Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Rights and Liberties

COUNTERPOINT: Respect a Man's Choice, Too

By Glenn Sacks and Jeffery M. Leving, AlterNet. Posted August 1, 2006.


It's wrong to force pregnancy on an unwilling mother; but it's equally wrong to do so to an unwilling father.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Editor's Note: In her July 26 AlterNet article, "The Difference Between a Womb and a Wallet," writer Kai Ma agreed with the recent court dismissal of the "Roe v. Wade for men" case, in which Matthew Dubay fought for his self-perceived right not to financially support an unplanned pregnancy. Below, men's rights advocates Glenn Sacks and Jeffery M. Levin offer a very different view of men's financial responsibility toward unwanted offspring.

Kai Ma's recent AlterNet article "The Difference Between a Womb and a Wallet" applauds a U.S. District Court judge's quick, contemptuous dismissal of Matthew Dubay's "Roe v. Wade for Men" lawsuit. Dubay sought to wipe out the child support payments he is obligated to make to an ex-girlfriend who, he says, used a fallacious claim of infertility to deceive him into getting her pregnant.

In opposing "choice for men," Ma asserts that a "woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy is not the equivalent of a man's choice to financially opt out of fatherhood." She cites the pain and discomfort of pregnancy, and the way motherhood "may limit our mobility or careers."

These problems are very real; however, so are the problems created when men are saddled with child support obligations. According to Men's Health magazine, 100,000 men each year are jailed for alleged nonpayment of child support. Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement data reveal that 70 percent of those behind on payments earn poverty level wages. The "Most Wanted Deadbeat Dad" lists put out by most states are used both for police actions and to hunt and shame "deadbeats" through newspaper ads and publicity campaigns. These lists are largely comprised of uneducated African-American and Latino men with occupation descriptions like "laborer," "maintenance man" and "roofer."

Ma dismisses the burden of child support as being "a few hundred dollars a month." However, in California, a noncustodial father of two earning a modest $3,800 a month in net income pays $1,300 a month in child support. The money -- almost $300,000 over 18 years -- is tax-free to the custodial mother. One can reasonably debate whether this sum is appropriate or excessive. One cannot reasonably dismiss it as being insignificant. Ma portrays children as a mother's albatross, forgetting that parenting is also the greatest joy a person can experience in life. Yes, in single mother homes, the mother bears the burden of most of the childrearing, but the mothers also experience the lion's share of the joys and benefits of having children. Noncustodial fathers are not so fortunate -- they're usually permitted only a few days a month to spend with their kids. Once mom finds a new man, they're often pushed out entirely in favor of the child's "new dad."

Ma condemns men who "lie, deceive, break their promises, or pull a 180 … who agree to marry but don't," and laments that "millions of women" have been "trapped into single motherhood for life with, often, next to no recourse." Yet according to a randomized study of 46,000 divorce cases published in the American Law and Economics Review, two-thirds of all divorces involving couples with children are initiated by mothers, not fathers, and in only 6 percent of cases did the women claim to be divorcing cruel or abusive husbands.

The out-of-wedlock birth rate in the United States hovers around 33 percent -- given the wide variety of contraceptive and reproductive choices women enjoy, this can hardly be blamed primarily on men. Yes, in some of these cases the mother and father shared a relationship that the mother (and the father) may have expected would become a marriage. Yet these relationships fail for many reasons besides male perfidy. These include: youth, economic pressure and the lack of living wage jobs (how many couples fight over money?), and the mothers' post-partum depression and mood-swings. It's doubtful that many men really wake up in the morning and say to themselves, "My child loves me and needs me, my girlfriend loves me and needs me -- I'm outta here."

Ma says men "shouldn't be able to choose to abandon that child in the lurch." Yet 1.5 million American women legally walk away from motherhood every year through adoption, abortion or abandonment. In over 40 states mothers can completely opt out of motherhood by returning unwanted babies to the hospital shortly after birth. If men like Dubay are deadbeats and deserters, what are these women?

Whenever a child is born outside of the context of a loving, two-parent family, there are no good solutions. Ma overstates her case, but she is correct that "Choice for Men" is a flawed solution. However, the current regime, which provides women with a variety of choices and men with none, is also flawed.

Matthew Dubay's conduct is not particularly admirable, and he's certainly not a candidate for father of the year; however, he does have a point. Over the past four decades, women's advocates have successfully made the case that it is wrong to force a pregnancy on an unwilling mother. Despite the backlash against Dubay, hopefully his lawsuit will result in a greater societal awareness that it is also wrong to force a pregnancy on an unwilling father.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Glenn Sacks is a men's and fathers' issues columnist, commentator, and radio talk show host. Jeffery M. Leving is a family law attorney and author of "Fathers' Rights: Hard-hitting and Fair Advice for Every Father Involved in a Custody Dispute."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Where to start?
Posted by: Madam Hatter on Aug 1, 2006 1:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a COUNTERPOINT? LOL

What these father's rights types fail to recognize is that women can also be held responsible for child support - just like they can. If they abandon or even lose their children to the kids' dad in a custody fight, women are ordered to pay child support too.

It's pretty obvious to me what this guy's problem is by his not so subtle wording, i.e. "when men are saddled with child support obligations," and "the burden of child support."

And seriously, are we really expected to believe that one of the many reasons relationships fail (besides "male perfidy") is "the mothers' post-partum depression and mood-swings"??

And he says, "It's doubtful that many men really wake up in the morning and say to themselves "my child loves me and needs me, my girlfriend loves me and needs me--I'm outta here.""

Yet, this is exactly what Dubay did.

How about this argument: "given the wide variety of contraceptive and reproductive choices women enjoy, this can hardly be blamed primarily on men."

So, because drug companies have focused only on the women's side of the contraceptive issue, and we have the wide variety of which cocktail of hormones in what form we get to douse our bodies with for 30 some years, the blame for failures can be primarily placed on us?

Give me a break. As the judge said "[Dubay] had difficulty accepting the financial consequences of his conduct."

» RE: Where to start? Posted by: sec55
» RE: Where to start? Posted by: Peggy
» RE: Where to start? Posted by: Madam Hatter
» RE: Where to start? Posted by: juergen
» RE: Where to start? Posted by: hotlipsin61
» Point was... Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: Point was... Posted by: Madam Hatter
» RE: Point was... Posted by: sec55
» Why shouldn't they? Posted by: AlterMO
» RE: Why shouldn't they? Posted by: Eithne
» Uh, no Posted by: heatherj
» RE: Where to start? Posted by: Tagahanga
» RE: Where to start? Posted by: dedicatedfather
» RE: Where to start? Posted by: AnJie
» RE: Where to start? Posted by: dedicatedfather
I'm not buying it.
Posted by: Annarisse on Aug 1, 2006 3:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Men have available to them a very good form of birth control - a condom. If you don't want a baby with the woman you're sleeping with, use one. Period. Take your birth control into your own hands.

