| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/25/2008 3:35:21 PM | from living in CA:
once out of the womb, a child cannot be put up for adoption w/o the father's consent. a father may not know he has a child, but what does that say about him? in this state, men have equal rights to their kids. i know many kids with two bedrooms, one in each parent's home. the child support is for the child and is based on both incomes. alimony is for the lesser paid spouse. that is related to time spent together and i assume why s/he was not working. it can be waived. social security entitlement is after ten years only. it is based upon whover has the higher income and often the lesser paid spouse will still get more from his/her own social security, when compared to "half" of the other's. unless they had a long term, traditional marriage. both agreed to that, if it lasted past ten years.
both my ex and i waved alimony. we both support our adopted kids as per the regs. i did not get "paid " for my time which was overwhelming with three special needs, just adopted (2 of the 3) post trauma teens and as an advocate for the third. . my kids are fortunate to have some special funds come their way, because the amount the ex gives is minimal, compared to what i spend on them. there is a ceiling on child expenses and just because a spouse has money, the child does NOT have unlimited title to it. we both agreed to pay for college after age 18. why argue?
yes, some men and some women get screwed. but, if you observe their relationships, many bought into their marriages for the wrong reasons and knew what they were getting. it's like saying i had a bad business deal, so i don't have to pay for what i agreed to do. a contract is a contract. partnerships are partnerships. a partner in business can do something very damaging if you let him or her. you have to be on your toes, balanced with a reasonable degree of trust.
hopefully all will learn for the next time around. children should not suffer due to parents not being responsible. don't want them? use birth control. or don't adopt and run off leaving the one to do all the work. (not that i minded, but they were certainly entitled to child support and with my doing all the work, he was quite relieved to pay!)
ps in this state, once adopted, birth parents are relieved of responsibility to pay and children cannot inherit their money, unless left to them. fortunately siblings are still recognized as just that. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/25/2008 4:01:36 PM | Volgrl, you see, no compromise is possible, instead of you seeing the point I was trying to make, for want of a better phrase "an opt out" solution. You just requoted what has been said.
It obviously goes back to well 3 years isn't good enough, well what about 5, but then school starts, well what about 8, no they'll start after school activities, piano whatever and we wind up at 18, yea that sounds good. To who? Again she decided, I'm having, you live with it. What is fair? If you both had sex, something happened, he has no choice again.
As to cold and heartless, yes maybe it is, some people don't see it that way, they don't want to be fathers. That's not my view, but there are many who do. Since there is no way to alter biology other than the snip. There are few choices and more problems. As much as you seem to think these men are abysimal, there are just as many women looking to get that check. I can't explain the men any better than you could explain those women. Bob | |
|
| |
| |
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/26/2008 12:44:49 AM | Most of the biased laws we have were based on logic in the first place or a way of deflecting responsibility away from government. ~cleansed~
^^^please qoute these laws with an unbiased link
Your argument is emotional and not in the least logical.~cleansed~
^^^^spoken like a man who will never have to consider the possibility of terminating a pregnancy or carrying a child full term without support from the father.
Having a child is a priveledge not a right. With that priveledge comes responsibility.~cleansed~
I find it very ironic that I am reading qoutes from single father posters who can seperate the degree of responsibilities depending on the topic and situation.
Perhaps this will be a LIGHTBULB moment for some men who continuously complain about how unfair and unjust the court system can be towards men....geeezzee...I wonder why that is?
I don't know of a prosecutor who will let a guy "opt out" of being charged for a crime he didn't mean to commit.
I am pretty sure most insurance companies don't have an "opt out" clause.
I am positive that the credit companies and banks don't have a "do over" clause when they lent money to certain men ...despite the unintential problems that they may have created from personal choices.
But, I guess as long as there is a massive mob mentality that promotes the silly paranoid opinion of women shooting out kids for child support....there will be more men who are only to proud to carry the victim label.
I just find it humourus that some men continue to fall back on the worst examples that only measure a few women......... in order to validate the reason a man should be able to "opt out" of his moral obligation and personal responsibilities when it comes to an unexpected pregnancy. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/26/2008 6:47:15 AM |
The bitterness and stigma that is constantly perpetuated in these forums about single Mom's....leads me to believe that there are far too many men who haven't actually lived in the real world, where grown up's take responsibilities for their own personal actions.
I agree. The resentments in these forums are not something I had been exposed too before, I don't think these forums are a represention of the general population.
it seems that many more women than you think have gotten over that stigma.
Spend much time with women with who have had an abortion? Many of them never get over their choice.
Women can opt out of a pregnancy whenever she wants too.
That is very simplistic.
