|
|
|
|
|
| | are women playing GOD when they become pregnantPage 24 of 54 (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, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54) | Durandal, do you really think that this is a common scenario? In that case I may concede that the woman should be solely responsible.
OK, another unlikely scenario. Let's add one additional piece of information. Before the woman got pregnant, she told the man that if b/c failed, even after diligent use, that she would carry the child to term. So they are careful, use two forms of b/c at all times. Oops, no matter how unlikely, she gets pregnant. And as she indicated, she carries the child to term.
Is the man responsible to pay child support in this scenario? | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/16/2009 12:52:51 PM | Please explain how that is an uncommon scenario?
It is fairly common for a couple to agree they don't want kids (and use birth control) but somehow the birth control fails, and then the woman changes her mind and wants to keep the kid. That is quite common.
As for your scenario, let's flip it around:
They both use b/c, and the man says if it fails he would want her to carry the child to term because he feels abortion is wrong. However, the woman has no desire to birth a child and has an abortion since no one can force a woman to keep a baby against her will (or force her to abort against her will)
Is the woman responsible for paying damages for killing the man's child before it could be born?
No? Then no, the man is not responsible for paying child support. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/16/2009 12:56:58 PM |
We discussed what we should do and he said that he was not ready to be a father, mentioning the fact that we had both agreed we didn't want to be parents just weeks ago.
Because I feel it is wrong to punish someone else for my own choices, I respected his choice. That made my decision to go through with the pregnancy harder, but in the end I decided I would be able to support myself and the child without forcing him to pay child support. It will be tough to make it work, but if I felt I was not able to do it I would not give birth to a child I could not support."
And if something happens that the woman can't support the child and has to request assistance from a government entity, she may be pressured to furnish the name of the father.
I don't know how it is NOW, but back in the mid 70s I was a social work technician with a community service agency, and a woman who applied for assistance and said "she didn't know" who her child's father was, got treated worse than DIRT. In fact, though I don't know of any situations where it actually happened, I believe that signing that request for ADC gave the Dept of Social Services the right to INVESTIGATE your life to try and learn the identity of your child(ren)s' father.
Again..sex is NOT a 'need' or a 'right'...if you are capable of reproduction, and unwilling to deal with that possible occurrence, then don't f*ck. This goes for BOTH genders.
Cindy O
t | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/16/2009 12:59:05 PM | Durandal, you didn't answer my question.
As for your scenario. It is not comparable. Paying child support is paying for a child. The child had no choice and deserves to be cared for. Paying damages for emotional damage is for the father who had a choice.
In your scenario, if a man said he was against abortion, I would hope the woman would be forthright about saying that she would abort if she was pregnant. In this scenario, the two should realize they are not a good match and walk away from each other. If both are foolish enough to risk this (and in this case the man is risking that an abortion would happen) I would say have fun in court. If the woman did not disclose, then yes, he can sue for damages. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/16/2009 1:02:36 PM |
Excuse me, it is NOT about anybody "lording " a decision over anybody else. It's about taking care of a child that resulted when a man put his penis in a woman's vagina and ejaculated. If you as a man are so terrified of a woman trying to trap you, or" lord it over" you, or get in your wallet... either get sterilized or keep your weiner in your pants! Do you think most women are REALLY out there , to a certain extent risking their health( unprotected sex can ALSO lead to serious STDS!) their ability to work, not to mention that pregnancy, childbirth and even abortion are NOT risk free...(a friend of mine from church actually DIED briefly while giving birth to her youngest child) just so she can get into your little wallet via conceiving a child?
Oh yeah...women are all conspiring to get your sperm, lord it over you and hold your wallet hostage.
Dude, if you are that damn SCARED of women using sex to trick and trap you into unwilling parenthood, how the HELL do you get and maintain an erection long enough to do the deed anyway? I mean you no personal disrespect, I really WANT TO KNOW how that works!
Cindy O
I've said in quite a few of my posts that this isn't an issue for me, and i'm not worried about a woman getting in my wallet (although that WOULD make a good capital one commercial). That being said, just becuase the odds of me being raped are very small, doesn't mean i won't do anything in my power to fight for the victims of rape or prevent it from occuring. Same with this, the scenario most likely won't matter to me, as i don't sleep with women that have this attitude, but I do try to do whats right.