» RE: I'm not buying it. Posted by: cordas
» RE: I'm not buying it. Posted by: mazel
» RE: I'm not buying it. Posted by: pcushniesr
» RE: I'm not buying it. Posted by: sec55
» RE: I'm not buying it. Posted by: VannaLaRoche
» RE: I'm not buying it. Posted by: broke_Dad
Thank you of sorts.
Posted by: cordas on Aug 1, 2006 3:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Its nice to see an rebuttle put up against Kia Ma's article, however this is as miss-guided at Ma's article but just taking it from the Fathers point of view rather than the Mothers.

I hate to say this, but "THINK OF THE CHILDREN". What is needed here (in the UK) and in the States it seems is a system which takes the heat out of the situation rather than letting a load of biggoted women and men fight the next round in the battle of the sexes.

Relationships end for an infinite amounts of reasons and with an infinte different amount of outcomes, however in my expereince (personal, family and friends) the best resolutions are found when both parents can sit down and talk rationaly about what they each want for themselves, for their children and from each other, oh and NO this isn't an easy option or wishfull thinking.... it took my mother and mother in law with a sledgehammer and a red hot poker to make me and my ex sit down and talk to each other (with relationship counseling) after our split and sort out what we wanted (and carry on talking with threats of violence, from the respective grans), no things aren't perfect and i doubt they ever will be (too much spilt milk), but we have found if we talk we can sort out our problems most of the time or find a not disagreeable compromise.

It was the lawyers and other court appointed *"&^£*& who made our split as bad as it was, and it wasn't helped by bipartisan advice given to each of us left right and center by biggoted do-gooders with their own axes to grind (often gender related).

Both men and women have rights and responsibilites and as soon as one side (usualy the female) starts making itself in the victim and deserving of having their demands met, the other side will often walk away (not always the male) making the situation go from worse to worser.

» RE: Thank you of sorts. Posted by: Cathryntd
» RE: Thank you of sorts. Posted by: sec55
» RE: Thank you of sorts. Posted by: kkinder
» RE: Thank you of sorts. Posted by: JoeBiden
We need a new name here.
Posted by: Lizmv on Aug 1, 2006 3:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Birth control........Maybe we need to call it something else, like conception control....conception prevention. Something to help these poor men understand that THEY also have a responsibility to prevent conception.

As this issue is discussed more and more, I am beginning to understand why so many think that women use abortion as birth control. Far too many men think "If she gets pregnant, she can have an abortion". Yeah, maybe she will. But then again, maybe she won't! There would be far less abortions if men took more responsibility for birth control.

So, why are so many men not using conception prevention if they do not want to be fathers? "She tricked me!" is nothing but a childish excuse. Adults take responsibility for their actions and the consequences for their mistakes.

I have 5 brothers and our father repeatedly told them that THEY were responsible if they got a girl pregnant. That being a man means TAKING RESPONSIBILITY. (This from a man who chose to raise 11 children that were not his own, children who's own fathers did not take responsibility)

Grow up, guys! Be REAL men!

» RE: We need a new name here. Posted by: Samantha Vimes
» RE: We need a new name here. Posted by: heatherj
» You need to grow up too. Posted by: Steve_in_NH
» RE: You need to grow up too. Posted by: Madam Hatter
» RE: You need to grow up too. Posted by: FauxPorteno
» RE: We need a new name here. Posted by: Timmmay!
post partum depression
Posted by: Samantha Vimes on Aug 1, 2006 4:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is in your view, a good reason for a man to drop his responsibility to both mother AND child?

Wow.

» RE: post partum depression Posted by: daniel1982
» no one said "good" Posted by: Disputo
I knew this would happen...
Posted by: willie.horton on Aug 1, 2006 4:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everybody reflexively jumps to criticize your article, regardless of its considerable merit.
Women have control over their own bodies, so they can choose on their own whether to have sex, whether to use birth control (or to demand their partners use a condom), and whether to continue or terminate a pregnancy. No man -- even a husband -- has a legal right to interfere in these decisions, yet he is legally and financially bound to the results.
And, it is politically incorrect even to complain about this state of affairs.
In an era when we should be united against the growing tyranny of the right, we instead perpetuate the tyranny of women's rights without responsibility.

» RE: I knew this would happen... Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: I knew this would happen... Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: I knew this would happen... Posted by: Tagahanga
» RE: I knew this would happen... Posted by: Tagahanga
» RE: I knew this would happen... Posted by: popsicle67
» RE: I knew this would happen... Posted by: popsicle67
» RE: I knew this would happen... Posted by: popsicle67
» RE: I knew this would happen... Posted by: Tagahanga
» RE: I knew this would happen... Posted by: Madam Hatter
Too re-state a point.
Posted by: cordas on Aug 1, 2006 5:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Condoms ain't perfect they have been known to SPLIT. Yes wearing a condom greatly reduces the chances of accidental pregnancy and the transmisson of most STDs, but if the only protection a man has is a condom (not perfect), the snip (rather drastic in many cases, like the hysterctomy but less invasive) or abstinence (?) then......

Women DO have far more control avaible to them, and I for one can't wait for more options to become available to men..... Oh and don't forget that "I would never trust a man who says he is on the pill brigade/idiots" GOOD! I wouldn't be taking the pill (or recomeneding my sons) to take the pill to stop the woman from becoming pregnant I would do it too stop me from becoming a father (and that is as subtle as you want it to be). Note. Any woman stupid enough to be that brigade needs help as well as contraception advice.

The sooner both sexes have reliable contraception the better, then BOTH party's will be truely equal in this regard, and have equal responsibilities.

So lets drop the irrelevant arguements and the insane and UNWINABLE "battle of the sexes" (the war that makes the war on terrorism and the war on drugs look sensible) as its a distraction from the real issue.

What we need is a sensible policy that allows both men and women to debate what is in the best intrests of themselves, and their children and make working compromises that all parties can live with. Like in the war on terror fighting just makes the problems worse, and like the war on drugs certain self intrested groups gain power and money and everyone else pays the unacceptable price. (I REALLY want to put this whole paragragh in bold but know that would be rude).

» RE: Too re-state a point. Posted by: canadalauren
» RE: Too re-state a point. Posted by: mizkaye
» RE: Too re-state a point. Posted by: kyamamot
Women vs. Men - both responsible
Posted by: kwalls on Aug 1, 2006 5:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unfortunately there are women who believe that having a child will solve all their personal or relationship problems, and there are others who believe they are incomplete without a man, and there are others who are just cannot conceive of any future that does not include the husband/children scenario, and others who just simply can't survive financially without a partner... and they use pregnancy as a way to try to trap a man into their lives. I have known women like this and I have also seen good men entrapped by their sense of duty, only to be excluded from their children's lives by the manipulations of emotionally damaged women or women who won't take responsibility for improving their lives. I also know men who will do or say just about anything to get laid. It is sad that "adults" behave this way. However, we also live in a culture that pushes having the myth of the ideal nuclear family, that pushes and sells sexuality, that refuses to be open and honest about sexual responsibility, that does not make birth control easily available at low or no cost, that puts most of the responsibility for birth control on women (along with the results), extols male virility, and that values children so little that a high percentage of these single parent homes headed by women exist in poverty. We can argue responsibility and who did what to whom, but in the long run the children are the ones who go hungry and wear rags and fail in school and become the burdens and continue the cycle. Men can also choose to say "no" and use contraception, more research can be done on male contraception, men can educate men on these issues, men can teach their sons or other young men how to take care of themselves. It doesn't matter if men do or don't want children - if they engage in sexual relationships, they take that risk and they should take responsibility for it. If they don't want responsibility, then they need to fight for free birth control, better sex education, abortion rights, better social support for single mothers and their children, and they need to be smarter about their own behaviors.