I guess as long as there is a massive mob mentality that promotes the silly paranoid opinion of women shooting out kids for child support....there will be more men who are only to proud to carry the victim label.
I agree but it goes both ways. Many people use their victimazation to relieve them of responsilbity for their actions.
On a personal note, if so many men are the being forced into parenthood by greedy women, why is it that my biggest problem in relationships is the man wanting kids. Where the hell are all these men who don't want kids! And men who want to use condoms! | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/26/2008 9:25:54 AM |
But, I guess as long as there is a massive mob mentality that promotes the silly paranoid opinion of women shooting out kids for child support....there will be more men who are only to proud to carry the victim label.
I just find it humourus that some men continue to fall back on the worst examples that only measure a few women......... in order to validate the reason a man should be able to "opt out" of his moral obligation and personal responsibilities when it comes to an unexpected pregnancy.
Lizbeth "morality" flew out the window when millions of women started vaporizing their fetus 1973 and beyond. It's funny that men are held to this level of Moral responsibility but women are not.
O | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/26/2008 10:00:56 AM | ^^Btw, abortion has been happening long before 1973, but I think you are aware of that.
Less women have suffered irreversible complications and death doing something they were hell bent going to do anyway.
jmho
The bitterness and stigma that is constantly perpetuated in these forums about single Mom's....leads me to believe that there are far too many men who haven't actually lived in the real world, where grown up's take responsibilities for their own personal actions.
definitely! | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/26/2008 11:41:37 AM | lizbeth2........ I had to get written permission via the family court, to see my sick daughter in hospital, despite being named as her father on her birth certificate, and having parental rights by being named as her Dad. I, at no stage, abdicated any responsibility for my daughter, financial or otherwise, yet it took 13 months for me to be granted full custody, and I faced very strong opposition from various authorities. As for me having a mob mentality or me opting out.....  | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/26/2008 12:43:26 PM | "Most of the biased laws we have were based on logic in the first place or a way of deflecting responsibility away from government."
The government has tried for years to shift the burden of social assistance from themselves to anyone they can find to pay. If the single mother is on social assistance, you live with her and then breakup the government will hunt you down in order to collect the child support.
Another example is the change in child support laws in 1996. The government got about a $1 billion windfall from this by making it no longer tax deductible due to the payor usually being in a higher tax bracket. The government also knew prior to implementing the new laws that the basis for the calculation was wrong since it included non-cash income like medical and other benefits. Both the government and women's groups knew of this and did nothing to change it.
Finally with regards to custody and access, when the government tabled a report wishing to change the laws to more of shared parenting model to make custody and access more equitable it was promptly shouted down by women's groups and voices firmly entrenched within the federal ministries.
Also, why is there an entire mechanism set up for the collection of child support, usually paid by men, but nothing for custody and access since the only alternative is to go back to court.
Fathers also basically have to prove the mother unfit in order to gain custody. Again holding fathers to a higher level than mothers. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/26/2008 3:25:40 PM | Thanks soccersweep for a second there I thought we may have to start the whole thread again for those that weren't paying attention the first time.
Adding to the above, the concept of child support was originally tied into our divorce laws. At that time it was true that women did not have the same economic opportunities as men so it made sense that a man would pay alimony and child support.
By keeping this active only tells me that women still feel inferior when we know that is not the case anymore.
In most instances men are the ones who leave the family home when trouble starts which automatically puts them at a disadvantage according to how a child/children current living arrangements are when divorce becomes final.
Judges see this and make the decision that the child's situation should be maintained as is which forces any man to fight for his parental rights.
A cost that most women will never have to incur and if faced with getting legal help are subsidized by the current system that sees woman as being disadvantaged.
Again another example of how outdated the current laws are.
Seems that today a man has to spend money for something prior to a divorce or realtionship or fling was and should be his, the rights of fatherhood.
Since those rights are not automatic and we are still held hostage to any woman's decision on whether a child comes to term it only makes sense to amend these laws to make marraige and parenthood something that is desired not demanded.
And just because this always bugs me when I think of it, if both partners are using BC, it would seem logical that when two people engage in sex while protected that neither party is willing to be a parent.
I do not like the term mistake but in the above scenario if contraception fails it would be an unforseen event that is still manageable and least likely to cause long term emotional distress. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/27/2008 4:57:09 AM | i fully agree geeeeee wiz i had big talks with my twins father about children and we planned our pregnancy and when shyt hit the fan for him to quit with the stuff that would affect a child he walked and now i have made numourous attempts for him to be part of thier lives since he cleaned up his act and he moved states and refuses to show up for contact ........ so in that respect i give no sympathy, i am also very picky in who i meet up with on this site or anyother and my children are first always, and i have it in my profile that i am not out looking for someone to sleep with sorry guys im sure you can tell which woman are out there to screw you as much as we can tell who we are likely to bed down with, so i think if your willing to not care about who your sleeping with then you shouldnt be caring so much where your child support is heading either. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/27/2008 9:04:08 AM |
so i think if your willing to not care about who your sleeping with then you shouldnt be caring so much where your child support is heading either.
