw up her body with synthetic hormones, risk physical complications from an IUD or abortion but no risks are taken regarding male birth control because the damage caused to our bodies is irrelevant.
Let's be honest here. This isn't about Child Rights, this isn't about duty or honor. This is about Welfare. This is about getting a check every two weeks for nothing.
No it isn't about children's rights its about ending dependancy on gov't services. A child who never had to worry about shelter, hunger or other basic necessities of life will have time to seek more out of life, like a higher education.
This is about trying to maintain the hightest lifestyle possible for the least amount of work
That sounds like a personal issue leaking. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/22/2008 7:14:50 AM | "You as the mother still get to decide whether you want the child or not and if you cannot find a partner you will have the benefit of services and programs to help you obtain low cost rent, get food and education even. "
O, This statement, I feel, is not entirely correct. Only in supreme cases. I personally believe the welfare system in this country is a crock. When my ex husband took off, I was working part time and going to school. I wasnt getting child support so I went to the welfare office to receive any assistance, i.e. food stamps, ADC, medicaid. You know what they told me.... i didnt qualify. I made too much. I asked how I could make too much since I was about $300.00 in the whole every month. They only took into consideratin my income, my gas and electric bill. They didnt bother looking at school loans I had, car loan, child care expenses, rent. I even paid the court money to enter a program where they would locate my ex husband. Guess who found him... not the courts but me. The welfare people advised me to quit school and sell my car. Do they sound like a system that wants to help "single mothers"?
Also, as for those programs out there, yea they exist for single moms. But they also exist for minorities, poor families, and anyone else. They arent there solely for single moms. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/22/2008 7:32:19 AM |
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....
No...all men with the attitude that they should have the right to decline a child for their simple carelessness or throwing precaution to the wind...would be stuck with oral sex...or...no sex. ;)
Please note that I do not look negatively at people who choose to obtain welfare. Though I do realize that
Welfare that doesn't sunset creates an unfavorable environment and breeds laziness.
First of all, at least for those in the states, let's be PC...it is no longer called "welfare." It IS called TANF, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Keyword...TEMPORARY. This was changed from AFDC...Aid to Families with Dependant Children for the reason that it was designed to be TEMPORARY, and having children did not make one "entitled" to such.
A large percentage of women on welfare, are on such because they cannot locate the biological fathers of the children. Or the BF refuses to work, or report his earnings. So instead of blaming welfare on the mother's who are raising the children, blame it on the father's who are doing their share of producing children, but not their share of raising/supporting them.
If you do not wish to support a child finanicially, then do not produce children. Plain and simple. Man or Woman. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/22/2008 7:45:59 AM | "A large percentage of women on welfare, are on such because they cannot locate the biological fathers of the children. Or the BF refuses to work, or report his earnings. So instead of blaming welfare on the mother's who are raising the children, blame it on the father's who are doing their share of producing children, but not their share of raising/supporting them. "
Doesn't it seem to reason that something has to change? If there are so many deadbeats out there (and that is debateable), shouldn't some changes happen to stop this occuring the future.
Like my earlier post, how can you be truly concerned with a child when you as a woman decided to bring them into the world with those stigmas attached.
An unwilling father.
Lower financial expectations.
Emotional stress and a feeling of disconnect.
Please do not go there with my kids are all right or they don't really need a dad because the facts are there and to ignore them is like taking that child's life and betting it on a single roll in vegas. Make sure you cross your fingers for luck and wear your lucky underwear.
This debate is about your choice to bring a child to term and whether or not that means you are capable physically and financially to raise this child.
Because even if the doner father does pay under diress he will pay as little as possible.
| |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/22/2008 8:11:21 AM |
Like my earlier post, how can you be truly concerned with a child when you as a woman decided to bring them into the world with those stigmas attached.
An unwilling father.
Lower financial expectations.
Emotional stress and a feeling of disconnect.
Well, number one reason....because I think LIFE is more of a blessing, than your list of "stigmas" is a curse. :)
I am not saying that kids do not benefit from having two active parents in their lives! At all! But oftentimes, the father DOES welcome the child initially...and then becomes an absent father...typical when a relationship dies...he only wants to play daddy when he is playing house, too. Does that mean these children should be given up for adoption to avoid the stigmas?