Biology's a bitch...
Posted by: pcushniesr on Aug 1, 2006 6:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...ain't it? Just not fair at all. Illness and age have removed this issue from my personal Book of Things to Worry About and I can't say I miss it.

Re the article specifically, I don't think the authors make a very good case. Guys are just going to have to think before they act and that's all there is to it. I can't come up with a better idea to deal with an inherently unfair situation. I know that passion and thinking are like oil and water, but the thinking CAN be done before the passion boils over, like when you're just getting into your car to meet your date. As for guys who think they've been duped into fatherhood, I think they should have their day in court if they want it, but these things will have to be taken on a case-by-case basis. And lemme tell ya, guys: you're gonna have a tough row to hoe, cuz biology's a bitch.

» RE: Biology's a bitch... Posted by: FauxPorteno
Pro-choice for men too.
Posted by: sunflwrmoonbeam on Aug 1, 2006 6:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What scares me about the argument against men's rights to not be a father is that it uses the exact same rhetoric that anti-choicers employ to diminish women's rights to not be a mother.

"He could have worn a condom."
"He had sex, now he has to deal with the consequences."
"Parenting is the greatest joy we can possibly experience."
"Men have to take responsibility for their actions." etc.

Ideally we would have a society where a single mother could support herself and her children. In fact, I think we do need such a society. But in order to be fair, we have to give men the right to recover from a mistake.

I think that in the case of an unplanned pregnancy the man should have a right to opt out to a certain point. If he signs papers completely ending his rights as a parent by, say, 3 months post partum (at the latest) he should be able to do so. What concerns me more are those fathers who raise the children for awhile, then have a fight with the mother and run out. These are the deadbeat dads who should have their wages garnered in order to support the children they chose to have.

» RE: Pro-choice for men too. Posted by: truegreencore
wah, wah, wah!!!
Posted by: zing on Aug 1, 2006 7:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
well, crybaby, if you don't want to incur the possibility of the responsibilities of fatherhood, get sterilized or don't have sex. my heart bleeds at the thought of men who might have to pay child support. try raising a child.

» RE: wah, wah, wah!!! Posted by: astockton
» RE: wah, wah, wah!!! Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: wah, wah, wah!!! Posted by: astockton
» RE: wah, wah, wah!!! Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: wah, wah, wah!!! Posted by: canadalauren
» RE: wah, wah, wah!!! Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: wah, wah, wah!!! Posted by: zoomorph
» Damned if you do... Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: wah, wah, wah!!! Posted by: Tagahanga
» RE: wah, wah, wah!!! Posted by: Madam Hatter
Male Birth Control - the time has come
Posted by: Violetflame11 on Aug 1, 2006 7:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about a pill for men, or, dare I say the word, Condom?

Money money money
Posted by: lamar on Aug 1, 2006 7:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it disheartening that the issue for men is the "burden of child support" payments. What about having a child, and what about being connected to the mother forever? Money is just that green stuff that's always in short supply. A child, that's something a little more real. I don't want a child, and the money is a side issue.

» RE: Money money money Posted by: Steve_in_NH
» RE: Money money money Posted by: zedaker
» RE: Money money money Posted by: ks
» RE: Money money money Posted by: American Reflections
» RE: Money money money Posted by: sec55
» RE: Money money money Posted by: Steve_in_NH
» RE: Money money money Posted by: VannaLaRoche
How strange they missed the most important issue...
Posted by: canadalauren on Aug 1, 2006 8:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Neither article addressed the real issue when one parent commits to caretaking for children and the other opts out. Growing up in a single family household for many years, I can attest to the issues of money that a single, low-income, minority mother faced. However the most pressing issues were psychological.

My mother needed actual support when she was so stressed from work, school, managing a home, and raising a child with out relief. With no other family available, amazingly a second parent would have been that relief. Parenthood is exhausting work, and money is an amazing help, but it doesn't tackle all or even most issues that actually come up when parenting. Children (like adults) often like to feel loved as well and reducing this argument to money is a shame for childrearing. It shows how western thought is concentrated on financial obligation and legalism and not on more restorative justice practices that would care about harms created in the situation.


. Women have the biological power to bear children or to terminate pregnancies, however they can't force men to parent. They can force men to pay child support or visit, but being a parent involves a commitment, love, joy, and sacrifice and a willingness to actually learn. Wouldn't we all prefer good parents vs. one time child support payments? Biology is unfair, but how we treat children outside the womb is what matters in the long run. Children are not property or collateral, but people with needs, desires, rights, and dreams. I don't have a neat solution, but I would love to see the dialouge transition into one about people, not "choices" and "responsibility". Choice is good, responsibility is good, but ultimately what we do with this power is what matters.

Straw Man
Posted by: benzene on Aug 1, 2006 8:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ma condemns men who "lie, deceive, break their promises, or pull a 180 … who agree to marry but don't," and laments that "millions of women" have been "trapped into single motherhood for life with, often, next to no recourse." Yet according to a randomized study of 46,000 divorce cases published in the American Law and Economics Review, two-thirds of all divorces involving couples with children are initiated by mothers, not fathers, and in only 6 percent of cases did the women claim to be divorcing cruel or abusive husbands.

The quote above illustrates a couple of very classic and widely used ways to make an argument when you don't really have an argument. First, the authors try to make Ma look whiny and unreasonable with the word "laments" and "condemns" in a sort of a glancing ad hominem attack. Then the authors set up a massive straw man and set it afire. By linking single motherhood exclusively with divorce, ignoring all those fathers who never marry their children's mother and simply walk out, they suddenly have statistics that look reasonable but are instead only tangentially related to what Ma orginally wrote. I must give the authors some small and grudging credit for employing fallacious, manipulative, and narrow-minded logic in this manner, but they were also very sloppy about doing it.

Furthermore, a wallet is in no way equal to a womb. A zygote growing within a womb has the potential to endanger a woman's life. Child support doesn't endanger a father's life. Even from that one simple premise, ignoring all the others that exist atop them, it is obvious that wallets and wombs are in no way equivalent.

» RE: Straw Man Posted by: H_H
Men DO Have a Choice
Posted by: Kym525 on Aug 1, 2006 8:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stop thinking with your penises!

There are way too many irresponsible little boys out there whose only claim to the term 'man' is that they have a penis and will use it indiscriminately, regardless of what the potential consequences may be.