Punitive damages for 20 years or so because someone was a one night stand and contraception failed. Nice idea .
If you had read any of the thread you would see that not a single person has suggested opting out of parenthood after accepting that responsibility even once(except in cases where the child turns out to be someone elses). I'd even bet that most suggesting that as an option would be rather harsh on a guy trying to do that. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/27/2008 11:58:03 AM |
once out of the womb, a child cannot be put up for adoption w/o the father's consent. a father may not know he has a child, but what does that say about him?
So she goes in and says she doesn't know who the father is... They're not going to tell her she can't put the child up for adoption...
A father may not know he has a child for several reasons, some of which he has no control over...
1... A one night stand, no further contact...
2... She and he have broken up, unable or unwilling to tell him...
3... She deliberately keeps it a sectret so he has no say in the matter...
4... There may be more than one 'sperm donor' | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/27/2008 12:25:32 PM |
I just find it humourus that some men continue to fall back on the worst examples that only measure a few women......... in order to validate the reason a man should be able to "opt out" of his moral obligation and personal responsibilities when it comes to an unexpected pregnancy.
you hit the nail right on the head. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/27/2008 2:08:30 PM | You mean the same way you ladies like to harp about the few actual deadbeat dads and whine until we end up with dysfunctional bureaucracies chasing a handful of men and generally harassing stand up guys that are paying since they did want children?
Maybe we should take no steps to protect a few from murderous psychotics either since they are so far and few between. Hell make it legal for them to infringe on anothers life by killing them since being criminally insane they aren't really responsible for their own actions.
Do you actually have a valid reason why men should not be able to opt out or are you just going to spout off cliches and deflect from the topic in an effort to avoid admitting the ONLY people with a valid argument so far against it are the pro-life crowd and by their personal convictions neither should be able to opt out of parenthood. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/27/2008 2:47:57 PM | Loony...men CAN opt out. But, it has to be approved by the court systems. Meaning, they listen to the reasoning of such...and both parties contribute to such...and the judge decides.
In most cases, it is all about the financial aspect. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/27/2008 4:32:34 PM | | HarleyKat I'll assume that might be the truth where you live but not around here. You can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a child is not yours, that your ex tried to kill you even and still be liable for both CS and alimony. There is next to no accountability for behaviour or decisions for specific groups here. As a balance there needs to be options available to prevent abuse of this current system. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/27/2008 4:58:56 PM | | It doesnt matter one iota about the parents, its about THE CHILD!!!! If the child isnt supported by one or the other parent, the child suffers, not just from lack of $$, their self esteem is damaged. Even if both parents are supportive in every way, the child will still be affected by the removal of a parent. I say save sex for marriage as intended, then stay married, as intended. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/27/2008 5:35:12 PM | I wish you would get your story straight cleansed.....
A cost that most women will never have to incur and if faced with getting legal help are subsidized by the current system that sees woman as being disadvantaged. ~cleansed~
^^^I am sorry I am confused...probably because of this comment you made in the same post....
A cost that most women will never have to incur and if faced with getting legal help are subsidized by the current system that sees woman as being disadvantaged. ~cleansed!~
So basically what your saying is ???... The courts still view women as the victim and disadvantaged???...which is the sole reason that a woman in most cases retains primary custody of a child???....Do you actually think that family court judges ignore what is in the best interest of the children out of pitty for women?
BTW...no such thing as free lawyers for family domestic court issue's.....that stopped that a long time ago....about the same time the child support tables and laws were changed if I remember correctly......geez....wonder why???
Since those rights are not automatic and we are still held hostage to any woman's decision on whether a child comes to term it only makes sense to amend these laws to make marraige and parenthood something that is desired not demanded.~cleansed~
^^^The bigger picture that you refuse to see...along with the rest of the mob is....it is not your rights that these laws are protecting...it is not even the mother's right these laws are protecting. These laws are in place to protect every child from the irresponsible people who won't assume liability for their OWN PERSONAL ACTIONS after a child is born.
I would love to hear what you propose the ammendments should be. I would be really interested to know how you propose that the laws be changed so that it dosen't create another legal loophole for the NCP's who might just decide not to pay...or bother....cause life is sometimes just to hard and unfair... | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/27/2008 6:46:04 PM | But the question is raised about not live children liz. It is about who makes the decision of bringing that child to life. Women have and do opt to not bring a conception to fruition.