How about some of the other "stigmas" or hardships? So if I know my child has a chance of being deaf or blind...should I abort? Are only "perfect" children worthy of being born and raised? | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/22/2008 8:40:16 AM | | So Obsidian, what is your solution? That men should just be able to opt out of responsibility when they don't feel like accepting any consequences for their actions? Wouldn't the responsible thing be to prevent this unwanted circumstance rather than to decide who's quality of life is more important? | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/22/2008 9:02:15 AM | Ms. Beavenhouse
I don't think my perspective is narrow at all. I fully recognize the 9 month miracle that happens during pregnancy from at least a process. However within the context of reproductive rights as given by our Govt there "is" an imbalance. If I'm held to a higher standard than the mother then that is in violation of my Constitutional rights. I don't view that perspective as narrow at all. Nor am I leaking personal issues. I have visitation with my son and I "gladly" pay my support though I still must support equality regarding reproductive rights between the genders.
Pepsi76
Yes the "I make too much money conundrum. it seems that those who are lower middle class and close to the bubble are the ones hurt they most. They make too much money to get a ll services and not enough to save money. Note that I don't think married men should be absolved from financial support. I'd be ok with just extending the "opt out " for non married parents. Marriage comes with extended responsibility.
5150PDVolGrl
No...I gladly pay my taxes for support women who have found themselves in rough circumstances. Welfare isn't a pejorative thing but it can be abused. My "jaded" view would be those who feel it's their "right" to pull money from someone that simply does not want to be a father.
HarleyKat
I totally agree. Life is indeed a blessing. The ideal solution is two parents that care and are focused and united towards raising kids in a healthy home. I'm all about kids having this regardless of whether the parents are biological or not. Women should have the decision to have the child or not and I believe the smart ones would realize that having a derelict father attached ..even financially is in the long run deleterious to the child.
O | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/22/2008 9:22:58 AM | Of course I don't ignore the rights. I've mentioned the applicable rights as given by the US Federal Government.
You want to put the blame on fathers for their 50% yet ignore the mother's culpability.
I'm perfectly fine with men being forced to support a child voluntarily or involuntarily with the repeal of Roe v Wade. That way BOTH parties understand that once the baby is coming..there's no turning back.
O | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/22/2008 9:27:54 AM |
at any rate if I don't want to be a father I should be able to exercise that right.
The kid is yours, not mine. Myself and the rest of the population don't want to have to pay for YOUR issue. We aren't wanting to force men to be fathers. That's impossible. However, we as a society shouldn't have to give YOUR child our hard earned dollars just because you don't wish to be a parent. Support your own "mistake". I have my own family to care for and don't wish to care for yours as well.
No one here is attempting to tell you that child bearth is easy however it is irrelevant within the context of reproductive rights.
It's irrelevant? It's actually a MAJOR part of reproductive rights!!
This this incorrect hence the reason why women cannot abort after a certain time. Roe v Wade determines that abortion can happen up until the point where a fetus is "Viable" meaning that it can life unaided outside of the woman. This happens at varying times for children but typically it happens roughly around 7 months for most women.
He's saying the same thing. Non-viable fetus' are not children in the eyes of the court. Once they become viable, they are children with rights. That's why partial birth abortions are not legal. A fetus is viable at, 23 weeks of age? It might be a little sooner now, but at any rate, that is what is considered the point of viability hence why she can't have an abortion after that time period. It has nothing to do with "7 months for most women".
No one's forcing you to be a mother even if the father wants you to have that child that is 50% his.
That's because the child is 50% mine as well, but it's 100% MY body. So my 150% trumps your measly 50%. 
his is about Welfare. This is about getting a check every two weeks for nothing.