No, i don't think women are conspiring to get my sperm. I don't think i've ever posted anything of that ilk. All I'm saying is that men deserve the same right that women have, the right to absolve the responsibility of an unwanted child.
Is that so abhorrent to you?
As for my maintenance of erections, I do ok i think. You could ask my g/f, she lurks on these forums quite a bit. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/16/2009 1:05:26 PM | | As a man capable of forethought, and control, I am able to avoid this whole problem. If I want to have a baby, I will impregnate a woman who wants to have a baby, and I will support the baby financially, and otherwise, so there will be no need for abortion, adoption, abandonment, or such. If I don't want a baby, I will not impregnate any woman, so there is no problem with an woman either aborting my fetus against my wishes, or bearing my child against my wishes, and causing me to pay support I don't want to pay because there will be no fetus/baby. I am in control of myself,and my options and I take the time to either: use a condom, select a woman who is post menopausal, select a woman who has had her tubes tied, select a woman who is on the pill, or otherwise assure that no unwanted pregnancy results. Any other man is capable of doing the same as I do. I, thus fail to see what the problem is as far aas the men here are concerned. If you don't want to get stuck paying child support, don't make a baby. If you don't want a woman aborting your fetus, don't impregnate a woman who is opposed to bearing children. If it pains you to think that any woman anywhere may have an abortion, and you want to end what you consider an immorality/sin, it is time for you to grow up. The world is as it is, and you are not God, so it is not up to you to either prevent, or punish, sin. Men have some control and choices, before pregnancy occurs. Once pregnancy occurs, the choices are mostly up to the pregnant woman. Such is life. Grow up, and get over it. The only alternative to life is death. If you are ready to kill yourself to protest abortion, lack of men's rights, or whatever-burning yourself on the Capital steps, like some Buddhist monk-feel free to do so. Just do it quietly, please. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/16/2009 1:08:36 PM |
You call that "seeing it from the man's point of view"?
Actually, that has been the attitude of MOST men, in my experience. I keep mentioning (if only to remind myself) that the male viewpoint presented here (her body, her problem; her choice, her responsibility) is the extreme, and not what most of the men of my actual acquaintance claim to believe.
Having said that, out of the 13 single-parent families I know well enough to know the financial situation, 8 of the 10 single mothers receive (or received) no CS from their husbands/partners when the relationship ended. The two single fathers in the bunch have also received no support. There was one pregnancy in which the child was the result of a casual sexual affair; all the rest were marriages/long-term relationships in which both partners wanted the kids. The relationships span from the late 50s till now. None of the women I know have used access to "force" money from the guy. Five of the eight women in this small sample raised the kids alone, since it was before FMEP would force men to pay. One went through FMEP for payment; the other two fathers simply "disappeared" well enough that FMEP can't pursue them. One of them periodically contacts his daughter, promises her all kinds of things, then disappears again.
Most women I know figure if he doesn't care about his kids enough to provide help, then they aren't going to demean themselves to chase after him. The single fathers have not pursued support because one fears losing custody if he "rocks the boat" and the other simply feels if she's not willing to help, he's not going to chase her, just as many women feel. If either of these men needed welfare subsidies, they could apply - and the system would go after the women for CS, just as it does for men.
It seems odd to me that men are arguing that they shouldn't be held responsible because the woman decides to give birth, that they shouldn't be "forced" to pay, when I'm faced with the fact that even when men WANT kids, they still don't want to be financially responsible for them when the relationship with the woman ends. From here, it looks like men simply don't want to pay for the kids they father and will use absolutely any argument to support their desire not to be responsible.
Sometimes I'm amazed I still believe most men want to and will support their kids. Maybe I should re-think that. Maybe it's because my ex-husband was responsible and "did the right thing" without being forced. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/16/2009 1:09:39 PM | All I'm saying is that men deserve the same right that women have, the right to absolve the responsibility of an unwanted child.
What about the right of the child? It is unfair that once conceived men don't have a say in whether the child is born or not. But as someone else eloquently pointed out above  , there are many other things in life that are unfair due to simple biology.
And as you have pointed out, once a child is born, women do tend to bear the brunt of the responsibility. We're not asking for a man to carry the responsibility 50/50. But shouldn't a man carry part of the responsibility, even if this is forced?