It's rather tiresome to hear words like 'slut' and 'hoochie' bandied about when it comes to the sexual behaviour of some women. The last time I checked, it takes two to tango, and if she's a so-called 'slut', what does that make the guy who's stupid enough to have sex with her simply because she may be easily available?

Yes, sex is great and feels good, but the feeling only lasts as long as your orgasm - which for some of you isn't that long at all, hence the need for Viagra.

Bottom line: A RESPONSIBLE man is one who thinks with his brain, not with the appendage between his legs. A RESPONSIBLE man knows how to control his urges, and also knows how to wrap Mr. Happy in a rubber to keep from being a father before he's ready. And a RESPONSIBLE man is willing to be a MAN and step up if something does happen despite all precautions.

Don't worry guys, I'm just as tough on my fellow females too. I'm sick of the whining on both sides.

» RE: Men DO Have a Choice Posted by: FauxPorteno
» RE: Men DO Have a Choice Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: Men DO Have a Choice Posted by: FauxPorteno
um
Posted by: pheenobarbidoll on Aug 1, 2006 9:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"It's wrong to force pregnancy on an unwilling mother; but it's equally wrong to do so to an unwilling father."


How exactly is a PREGNANCY forced onto a father? How can one force a man to get pregnant?

Taking Issue
Posted by: Runicen on Aug 1, 2006 9:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This has doubtless been covered. Perhaps I'm just taking issue with context here.

First, I don't care which side you're on. If the idea is really that insipid, address IT directly, and don't bother pointing out the clumsy arguments of the opposition or calling into question their character. Things are offensive to us because we don't want to or have difficulty in dealing with them head on. What better time to really get in there and grab the proverbial bull by the horns? Let's try to get something accomplished here.

This issue is being blown out of all hellish proportion by both sides, just as severely as the goddamned abortion debate. The toll on both sides (and in both issues) is human - not biological and not economical. Those are elements of the dilemma, NOT the dilemma itself.

A woman has the right or SHOULD have the right to both be a sexual person, take care of herself, and be loved and supported if and when she becomes a mother, whether by accident or design. At the same time, and this is gravely overlooked in more ways that I've got space to address, men shouldn't feel demonized for being equally open with their sexuality and should feel no less an equal part of the "parental unit" when the magic time comes.

This keeps getting broken down to "post-partum," and "birth pains;" or "child support," and "use a damn rubber." These are ALL straw men. Mistakes happen and life happens. It's a little too convenience to reduce this all to contraception as a means to the end rather than an imperfect bandaid on the broken arm.

Even the way in which this argument is being waged is symptomatic of the underlying issue. Women aren't solely deranged and men don't run around looking for women to impregnate and abandon, much as I could easily fill a school bus with examples of either. I'm not going to venture to say when this all came about, but it's our relationships that are broken. It's the way we're raised to expect no real love, all the selfish ulterior motives in the world, and the ultimate lame f***around of relationships, marriage, etc etc etc.

Let me tell you, all the condoms and child support in the world won't do much to address that.

» RE: Taking Issue Posted by: paintthestreets
» RE: Taking Issue Posted by: Runicen
Women are burdened to take preventative steps --- men should be too.
Posted by: Durga_is_my_homey on Aug 1, 2006 9:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For example, this guy in the R V W for men case (please!); I’d have a lot more sympathy for him were he to have worn a condom. Yeah, she was apparently told something regarding a medical condition, but he put the burden completely on her. He didn’t even bother to find out what it was, to see the statistics on how many pregnancies come about anyways. He just did it. Now wants to cry “ENTRAPMENT!!!”? Give me a break. Men are now seeing that they can’t impregnate as many women as they want with out precautionary measures and responsibilities and most are dealing well.

I especially can’t stand the constant banging on about how she didn’t have to take responsibility for something she didn’t expect (“she can/did opt-out“). Um, yes, she did, and she didn‘t “op-out“ and you can never really “opt-out“ of responsibility when you‘re pregnant. She does, in a lot more ways that he will (plus those nine months), in fact for the next 18 years. If she would have had an abortion that is taking responsibility, also. The fetus gestates in the woman and there is nothing a man can do about that. However she isn’t a flower-pot where everything exists in that vacuum of her uterus. Getting an abortion or keeping the baby when it is born isn’t an easy as one-two-three simply because it isn’t something a man can experience and isn’t solely about money. Its more than money.


Sure, men don’t have BC pills. But that’s because historically the burden was placed on women even thought biologically it is something that comes out of a man and happens to a women. When they try to make them they get messages that men fear they’ll lose their virility. It isn’t women’s responsibility to be responsible for what men do or what they fear. If men have a problem with no having BC pills, blame your fathers and their fathers.

the question is: who pays?
Posted by: okcamp on Aug 1, 2006 9:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the unwilling fathers feel they should have the option of opting out of financial responsibilities then who picks up the tab?

Taxpayers.

That is not fair.

» RE: the question is: who pays? Posted by: daniel1982
» Hey dummy.. Posted by: sln70
100% American male - survey of one says,
Posted by: marklar on Aug 1, 2006 10:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A guy's choice ends where his penis does when it involves a woman's right to reproduction. In marriage we sort of hope that whatever happens is an agreed situation, but in the end, if a woman chooses to terminate a prenancy then that's it.

The Law Itself Must Be Changed
Posted by: Againstthewindwalking on Aug 1, 2006 10:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have a friend who's wife cheated on him while he was in Iraq, and concieved a child. When the baby was a year old, he discovered the fact, and took his wife to court to sue for a DNA test. After two years of stall techniques by the mother and her lawyers, he won! The DNA test proved that he was NOT the father! Case closed? End of story? WRONG!!! Under North Carolina law he can still be sued for child support, because in the wording of the law he was the child's "Father of Record" and as such, he may indeed be liable for child support!

Another incedent that was recently in the news was the woman who took the semen from a used condom and used it to impregnate herself! I remember that the judge ruled that the semen had been discarded by the man and the woman could use it for what ever pupose she chose, but if the WOMAN impregnated herself with the semen, wouldn't the WOMAN be the father?

A father cannot demand that a DNA test be given to his baby outside of a court of law, yet when the court finally acts after all the stall techniques of the mother's lawyer have been played out, the man is required to pay for the child, whether it is his or not! In some cases he must then pay for the mother's attorney! EVEN IF THE CHILD IS PROVEN NOT TO BE HIS!!!!

How is it that a woman can be rewarded for comitting fraud, and the law will refuse to do anything about it, and even punish the victim? NOW do you see why men are getting upset?

» RE: The Law Itself Must Be Changed Posted by: FauxPorteno
» The problem is that is a separate issue… Posted by: Durga_is_my_homey
» RE: The Law Itself Must Be Changed Posted by: FauxPorteno
Another point of view
Posted by: Maryanne on Aug 1, 2006 11:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is an alternative to one parent assuming financial responsibility for the child.

A young man we know had an out of wedlock child, and subsequently married the mother. This did not work out. However, because both parents worked, when very young, the child was cared for during the day by paternal (and at times maternal )grandparents, the mother had him all weekdays, and the father all weekends. Older now, the child lives with his father, spends weekends with his mother and weekend evenings with his grandparents. He is loved by all, secure within an extended family, a good student, and a happy boy.