A quick "rawrrrr's schooling" in how this works in the state of Missouri- which is the basics that most states use. "Welfare" is TANF. TANF is cash assistance. One gets about $250 a MONTH in TANF. Can you live on that for a month? TANF is also hard to get and a few things happen- the state automatically goes after the NCP for child support because you cannot collect TANF and child support at the same time. The state would rather NOT pay for YOUR "mistake". You also MUST attend the Full Employment Council for work. You must apply for a minimum of 10 jobs per week, 2 must be in person, and you must be looking for 20 hours a week. You have to keep a log and turn it in each week. They DO verify what jobs you have applied for. If you have not found a job within the first two weeks of the FEC program, you must go to their office for one week, 8 hours a day and sit through a "class". You must then attend another one day, 8 hour class for a certificate saying you completed the requirements. Oh, and you cannot collect more than 36 months of TANF in your LIFETIME. Yep, that pays for sure! No wonder so many women sit on their asses and do nothing with that kind of bank! Oh, and they do give these services to men who have custody of their children, not just women.
If you own a car worth over, I believe $3,000, they tell you to sell it. If you have a freakin burial plot they make you sell it.
Food stamps are fairly easy to get, I'll give you that. In a one parent household, you don't have to look for a job until the youngest child is 6 years old. After that, it's the FEC. If it's a two parent household, one parent must be looking through a job and attend the FEC.
A mother of two can make just over min. wage to qualify for childcare assistance. And it's just that- assistance. I don't believe anyone gets a free ride on childcare. You have to chip in something.
I just can't believe more single parents don't take advantage at this opportunity to live a grand lifestyle off of the government!
As far as child support being welfare? Wth? In MO, your cs MUST go through the court first. There is no choice in that on either side of the fence. Child support is taking care of your own because it shouldn't be the responsibility of the general public to pay for your "mistake". | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/22/2008 9:29:42 AM |
You dont want to be a father:
Bag it. Double bag it if you want to make sure you dont become one.
Have the procedure so you dont.
Dont have sex.
Hmmm Typical simplistic approach...
Let's see now, bag it... they break... double bag it they are in fact even more likely to break due to the friction of one on the other...
"Have the procedure" Good plan if you NEVER want kids, not a sane plan if you want kids later, but not now...
"Don't have sex"
Ok, let's be realistic here. If all men stopped having sex unless they actually want kids, there'd be almost no sex going on in the world...
Based on your answer then:
I think if women don't want to have kids, then they should expect only oral or anal sex. They don't have to abstain from all sexual activity...
Vaginal sex should only be allowed when both parties have signed a waiver acknowleding the risk of pregnancy and provide proof of financial ability to pay for any ensuing offspring... Vaginal sex without a signed waiver should be a punishable offence under the criminal code.
See, my answer solves the problem. The only thing is, it's just as unfeasible as your solution... | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/22/2008 9:46:06 AM |
I don't think my perspective is narrow at all. I fully recognize the 9 month miracle that happens during pregnancy from at least a process. However within the context of reproductive rights as given by our Govt there "is" an imbalance. If I'm held to a higher standard than the mother then that is in violation of my Constitutional rights. I don't view that perspective as narrow at all. Nor am I leaking personal issues. I have visitation with my son and I "gladly" pay my support though I still must support equality regarding reproductive rights between the genders.
Your prespective is narrow you because you have clearly stated the risk for a woman is irrelevant. If you looked at the big picture you would see the only way to give men more reproductive rights would be to take them from women, removing her basic right to protect her physical body.
9 month miracle is putting a fantays spin and simplifying a very complex process. It's 10 months and not a miracle for all women. Damage is caused to the body either through childbirth or abortion.
Biology alone leaves women at a disadvange, it's not a higher standard for men it's a different standard.
My ex husband didn't have to give up anything while I was pregnant or endure any physical pain, he didn't have to put his career or education on hold. I'm pretty sure he doesn't wet his panties when he sneezes as the result of stress on the bladder from the creation of our children. Nor does he have the burden of supporting them since I don't collect child support as I feel collecting would be punishing him given his mental health. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/22/2008 9:51:23 AM |
It's irrelevant? It's actually a MAJOR part of reproductive rights!!.
Really? So you have the "Right" to have childbearth after becoming pregnant. Well ..that's novel.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113
Please search for "viable" at the above link. rawrrr
"Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks"
I'm trying to figure out just where you are correcting me here.
You are incorrect about the public paying for others. We do it everyday which is why our political structure is a Republic with Democratic processes. You are taxed and those taxes pay for a variety of services whether it be fixing the roads or extending benefits. Note that while we are occupying Iraq and Afghanistan you taxes did not raise one iota.