And to pro-filer, this is my experience as well. Most spend little or no time going after child support. So why are we arguing here? | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/16/2009 1:16:13 PM |
It seems odd to me that men are arguing that they shouldn't be held responsible because the woman decides to give birth, that they should shouldn't be "forced" to pay, when I'm faced with the fact that even when men WANT kids, they still don't want to be financially responsible for them when the relationship with the woman ends. From here, it looks like men simply don't want to pay for the kids they father and will use absolutely any argument to support it.
Sometimes I'm amazed I still believe most men want to and will support their kids. Maybe I should re-think that.
Eh thats hard. Many are still angry at the other parent and take it out on them through CS, which of course hurts kids. That being said, there are a TON of stats out there that i'll spare you but esssentially men have no chance at retaining custody in court, and once they lose it over 70% of mothers admit to interfereing with visitation.
At some point you have to try to understand that when a relationship ends, you lose the kids, the ex is obstructing the visitation, AND you have to write her a check for the privaledge it can become a bitter pill to swallow for a lot of men, to the detriment of their children.
The vast majority of fathers that CAN pay, do so.
It seems odd to me that men are arguing that they shouldn't be held responsible because the woman decides to give birth, that they should shouldn't be "forced" to pay, when I'm faced with the fact that even when men WANT kids, they still don't want to be financially responsible for them when the relationship with the woman ends. From here, it looks like men simply don't want to pay for the kids they father and will use absolutely any argument to support it.
Again i feel this is unfair. If the woman has a right to absolve the responsibility as she sees fit, and this is accepted, how can you chastize men for wanting the same ability? | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/16/2009 1:19:02 PM | NO. Women do not turn into God when they become pregnant. If 2 mature adults decided to persue with a pregnancy no need for one of them to become God. It is a mutual agreement.
Expecting father. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/16/2009 1:19:56 PM |
Again i feel this is unfair. If the woman has a right to absolve the responsibility as she sees fit, and this is accepted, how can you chastize men for wanting the same ability?
For the sake of the children. The need of the child trumps the need of the father. I agree, it is unfair. I wish life was fair. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/16/2009 1:22:13 PM | If the well being of the children rests on child support, i feel that for the sake of the children, the mother should put that child up for adoption.
If it's THAT thin a line by which you survive, the lifestyle that you can provide your child isn't what a loving adoptive family can provide and for the sake of the children, they should be put up for adoption by that logic. Would you agree? | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/16/2009 1:27:40 PM | Try telling your part of this "He said" to a judge in a court and try to convince him/her that it's a woman's responsibility for birth control...
Keep crossing your fingers...
If a woman has the right to deny a man fatherhood after conception, so should the man be able to deny his rights to fatherhood.
A child is NOT his, as he doesn't gestate or conceive a child. Nor is it all his DNA.
Only half his DNA and NONE of his choice, one way or the other. That's absolute power over him. That's entrapment. That's extortion. That's abuse.
It will go the the Supreme court one day, as a human rights issue. There's NO doubt that the law will one day be amended. I'm actually surprised that it hasn't.
Just like the divorce laws were amended when women abused them, by constructively abandoning their roles as a sexual partner and then claiming they were the "victims" of infidelity when the husband "cheated" with another woman.
The result? No fault divorce.
Laws are being changed everyday. The topic of human rights to oneself are being more clearly defined, and the right to impose one's will against another are slowly being abolished.
Euthanasia is one that is based on this premise as well.
Just like (rational) men sympathized with women to abolish subjugation of women, during the women's rights movement, so will the pendulum swing to make sure that men are not subjugated to women.
But only with the help of rational women, not the "traditionalists". They can't think objectively.
It goes against what "granny" lectured them on.
I keep mentioning (if only to remind myself) that the male viewpoint presented here (her body, her problem; her choice, her responsibility) is the extreme, and not what most of the men of my actual acquaintance claim to believe.
I take that as a huge compliment.
I never considered myself "sheeple".
It helps me remain objective.
| |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/16/2009 1:29:48 PM |
No, i don't think women are conspiring to get my sperm. I don't think i've ever posted anything of that ilk. All I'm saying is that men deserve the same right that women have, the right to absolve the responsibility of an unwanted child.
Is that so abhorrent to you?
As for my maintenance of erections, I do ok i think. You could ask my g/f, she lurks on these forums quite a bit.