In another instance the parents, divorced, shared custody of their two sons. They chose to live in the same neighborhood, so the children could attend school without disruption and keep their friends and activities. The father had the boys one week, the mother the next. The boys were loved, had close ties with both parents, and have grown up to be fine young men.

In both instances the parents loved their children and cooperated in order to provide the stability and love they needed, with considerable success. And no one paid support to anyone since each supported the children on his/her own when the children were with them. Can be done; has been done. Needed- mature, selfless individuals.

» exactly Posted by: sln70
» RE: Another point of view Posted by: demidesigrrl
» RE: Another point of view Posted by: AnJie
Awwwww
Posted by: Cathryntd on Aug 1, 2006 11:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Number 1 - "It's wrong to force pregnancy on an unwilling mother; but it's equally wrong to do so to an unwilling father" - father's don't get pregnant, so I am not seeing how pregnancy can be forced on one unless there is some new medical break through I am unaware of.

Number 2 - Let's get real people, "men's rights" - are we being serious? Maybe we should start talking about "heterosexual rights" too- everyone good and comfortable with that?

Number 3 - More self-examination, less whining. Do we really think that paying child support is the same thing as raising a child? Do we really think that neglecting to get out a check book is the same thing as going through an abortion or an adoption?

Number 4 - So, boys, how does it feel to not have the physical advantage in one situation? Pretty scary? Kinda like you don't have control?

Number 5 - How does it feel to be made to follow rather than lead?

Number 6 - peace out

» RE: Awwwww Posted by: FauxPorteno
» RE: Awwwww Posted by: Cathryntd
» RE: Awwwww Posted by: zoomorph
» one thing at a time Posted by: sln70
» RE: one thing at a time Posted by: zoomorph
» thank you! Posted by: sln70
» RE: Awwwww Posted by: H_H
» RE: Awwwww Posted by: Durga_is_my_homey
» RE: Awwwww Posted by: ks
He made his choice
Posted by: sassicatz on Aug 1, 2006 11:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
by not using any contraception himself. There's no reason on earth a woman should be the only one responsible for contraception.

Apology on Behalf of all the Little Boys
Posted by: felixcommi on Aug 1, 2006 11:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On behalf of the "Men" on this forum I would like to apologize.

The primary issue here for the men is ensuring that they take the appropriate measures (i.e practise "personal resonsibility") and wear protection to prevent their sperm from inseminating an egg.

It is the male's choice to do this or not. If it fails it is a risk we all know is inherent to the process of intercourse.

From that point on it should be in the woman's hands, unless of course the male agrees to lose the elasticity in his stomach skin causing terrible loss of self-esteem, gain 40 lbs, have his breasts sag to his mid stomach, potentially endure post-partum depression, wake up multiple times in the middle of the night to have his nipple snapped at, go everywehere with one hand on the cryign baby and another ona tote bag full of diapers trying to find the appropriate place to lay down the kid after they shit their pants in that restaurant you love to eat at....which by the way because your partner doesn't financially support your childs expensive expenses, you end up paying for all of this on credit cards as your indebtedness and impoverishment spiral out of control....

you want equality....i dont think you apes could handle equality....

once again, on behalf of males everywhere im extremely sorry...and don't bullshit yourselves that if us men got pregnant we wouldnt abort the majority of conceived pre-humans .... (for more on the idea of pre-humans, see genesis 2:7)

Do you really believe we would compromise our career mobility... success in capitalist workplace demands that you be competitively punctual, commitmed, and flexible... believe me i have two older sisters who can attest to the fact that child care arrangements and constant childrens illnesses hinder these very basic components of success in our backwards economy...

» You tell 'em Jack . . . Posted by: FauxPorteno
» excellent comment! Posted by: sln70
Men HAVE NO CHOICE in a situation like this!
Posted by: Againstthewindwalking on Aug 1, 2006 12:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They can either shut the hell up and pay the child support, or they can take it to court and wind up having to pay the child support anyway!

I have another friend who took custody of his five year old son, about a year ago, because the mother decided she no longer wanted the responsibility. In the four years after the divorce, he never missed a payment, or a visit.

He found out that even though he had custody of the child, child support was still being taken out of his check! Here is his story!

He tried to take his ex-wife to court for this to get his money back (which he needd to raise his son), and discovered that he would have to sue Social Services itself, as that it had taken the money in the first place. After he filed suit, Social Services made him their foremost project!

They investigated the child's school, daycare, church and home looking for something ANYTHING to break up this happy home. When they discovered they couldn't do it that way, they started with the stall tacticts and settlement offers, thinly vieled threats, and harrasment tacticts. ALL THE WHILE TAKING THE SAME $150.00 A WEEK OUT OF HIS PAYCHECK!!!

When it finally DID make it to court, Social Services said that if the mother (their co-defendant), had to pay back the money, it would "cause unfair hardships" Fortunatly the judge in this action, immediatly gave the father all his money back along with a some interest. End of story? NO!!! The mother got together with some Mad Mother's group and are trying to reverse this decision! And worse of all $150.00 A WEEK IS STILL BEING TAKEN OUT OF HIS PACHECK!!!!!! It seems since the case is under review, he still has to pay child support even though he has the child and has for 28 months by now, supported it!!

So you tell me how this has nothing to do with father's rights! FATHERS HAVE NO RIGHTS!!!!!!!

» RE: This was supposed to go under my first post Posted by: Againstthewindwalking
He made his choice when...
Posted by: freeda'all on Aug 1, 2006 12:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...he chose to have unprotected sex. Period. If you don't want a baby then make sure to keep your semen to yourself. Also, why aren't more men supporting women's rights to abortion instead of whining about getting caught up in an unplanned pregnancy?

A FATHER HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW
Posted by: billjv on Aug 1, 2006 12:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have read with interest some of the comments posted. I have personally had an experience which I feel needs more attention regarding father's rights. When I was 18, I had a brief dating relationship with a girl, and we had relations during that time. We stopped seeing each other after about a two month period, (never engaged or married) and at that time I left to pursue a job that left me on the road for a year. Although she had every means to contact me, she did not. Finally, almost four years after that, she contacts me to tell me I have a three-year old child with her. By this time I was in college, just engaged to another woman, and this completely threw my life into a spin. That was almost 20 years ago now, but the one thing that I always said and felt about this matter is that THE FATHER HAS A TIMELY RIGHT TO KNOW IF A BABY IS BORN THAT IS LEGALLY HIS. This is not a trivial oversight - this is something that affected my life significantly, and I feel a father has a right to know that they have a child in this world, and not when the child is already 3 years old, or however old. The father may resent or be upset by getting the info, but believe me, he will be more upset if years go by without knowing and then being hit up for a large back support judgement and current payments as well!