Welfare, TANF= semantics. If the Govt is paying you money for services undrendered it's a form of Welfare to me.
Yes it's your body but the fact that it's "your" body shouldn't mean my wages are attached for 18 years in all circumstances.
O | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/22/2008 9:56:26 AM | "Have the procedure" Good plan if you NEVER want kids, not a sane plan if you want kids later, but not now..."
This logic seems alittle out there for me. K, if you want kids, but not now then when? When youre financially ready? Got news for ya, you will never be "financially" ready for a child. You either want kids or you dont. Plain and simple. If you do not ever want kids, then by all means get the procedure done. If you would like kids someday, then wait to have sex until you feel you are ready. There are other ways to stimulate yourself. Might not be ideal but it sure beats the other outcome of an unwanted pregnancy and being "forced" to pay child support and the child growing up with a mother or father who feels "forced" into raising them. A fetus has a heartbeat at 8 weeks. To me, if it has a heartbeat it is human and alive. And an abortion would be murder, in my opinion.
If you want kids and have sex, untimely or not, then you must be ready to face the consequences if pregnancy occurs. You might not be ready to be a parent, but ready or not it happened. Be a man or woman and take care of your responsibility. The baby didnt ask to be born and the baby didnt ask to have a mother or father abandon them.
The only victim in all of this is the child. How could you honestly look at a helpless baby and say, "sorry kid, I didnt want ya but your mom went ahead and had you anyway. I dont want to pay child support to help support ya, so I am leaving." I know that seems a little harsh, but when I read all these posts about not wanting the baby and not wanting to pay and the men shouldnt have to pay for something he didnt want, that's the image that pops in my brain. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/22/2008 10:01:46 AM |
I'm trying to figure out just where you are correcting me here.
I'm not. LOL I'm saying that I think you and other dude were saying the same thing. So my weeks were off by a couple weeks- I said I knew it was around that time, but wasn't for sure on the weekage. (New word alert!)
You are incorrect about the public paying for others. We do it everyday which is why our political structure is a Republic with Democratic processes. You are taxed and those taxes pay for a variety of services whether it be fixing the roads or extending benefits. Note that while we are occupying Iraq and Afghanistan you taxes did not raise one iota.
Irrelevant. We're talking about "welfare" here, not all the other crap our taxes go for. Yeah, we all have to chip in to our country, but we shouldn't have to chip into raising half of your DNA. That's your responsibility and it shouldn't be ours.
Yes it's your body but the fact that it's "your" body shouldn't mean my wages are attached for 18 years in all circumstances.
Therein lies the problem. Men associate child support with supporting the mother, not the child. I'm sure there are a few circumstances out there where this shouldn't be so, but the laws are for the mass majority, not the few with "circumstances". If you got ran over by the beer truck, lost both your legs, and were living on nothing but disability, then yeah, you shouldn't have to pay. Just because you didn't want to be a father isn't a good enough excuse. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/22/2008 10:07:17 AM |
No, you'll just let someone else pay for your mistake because you "didnt want to.
Yup..I do it every paycheck when my 30% of taxes withheld pay for medicare and other services rendered to those in need. I don't complain as long as the system is setup to be as fair as possible
The only victim in all of this is the child. How could you honestly look at a helpless baby and say, "sorry kid, I didnt want ya but your mom went ahead and had you anyway. I dont want to pay child support to help support ya, so I am leaving." I know that seems a little harsh, but when I read all these posts about not wanting the baby and not wanting to pay and the men shouldnt have to pay for something he didnt want, that's the image that pops in my brain..
Yes and that's the image that will remain when women try to force a man to be a father. He may send the check every month but that's even worse for a child because they could think "he's willing to send money every month but he won't come see me?"
In the end you are only putting your child in harms way for what amounts to a pittance. If I got custody of my child tomorrow I would not personally seek support from his mother. I've long since grown beyond the desire for cupidity that is so pervasive in US households. I don't have a fancy phone...I drive a car that is 10 yrs old and has been paid off since day 1. I don't have even a thousand dollars on revolving credit.
Raising a child well takes something money can't buy. Loving parents and attention. The best things in life are truly free.
O | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/22/2008 10:08:38 AM | So, what is the solution here. As others have said above, a man has the choice prior to engaging sex as to whether he wants to have a child or not. After conception, the sole choice is with the mother as to whether to continue the pregnancy.
Where I think there is an imbalance is not necessarily with regards to reproductive rights but it is with the issue of custody after the child is born. The woman gets to make the ultimate choice, get to collect child support and the best part I feel gets to spend the majority of the time with the child. So, a decision made solely by the mother allows her to benefit financially but more importantly I think she usually gets custody and gets to spend the majority of the time with the child. This is the part that seems unfair to me. What I get out of this is, I get pay and be basically a visitor in the child’s life even though I contributed 50% of the DNA to the child. The exclusive reproductive rights of the mother end when the baby is born.
In order to minimize the financial cost and inequality of custody I feel that shared parenting should be the presumption as soon as the child is born. 50% with Dad, 50% with mom. If the woman doesn’t like it too bad, you have said that the child is 50% mine and I have to bear the cost of that, so why should not be permitted to 50% of the raising of the child. Your going to breast feed, too bad, if it is 50% mine then I want the child to raise 50% of the time. You can’t have it both ways in my opinion. If you are going to make the final decision to have the child and make me pay then I should have the inherent right to 50% of the time with the child. Where incomes are close then there would be no support paid. More men then could take paternity leave in order to raise the child from birth.
The only other alternative I see that once the woman has made the decision to keep the child to term then the man can petition the court to have the child put up for adoption. If the courts decide it would be in the best interest of the child to not be raised by the mother or father then the child is put up for adoption. Through this we avoid the chasing of those fathers that don’t want to be fathers and we as taxpayers would save on social assistance costs for supporting those mothers that do not have the financial means to do so. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/22/2008 10:13:39 AM |
So Obsidian, what is your solution? That men should just be able to opt out of responsibility when they don't feel like accepting any consequences for their actions? Wouldn't the responsible thing be to prevent this unwanted circumstance rather than to decide who's quality of life is more important? .
myblueshadow
Non-Married men would have 60 days to make a decision to opt-in/opt-out after finding out he's the father (paternity test required)
If he opts out there's not going back and future attempts at contacting the mother or the child could lead to jail time. If you opt out you no longer exist as that childs father in the eyes of the State.
For many the financial support is nice to have but not a deal breaker.
O | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/22/2008 10:19:25 AM | "I feel that shared parenting should be the presumption as soon as the child is born. 50% with Dad, 50% with mom."
Awesome plan, i'd be all for that. The truth is most men dont want that. Not saying there arent men out there who would relish in spending 50% of their time with the child, but you just dont find that too often.
"The only other alternative I see that once the woman has made the decision to keep the child to term then the man can petition the court to have the child put up for adoption. If the courts decide it would be in the best interest of the child to not be raised by the mother or father then the child is put up for adoption. Through this we avoid the chasing of those fathers that don’t want to be fathers and we as taxpayers would save on social assistance costs for supporting those mothers that do not have the financial means to do so."
Are you serious? Have you never seen an orphanage? Those places are already running over by kids whose parents didnt want them. Dont we pay for orphanages anyway. I was always under the impression that orphanages were state run? Where do you think the state gets the money to be able to support orphanages? | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/22/2008 10:23:22 AM | (Tongue firmly implanted in check!) Maybe we should create an environment where no one has to suffer any consequences.
If I’m late for work and I speed, and end up hitting someone, I can’t be held responsible because I never intended on hurting anyone. I was late for work, and you know we can’t be late for work!
We’ll have to get rid of that drinking and driving thing too! I’m fairly certain most people who kill kids this way didn’t intend for that to happen, so they aren’t really responsible. The parents are just as responsible because they let their kid out of the house!
(Removing tongue.) Having intercourse is a calculated risk. You have options, you are aware of all possible consequences, and when you make the choice to go forward, you accept the risks. Yes, women have another option, as a result of biology. We can’t change the biology. We could repeal Roe v Wade, but that won’t really solve your problem either. You would then have no “out.”
The reality is that until we are exactly the same, nothing will ever be completely equal. It's a matter of deciding what risks you are willing to take! | |
|
|
| Page 11 of 43
|
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 |
|
Home
login 