Everybody has the right to take precautions, or to practice abstinence of there is absolutely no effin WAY you can take responsibility for accidental conception. I'm directing this to BOTH genders. If a woman cannot care for a child and she has a strong anti abortion conviction, she better have SOME plan in place if bc fails, or else she has no business having sex. If a man cannot contribute financially to the upbringing of a child he fathers, he either takes some SERIOUS measures, abstains from sex or keeps in mind that "if you helped make it, you help feed it", and has sex very judiciously, if at all.
Now, I will be the first to acknowledge that the drive to have sex is very strong in healthy individuals.and that accidents cause people. The concept of taking at least a token financial responsibility is probably the least of a group of evils,and one that a government entity has at least some hope of making work. Would you prefer chastity belts and chemical castration for all single adults? Or the "license to f*ck" I referenced in an early post.
Are women playing GOD when they get pregnant?
I suppose a few of them are, in one way or another. But setting aside the situations where parenthood was a mutually agreed upon decision and sought after result, I think in most cases it's just 2 people responding to very strong instincts, people who get PLEASURE from sex, and something goes wrong with the pregnancy prevention methodology.
And for the most part, reasonable, rational, mature people figure out some way to deal with the situation. Pregnancy is NOT something that God gave to women so she could "'play" God, get in men's wallets, avoid work, whatever. It's simply the way the species is continued.I seriously doubt that every fertile single woman out there is designing her strategy to trap some poor unsuspecting cuss into providing her a life in the lap of luxury by popping out a kid. As another poster mentioned, if a woman finds it necessary to request even INDIRECT assistance from some governmental or social entity,quite often she has no choice in the matter. Of course, then we could make it a crime for any woman below a certain income/occupational/educational level to f*ck,because she MIGHT get pregnant...if she can't afford to support a kid and she gets knocked up, we put her ass in jail and send the kid to an orphanage.
I can just see the thread now "woman refuses to have sex with me because she couldn't afford to support a kid if bc failed and she got pregnant...WTF is WRONG with her?!"
Cindy O | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/16/2009 1:30:48 PM |
At some point you have to try to understand that when a relationship ends, you lose the kids, the ex is obstructing the visitation, AND you have to write her a check for the privaledge it can become a bitter pill to swallow for a lot of men, to the detriment of their children.
I agree; that is completely unfair and should not be permitted. Given my druthers, I'd focus my efforts in fixing the inequity in family court before purusing options that leave women holding the whole bag.
If the woman has a right to absolve the responsibility as she sees fit, and this is accepted, how can you chastize men for wanting the same ability?
I don't chastize men for WANTING the same ability; I chastize them for the ongoing assumption that abortion is a VIABLE option for ALL women, or that somehow it doesn't come with some kind of COST to the woman. It's only if you accept the premise that abortion is cost-free and doable for the woman that you can then use that to justify "therefore, if she doesn't avail herself of that option, she shouldn't expect me to pay". Celibacy is something every man can do; so is having a vasectomy. But neither are viable options for ALL men and insisting that it is (or should be) is as senseless as expecting abortion/adoption to be a viable choice for all women.
So yeah, it's not fair. For anybody - not the man who may have to pay CS, the woman who has to "choose" abortion/adoption/single-parenthood, or the embryo who may or may not make it to fetus and then baby, and who may or may not have the support of both parents. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/16/2009 1:30:53 PM | Maybe "fair" dictates that the one willing to raise the child has the right to "force" the other to pay, whether the payment is physical (for the woman) or financial (both). No, fair would be to give equal right to both parents and to respect both of their decisions whatever that decision may be. Right now the way things are, are not fair(It is one of the many unequal remnants of a social system which still implies that women, by default, are not capable of supporting themselves on their own. This is gender discrimination). These maternal-supremacist laws that we have now has women being legally protected to force their own will(whether of selfish or altruistic) and its outcome onto a man; the equal opposing scenario, that which would by all means be considered as paternal-supremacy, would be that of a man forcing his will onto a woman and making it illegal for her to seek abortion or carry a baby to term without his direct and absolute consent.
What the majority of men here are proposing is a middle ground which is fair for men(gets proper legal choice in the outcome of his own life) and fair for women(Still gets to make a conscious decision as to whether or not she will have an abortion or carry the baby to term while also respecting the legal rights of the father).