Obviously this poses problems for mothers who for either selfish reasons, reasons of promiscuity, or for reasons of safety (i.e. they were raped). But, because the father is legally liable to pay child support and can be sued for back support as well even after a child is grown, I firmly believe that fathers do have a right to know if a baby is brought to term, and notified in a reasonable (30 - 90 days) time frame after delivery. For some mothers to just reappear in the man's life after years of not communicating and hit them with a lawsuit that claims thousands of dollars owed, along with the IRS withholding refunds etc. until back support is paid, is just insane. To do so is completely unfair to the father. If the father is not exactly known (i.e. multiple male partners in that timeframe) then paternity test papers should be served for the men in question, just as they would be if a crime had been commited. Yes, this is intrusive to the men who are "not guilty" but not nearly as intrusive as a woman coming back years later after the man has completely moved on, with no knowledge of a child.

My personal feeling is that if a woman decides for years not to tell the father of that child that he is the father, that she has (by not notifying him via some type of registered document) taken responsibility for the child herself, and that she has chosen to absolve the father of financial responsibility for that child. To come back years later to claim his money/support and huge back judgements is not at all fair to the father. If the location of the father is not known, then the child support services people should step in to locate the father, just as they do when a father is delinquent in child support payments.

Women need to be held accountable for their actions as well as the men. Yes, it would be a real nightmare for some men who have casual affairs to get a piece of paper asking for a paternity test. Yes, it could ruin "happy marriages" or relationships if all of the sudden such a request is received. But the alternative is for the father to have a child in this world whom he is not aware of, and that is truly not fair to the father or the child. If safety or security is an issue, then child support services and the law should intervene and protect the mother and child. But still, a father DOES have a right to know, and in a timely manner.

Everyone has responsibility
Posted by: Joycelyn on Aug 1, 2006 12:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women and men both have the ability and the responsibility to practice birth control. She can claim to be taking a pill she is throwing away; he can poke holes in his condom. Protecting yourself should be accepted as necessary.

The fact is that none of us thinks that babies are found under the cabbages. We all know that sex can lead to babies, and we all know that sometimes birth control fails. My niece had her tubes tied, and two years later got pregnant. I've heard of men who had vasectomies impregnating women and DNA tests proving that it was, indeed, his child. Any time I have sex, a child may result. If I'm not willing to take responsibility for that, I need to not involve a partner.

Babies need both parents and they need financial support. If men aren't ready for that possibility with this woman, they need to stay out of her bed.

» RE: veryone has responsibility Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: veryone has responsibility Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: veryone has responsibility Posted by: sweetlou
A good point
Posted by: Entheogenic on Aug 1, 2006 2:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd like to reiterate a good point that another commenter made: does anyone see that eerie parallels between the "men should have no child decision rights" arguments and the "women should have no child decision rights" arguments? Dozens of commentators have now said things like "He had the choice to use birth control" or "He had sex and now he just wants to not deal with the consequences." Don't you see that this is EXACTLY the argument that the right uses to justify anti-abortion positions?

Men should have rights too, and they shouldn't be held solely responsible for an unwanted pregnency. In the case being discussed, I believe that the court decision was a wrong one. Whether the woman lied or not, she told him that (a) she could not get pregnent and (b) even if she did, she didn't want the kid. So they have sex and, lo and behold, she gets pregnent. Then she decides she wants to keep the kid, and that the dad has to pay for it. Does this seem unfair to anyone else?

People say "oh, well he should have worn a condom anyway." That's ridiculous. If your partner tells you that they medically CAN NOT get pregnent and you're in a trusting, monogomous relationship, why the HELL would you continue to use a condom? That's expecting a ridiculous degree of caution that no reasonable person would take.

The bottom line is that, in this arena, women have all the say and men have none. This is just as ridiculous as requiring the man's permission for the woman to get an abortion. If she can end her responsibility, so can he.

» what a clear misogynist. Posted by: sln70
» RE: what a clear misogynist. Posted by: FauxPorteno
» I'm not taking your bait Posted by: sln70
» RE: A good point Posted by: Eithne
1300/month? No way
Posted by: donnaj on Aug 1, 2006 3:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no way a low income dad pays 1300/month. My ex paid all of anywhere from 113 to 300/month depending on his income at the time. The most he EVER paid was 300/month and that wasn't for very long.

Then you have the child support agencies siding with the man making comments to women when they don't get their support like, well, you got some sort of payment this month, that's better than a lot of women get. They then use that as an excuse not to do anything about the rest of the payment that's missing. I remember getting all of $25 one month and that's the answer I got. And at the time he was supposed to pay 113. Not really all that much at all.

» RE: 1300/month? No way Posted by: mizkaye
» RE: 1300/month? No way Posted by: donnaj
» RE: 1300/month? No way Posted by: Madam Hatter
» RE: 1300/month? No way Posted by: donnaj
» RE: 1300/month? No way Posted by: heatherj
» RE: 1300/month? No way Posted by: donnaj
I sure am glad I'm gay
Posted by: wallart2006 on Aug 1, 2006 3:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems we homosexuals have a lot less to worry about in this area than hetrosexuals. Although homosexuals have children, too, we don't have nearly as many "accidents."

I don't know . . . . Maybe if they thought about how homosexuals go about having children, heterosexuals wouldn't get into these predicaments so often. But, then, just thinking at all would solve a lot of these problems.

Don't get me wrong. Homosexual couples break up probably just as frequently as heterosexual couples. I'm just saying that children are not accidental to us. And, when we do have children, we don't have the law or society to protect our rights as parents.

For homosexuals to adopt or foster, for example, we are probed and prodded by whichever government agencies feel they like to do such things. Maybe we'll get permission; maybe we won't. Then, we have the honor of paying for the baby! Then we have to consider all the obstacles society throws in our path of parenthood once we are raising the child -- including having the child taken away for reasons other than poor parenting.

Homosexuals take the possiblity of child-rearing, I daresay, slightly more seriously the hetersexuals, on average.

The more I hear about parents who use their children as weapons, the more I am happy to be completely disassociated from raising children, either mine or those of others. The chances of having my life ruined by some vindictive parent are just too great.

Here's my bottom line for the heterosexuals. Just like the homosexuals, everybody starts off without permission to procreate. Then, once they have met the official requirements (and only as long as they continue to do so), they will be given a license to procreate and be parents.

Sounds like sour grapes? Perhaps. But, it makes sense, too.

» RE: I sure am glad I'm gay Posted by: morticia
» RE: I sure am glad I'm gay Posted by: neogaia
» RE: Me, too Posted by: Domokun
» RE: I sure am glad I'm gay Posted by: demidesigrrl
I offer a solution to the problem of financial liability
Posted by: anethead on Aug 1, 2006 5:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need to get beyond the red herring argument of who is responsible for birth control and deal with the reality of what should be done once conception has occurred. We all know the heat of passion is not a clear thinking time even for the most rational humans, people lie to and mislead each other all the time when sex is involved, birth control often fails to be 100% effective regardless of who is responsible for it and, quite simply, mistakes happen even in the best of circumstances.