As I stated that is the intention of BC control is it not. To prevent.
The morning after pill is also used with that intention.
Abortion whether you are pro choice or pro life is also an option.
If you believe that every time that you have ever engaged in sexual activity was with the intent to concieve then I iomagine we should criminalize casual sex.
That most likely won't happen. If there was a hard line decision that once the sperm does hit the egg it is given automatic rights then we would not need abortion clinics. But as someone else has stated abortions were happening long before 72 with horrific and tragic results.
Please do not tell me that you believe that all of those abortions were neccesary because of rapes. They were elective just like plastic surgury.
No woman of the 30 million abortions so far were forced. No one held a gun to their head.
If you really want to start looking at the "big picture", most of us in industrialized nations are so detached from what survival really means that we just take bringing children into this now increasingly overpopulated planet totally for granted.
Based on the research I have been doing lately that luxury may become a thing of the past. Try telling your story to a woman from an impoverished nation with no access to birth control and food on a daily basis and see just how selfish you sound. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/27/2008 8:35:06 PM | Harley, correct me if I'm wrong, but can't the man say "I want a dna test" and the state gives him one before making him pay? All he has to do is speak up, correct? (Being of course that he did not sign the birth certificate. If he did, then that's his own fault for not having the test done beforehand.)
There is a time limit from everywhere I've heard or read about. If a woman has a kid with one guy but tells another guy that it's his and he's stupid enough to believe her, the courts don't care after a certain point. The non-bio father will be obligated to continue paying since he's done so for a period of time.
Always remember: Paternity fraud is legal, as some people have pointed out. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/27/2008 10:01:20 PM |
A woman cannot "opt out" of the same obligations and responsibilities a man complains about in making a decision to carry a baby...or abort it.
Huh? How do you figger that? A woman has FAR more B.C. options that a guy does in the first place and several more options AFTER conception.
Men have absolutely NO rights after conception.
I can never quite understand why women can't see that reproductive rights are not equal and choose to blame men for their own less than prudent decisions. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/27/2008 10:23:34 PM | As I stated that is the intention of BC control is it not. To prevent.
^^I agree cleansed....but just using BC dosen't create the "opt out" clause for the father....
The morning after pill is also used with that intention.~cleansed~
^^^I'm sorry...who exactly takes the morning after pill?....I must be confused again.
The morning after pill is not a method of BC...it is a last resort for preventing pregnancy AFTER unprotected sex was had....and oh yeah... or cause the condom broke.
Honestly, do you expect every woman to take high doses of hormones after having protected sex in the event that BC isn't 100%? Sometimes it fails and the possibility of getting pregnant exists! That fact is well documented...even my 15 year old knows that!
If you really want to start looking at the "big picture", most of us in industrialized nations are so detached from what survival really means that we just take bringing children into this now increasingly overpopulated planet totally for granted.
Based on the research I have been doing lately that luxury may become a thing of the past. Try telling your story to a woman from an impoverished nation with no access to birth control and food on a daily basis and see just how selfish you sound. ~cleansed~
^^^You need to take your nose off the canvas you are looking at cleansed. Although your concern for the impoverished women of third world countries is touching...for those who believe it....it is totally irreleveant in this discussion. You have sunk deep if you expect anyone to believe your arguements are based on your concern of the global overpopulation.
Let's call a spade a spade shall we...the concern for most men when faced with an unexpected, unwanted pregnancy, is one that is soley based on himself and what the reprucussions might be to his way off life.
They say the road to hell is paved with some of the best intentions..... | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/28/2008 2:41:23 AM | Lizbeth "morality" flew out the window when millions of women started vaporizing their fetus 1973 and beyond. It's funny that men are held to this level of Moral responsibility but women are not. ~Obsidian~
^^^Wow...It must not be easy to condem and condone abortion at the same time.
BTW...it isn't the moral responsibility that is the biggest arguement for men regarding unexpected pregnancies in this forum...it is the finacial obligations that some (most) men want to "opt" out of if a woman chooses to continue with the pregnancy.
Take a look at my profile picture. That baby I hold is my daughter. Her Father has "opted out" of his moral responsibility to her. I won't force any moral obligation on him to be in her life...but I do hold him responsible for his portion of what the financial responsibilities are for her upbringing....and her welfare and future is not something I will comprimise on because her father has choosen the "opt out" route.
I have my own levels of moral responsibilities...that include taking responsibility for my child before I take care of myself....
The mob arguements here are getting more and more far fetched and ridiculous...pick a side of the street guys..pointing the finger isn't a response to a question....
 | |
|
Home
login 