I think for anyone to propose that the men who are here arguing for this middle ground are doing so in a means to support irresponsible behavior is as hateful, biased, detrimental and ignorant as to suggest that women who seek child support payments actually are actually using such payments and legal protection as an incentive to support their own irresponsible behavior.
For both men and women, parenthood does not end at conception(or birth) and both have equal investment in their decision towards the outcome of that offspring and, as such, both parents should equally have their choice into this engagement respected by the law. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/16/2009 1:34:46 PM |
f the well being of the children rests on child support, i feel that for the sake of the children, the mother should put that child up for adoption.
Logically, yes. But I think this brings us down a long line of history. In the far past, orphanages were full of babies that the mothers could not care for. Do you wish to go back to those days?
And when it comes to pro-creation, logic goes out the window. It comes down to biology again. The urge to procreate and care for a child is strong. This is nature taking care to ensure the human race is continued. If it was easy to part with a new-born baby, there would be an awful lot of abandoned children around. Raising children is hard and incredibly demanding.
I think one big problem though is that separated parents resent each other. Mom may have wanted to bring a child into the world, but now resents the amount of work it takes, especially when she sees dad living it up. Dad resents being forced to pay and giving mom control over his hard earned money to do with as she pleases, especially when she has all the say in how the child is raised.
The burden that mothers carry to care for children (for it is they that do tend to carry most of it, married or not) is unfair. That men are held responsible when they don't have the option to abort is unfair. That children don't get the most of what both parents can provide is unfair. That some parents wash their hands of their children is unfair.
I think our society is struggling to provide for children as best it can. This includes leaving children with their biological parents. Biology does have a way of ensuring that children are cared for. Why go against that? | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/16/2009 1:38:31 PM |
I don't chastize men for WANTING the same ability; I chastize them for the ongoing assumption that abortion is a VIABLE option for ALL women, or that somehow it doesn't come with some kind of COST to the woman. It's only if you accept the premise that abortion is cost-free and doable for the woman that you can then use that to justify "therefore, if she doesn't avail herself of that option, she shouldn't expect me to pay". Celibacy is something every man can do; so is having a vasectomy. But neither are viable options for ALL men and insisting that it is (or should be) is as senseless as expecting abortion/adoption to be a viable choice for all women.
Completely agree. Abortion i'm sure is insanely hard and does pose a health risk, even if it is less dangerous than childbirth.
Is adoption a viable option for you? I see so many women skipping that for some reason. There are SO many families that can't have children and i've been told the waiting lists are quite lengthy for people DYING to be parents. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/16/2009 1:43:24 PM | {quote]I do not want to be forced through the courts to pay for this child, but if you will trust me to help, then I will be happy to do so to the best of my ability. I need the freedom also to decide how much I can actually afford rather than have someone else decide what I can afford
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
You know what would happen if we folloed that principle? Guys just wouldn't pay. Or they'd pay until they had a fight with the woman inquestion , and then they'd stop paying. Or they'd pay so long as she kept giving them sexual favors. You see the problem? Without a legally enforceable court order, the woman is totally at the moan's mercy.
Nice try. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/16/2009 1:43:39 PM |
What is this ability?
Baby is born. She has to do her part/responsibility in maintaining that living baby now, too. The question of "absolve the responsibility" doesn't fit into this scenario.
What are you talking about when you say men should have the same ability to do this?
This is the issue at hand here.
The CS issues are just a smokescreen for what the real issue is. A man's right to terminate the pregnancy is that what you are saying?
Then let's discuss that....or it becomes moot and then thread can die.
Well, as i've stated, if a woman decides to carry a pregnancy to term against the will of the father, she is making that choice that he may or may not choose to participate emotionally or financially.
Her ability is to choose what is best for her. She can abort, she can choose adoption. I'll NEVER support men making the final choice over a woman's body.
Why is it that everyone is overlooking the adoption route? | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/16/2009 1:49:54 PM | When it comes to men running away from paying child support, I know of a case in Alberta, Canada, where a married man left his wife to raise 4 of their children during the 1960's. She had no other choice but to seek assistance from social services, who could not locate him and he mostly worked under the table.
The government caught up to him when he was 61 and seized most of his assets, which left him nearly homeless. The government didn't care that most of his retirement years would be about him living in poverty.