I offer, what I think is, an outline for a rather simple solution to the problem of who is financially liable for children once they are conceived. If the two parties are not married and, thus, already legally bound to financially support the child, the two parties involved could file a notarized statement with the courts as to whether they want to have the child or not knowing and, therefore, assuming all the legal and financial responsibilities of raising that child. If they both wish to go forward, there is no problem and paperwork is already on file from both parties accepting legal and financial responsibility for the child. If one party wants to have the baby and the other doesn’t, the baby must be carried to term and the one who wants it must assume all legal and financial responsibilities of the pregnancy and for raising the child once it is born. The other party is released from any and all legal and financial responsibility for the pregnancy and the raising of the child. If neither party wants it, a negotiated settlement must be made between the two parties to terminate the pregnancy or hand the child over for adoption. If the decision is made to terminate, the two parties split responsibility for the costs involved, including any post operation medical expenses and psychological counseling fees, for up to a year after. In the case of any personal adoption set up by either of the two parties, the entities(s) doing the adopting assume all legal and financial responsibilities from that point forward. If State adoption is the preferred choice, the case is turned over to the State, the child becomes a ward of the State and the State assumes all legal and financial responsibilities from that point forward.

For the record, I do believe that whether or not to terminate a pregnancy should be a personal choice. Therefore, such a solution would never force a woman to terminate a pregnancy against her will. At the same time, though, the choice is not hers alone. If the man is equally involved in the legal and financial responsibility of raising a child, then the man must be equally involved in making the choice. Thus, the woman would not be able to terminate a pregnancy against the will of the man if the man wants the child and is willing to assume all legal and financial responsibility for that child. I acknowledge, therefore, that such a solution as I offer allows for cases where a woman might be required to carry a baby to term that she doesn’t want. At the point of birth, though, she can give the child to the man and her responsibility in the matter would be over. If a woman chooses to go forward with a pregnancy despite having no commitment of legal and financial responsibility from the man, she assumes all legal and financial responsibilities herself. She cannot force a man to financially support a child he does not choose to have.

I know this sounds unbelievably simplistic and there are a lot of details that would need to be hammered out about how, precisely, such contractual agreements would be executed in reality, such as how to handle any number of mitigating circumstances such as rape and incest. However, I think there is a workable outline here that seems pretty fair. It levels the playing field as much as possible given the, as yet, unchangeable biological realities we have to deal with and would go a long way towards solving a hugely controversial problem.

We don't really know what happened here do we?
Posted by: mizkaye on Aug 1, 2006 6:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem with this whole discussion is that each and every pregnancy happens for different reasons and everybody responds differently in those situations. We don't really know for sure what happened with these people. I will say this...he didn't want kids, he should have worn a condom. I don't want to die in a car crash so I wear a seat belt instead of hoping that the other people on the road are safe drivers...which if I asked them they would probably insist they were...but I still wear my seat belt. Now, as to the woman...her doc may have told her she was infertile. Mine certainly told me 6yrs ago that I couldn't have anymore children and I just welcomed my 3 month old daughter into the world...so, docs aren't perfect as we know. Why was she on the pill if she was infertile? This seems to be a big question and some are taking it as proof that she lied. But, that's not necessarily so. There is a condition called PCOS...PolyCystic Ovarian Syndrome. It can cause infertility...at the very least it can make getting pregnant very difficult. It also causes abnormal bleeding and very painful menstrual cramps. Birth control pills are often prescribed to ease those symptoms. Someone else mentioned earlier that BC pills are often prescribed for other things besides birth control...so for all we know, she could have most likely been telling the truth. Now, for all we also know, after being told she couldn't have children and then subsequently getting pregnant, she might have seen this as her only chance to have a baby and so she took it. Her other alternative maybe being no baby...ever...who knows if she could get pregnant again.


There are women who trap men...there are men who lie and abandon women. There are women who use their children as pawns and the fathers suffer...there are men who are scum and could care less what happens to their offspring. There are women who trust in their partners only to be betrayed and left in poverty...there are women who take the money intended to support the child and get their nails done. There are men who stay and men who leave and women who fight back and women who just say to hell with it and work 3 jobs rather than deal with that asshole for the next 18yrs (I fall into this category myself). The point is...we don't know who's who until it's to late and we can't go lumping everybody into the same category.

One thing that bothers me is this...if we allow men to 'opt out' of fatherhood how many men who would have normally stayed, and or paid child support will see that as their escape hatch? And doesn't that kind of give them the freedom to not worry about birth control at all? After all, they can always 'opt out', right? How many men would rush to the court house to get out of their child support agreements they have been in for years by claiming 'I never really wanted this'? As for the woman having all the choices, it's much easier to find a lawyer and a courthouse than it is an abortion clinic these days. Women's choices are slowly being chipped away at...some states are down to their last abortion clinic but every county has a courthouse. Some docs and pharmacists are refusing to fill birth control and morning after prescriptions...but you can buy condoms in bathroom vending machines all over the place. A man will never lose up to a year of income due to childbirth like a woman will...but she has no safety net to help her since social services are also dwindling away. Come on guys...you gotta see how much tougher it is for a woman. Can you really NOT understand...I mean, honestly?

the women's rights at issue here are NOT financial
Posted by: brachiator on Aug 1, 2006 6:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The critical point is obscured by Sacks's argument.

A woman's right to an abortion is corollary to her right to control what goes on in her own body and with her own reproductive system. The right is not based on any entitlement to accept or escape financial obligations. (The fact that some women sometimes exercise the right for financial reasons, such as being unable to support a child, is irrelevant.)

Men have no parallel rights because pregnancy does not affect their bodies or impinge on their reproductive systems. Men may have no way to escape the financial obligations of a child, but that's an entirely separate discussion.

And it should be framed as entirely separate so that it looks as pathetic as it is. The struggle for abortion rights is about the struggle for women to control their own bodies, and not be turned into breeding sows. Men who don't want to support their kids shouldn't be allowed to cloak themselves in the same nobility.

Children have the right to be taken care of
Posted by: neogaia on Aug 1, 2006 10:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was concieved from unprotected make-up sex. My father has not paid a cent of child support. And I am 17. I live in poverty. My mother and I would be on the street homeless or living in dangerous public housing if my grandma and family had not helped my mother out.

So you guys think that my father had every right to never give me a cent? Do you think that Mother Teresa's father had every right to not pay for her? That Martin Luther King's father had every right not to pay for him? That Gandhi's father had ever right not to provide for them?

BTW I am going to one of the top 3 high schools in the country on a full-scholarship. I am going to go to a very competetive college such as MIT or Berkley. You think I have less rights than those children with two parents? And that one of my parents shouldn't have to pay for a damn thing?

If men's rights activists get what they want then promiscuity(doesn't really exist btw its a concept created by control freaks to regulate everybody's sex lives) is going to increase exponentially and tons of men will forego having to pay for their children and we will have lots of poor children.

Why are some white males not content with white male privilege? (There are tons of great men out there but you guys do have an advantage and its funny that some guys want even more of an advantage)

As a man, I'd just like to say...
Posted by: kwalla on Aug 1, 2006 10:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that this piece is full of shit.