What comes around, goes around eventually..........he didn't care if his children lived in poverty, so why should anyone care if he's forced to live in poverty at the end of his life. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/16/2009 1:51:14 PM |
Why is it that everyone is overlooking the adoption route?
I did address this above and I'll add the following. It is much harder to put a child up for adoption than to have an abortion. There are plenty of babies needing adoption in 3rd world countries (where people are poor and fathers have no responsibilities for children they father). In the past, when men had 0 responsibilities for children fathered, orphanages were overflowing with babies mothers could not care for in the western world as well.. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/16/2009 1:54:46 PM | Well not really. Anecdotal evidence isn't that great, heres why.
I actually know a guy, a personal aquaintance.
3 kids. Married 25 years. Gets divorced, in a bitter fight she yells, THEY AREN"T EVEN YOUR CHILDREN.
Turns out she cheated on him for 20 years with the same man, an unemployed loser that she was giving money to for him to get by. All kids are his.
He fights for custody and loses, judge even goes so far as to say "they aren't your kids". CS hearing comes and he is now responsible for CS because the deadbeat dad that SHE cheated on him with can't support the kids. The judge rules that because the children can't suffer, HE was to pay child support to make sure they had enough.
So to recap, she cheats for 20 years and leaves him
he loses custody because they aren't his
then pays because the actual father can't.
Father enough to pay, not father enough for custody though. Amazing right? | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/16/2009 1:58:10 PM |
Nah...old stuff...she now has RESPONSIBILITY ...or the government makes it for her...and him. WE ALL KNOW THAT.
Again, this point that the men are skirting regarding this rights thing has been turned over to CS.
Adoption??? AHH Yesss....
Takes TWO to conceive...TWO to argue out whose rights to terminate or absolve all responsibility for that conception are going to be paramount, and if baby is born, it takes TWO to sign the paper for adoption.
Which tells me that the man still has rights at birth...which makes him responsibile, too, for anything of that child until he signs over his rights to that child.
See...you do have rights all through the whole thing from your right to a condom/vasectomy to the birth! You just don't have the right to "terminate" a fetus or embryo. Is this the men's rights that some of you men want????
ONLY if she lists him as the father on the birth certificate.
And no, you can twist words all you want, all i'm after is the SAME oppurtunity to absolve from parental responsibilities that the mother enjoys.
I don't want to force her to abort, or have that ability. Just to be able to make the SAME decision she had a chance to. TO NOT BE A PARENT. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/16/2009 1:58:54 PM |
That's absolute power over him. That's entrapment. That's extortion. That's abuse.
And here's a way to AVOID it;
I am in control of myself,and my options and I take the time to either: use a condom, select a woman who is post menopausal, select a woman who has had her tubes tied, select a woman who is on the pill, or otherwise assure that no unwanted pregnancy results. Any other man is capable of doing the same as I do. I, thus fail to see what the problem is as far aas the men here are concerned
Insofar as I know, Trojan has not gone ou tof business, and for most single women an unplanned pregnancy is a disaster of epic proportions. Having never personally been in the position I can't make a statement of fact, but having seen a few women close to me agonize over the decision to terminate a pregnancy, I'm fairly certain it must be a HELLISH situation to be in.
Verity, normally I absolutely do GET where you come from, but with all due respect, I can't even imagine how a man who VOLUNTARILY participated in sexual intercourse is going to prove that a woman chosing to terminate a pregnancy,give a child up for adoption, or requesting that the court require her partner in the act of sexual intercourse to contribute to that child's wellbeing, is a victim of abuse or extortion. Or that requiring the father in a broken family to contribute to the well being of the child(ren) is abuse or extortion, either. Yes, denial of access to the child(ren) is an often- used tactic to deal with fathers who seek to punish their children's mothers by witholding financial contributions to the children's welfare. What would you have mothers and the courts DO? Just say " oh well the marriage(or relationship) failed...since you, lady. were dumb enough to have kids with him, you get to support them. If we require him to contribute to their upkeep, it's abuse and extortion."?
I have heard of many situations where a father was genuinely unable to contribute. or contribute much, to child support, and these men were by no means denied access to their kids.
It's when a man seeks to use withholding financial support from the children to PUNISH the mother, prevent the split up, or unduly influence the situation, that denial of access to the children seems to come into play, anyway that has been my observation.
Cindy O | |
|
|
|
|
Page
24
of
54 (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, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54)
|
|
Home
login 