» Amen! Posted by: sirossisofliver
Pre-Coital understandings / contracts
Posted by: aouie01 on Aug 2, 2006 2:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All understanding/s or contract/s referred to in this post is with reference to cross gendered human couples whose activities could result in pregnancies. I have known of more than one cross gendered sexual relationship where the rythm method was used and the understanding amongst the couples was that if there was an accidental pregnancy there would be no abortion as per the wishes of the females in those relationships (and it was understood that both parties would try to be emotionally and financially involved with the offspring). By default, the current laws in USA will serve to protect that understanding.
In the hypothetical case where both members had an understanding that accidental pregnancies would result in an abortion and hence not subject either party to the emotional / financial burdens of raising one or more children then that understanding should be valued. In the hypothetical case where both members of a cross gendered couple desired and agreed to not have an abortion in case of a pregnancy then that understanding should also be valued. Ideally there would be something similar to pre-nuptials that could protect the couple's understandings (say pre-coital contracts).
It is always possible that the parties may change their wishes after an actual pregnancy. They ought be subject to the terms of the understandings / contracts to the extent reasonable. In a society where a soldier is forced to risk the soldier's life or face imprisonment, adult film actors (in a gender neutral sense) are forced to carry out their contracts or face civil penalties, it seems like at least a civil penalty for violating the understanding / contract ought to be considered. I personally feel that a genuine unanticipated change in a female from planning on aborting to not aborting should basically render the male not financially liable but not be entitled to compensation for the emotional burden that the male may be subject to. If the female who agreed to not abort has a change of mind and aborts without the conset of the male then (presuming no strong reasons) the female should be subject to civil penalties as per the understanding / contract.

If it can be determined that the female's change of mind was whimsical then a criminal charge may also be in order since the emotional damage to the male could potentially be much greater than most physical injuries that people get convicted for on assault / battery charges. I understand that this view point may seem threatening to some females, but try to understand the viewpoint well. Imagine how one would feel if the person's child was killed because someone refused to follow up on doing something that was agreed to and was essential to saving the child. Imagine that a C-section operation was necessary to save the life of a fetus that the parents cared about, but the doctor whimsically decided that since the female's life was not at risk and the fetus didn't really matter a long sought after weekend getaway was in order. Should the doctor not be held criminally responsible for the death of the fetus (presume the pregnant female's life was never at risk (use your imagination hint- partially experienced nurse was at the hospital)). I know that a weekend is not the same as nine months and in most cases the change of mind of the pregnant female is unlikely to be whimsical, but there probably are cases in which females change their mind to hurt the males.
Please think and reply intelligently if you choose to reply. It will help keep alternet.org forums better off than some of the other liberal / conservative / regular (as opposed to alternate) forums on the net.
Sincerely,
Aouie

The Final Solution to this Issue
Posted by: Issues on Aug 2, 2006 10:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everyone seems to look at this issue from one view point, the mother wants to keep the child and the father doesn’t. But what happens if the father wants to keep the child and the mother doesn’t? Does the father have any rights in this case? Is he allowed to force the mother to go through with the pregnancy?

Even the subject line to this article suggests not, “It's wrong to force pregnancy on an unwilling mother…” But why can’t he force her to keep the child? I know the classic response to this question, “It’s a woman’s body, so she should have the right to choose.” And I agree, in most cases. But I also know the argument that is usually used against the male in this case, “He-she has to take responsibility for his-her own actions” (e.g. Child support payments). So then, why doesn’t the woman have to take responsibility for her own actions as well?

When two people choose to have sex, it shouldn’t be just the man who has to pause and think, “Jee, if something goes wrong here (e.g. broken condom, etc.), I may have to raise a child or pay child support.” The woman should also be thinking, “Jee, if I get pregnant, this guy may want to keep this child (even if I don’t) so I might be forced into having this baby, and I need to be ready to go through with the pregnancy.”

But it doesn’t work that way, the woman doesn’t have to think in those terms, because she knows that if a pregnancy results she has the option to abort the child regardless of what the father would prefer. So isn’t the mother basically not taking responsibility for her own actions (If you didn’t want to get pregnant, don’t have sex argument)?

If you choose to have sex and a pregnancy results, and one of the people want to keep it, then the baby should not be aborted. Only if both mother AND father consent to having an abortion should it be legal. I can’t see how this isn’t fair.

The only other issue that may arise from the female perspective is that if the father chooses to keep it and the mother wants to abort it, then the mother still has to deal with the consequences and pain of pregnancy. But if the mother wants it and the father doesn’t, then the father suffers no pain from the pregnancy. And I agree, this is unfair.

There are a few responses to this issue. The more callus one being, “Biology’s a Bitch” as was stated earlier in a reply to this article. In this case it works against the mother, basically saying that humans can’t control which partner gets pregnant; that is up to nature. So the mother gets stuck with the pain of pregnancy. But there isn’t anything fathers can do about that issue.

I’m not that callus though. I say if the father wants to keep the child but the mother doesn’t, she should be required to go through with the pregnancy. But in return for the suffering she will go through because of nature’s choice to have the mother get pregnant, the father should be required to compensate the mother a certain sum of money, like a pain and suffering judgment in a civil case. How much money should she get? Well, that is a totally different argument that I won’t even attempt at this time, but I’m sure a figure could be created that would seem reasonable to both parties in the case.

Finally, this argument is based on the assumption that it was not rape or incest or any other extraordinary event. Sex is assumed to be had between two people who are consenting and are well aware of the consequences of their actions. So please do not state one exception and assume that it overrides the whole argument. On the whole this argument is fair to both parties and I believe resolves this issue once and for all.

Re: Re: Taking Issue
Posted by: Runicen on Aug 2, 2006 10:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sometimes that's half the trick: throwing something out and seeing if anybody bites. At the same time, you need to divorce yourself from the need for universal acceptance... Or even partial acceptance depending on the oddity of your point of view.

Thank you for the response though - I may be working on divorcing myself from a NEED for it, but feedback is always well liked. =)

bouvherd
Posted by: Bouvherd on Aug 2, 2006 5:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As near as I can see in this particular case is ---- even if the partner assures you that she cannot get preggo.... Do NOT under any conditions trust her.... She may be lying!

» RE: bouvherd Posted by: donnaj
SO YOU ALL ARE IGNORING THE OBVIOUS-----
Posted by: SALLY EVANS on Aug 2, 2006 9:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many in this generation are ignoring the time worn facts. If you break the law, it's like robbing a bank, you go to jail! A few years back there was an old song that said, LOVE AND MARRIAGE, GO TOGETHER LIKE A HORSE AND CARRIAGE; YOU CAN'T HAVE ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER. It's so elementary yet so many of you are in a quandary trying to avoid blame. When you try to beat the system, you pay and pay and pay! IT'S TIME TO THINK AND ACT LIKE ADULTS! FOR GOD'S SAKE, GROW UP!

Words from the "Fathers Rights" Movement
Posted by: Phantomfather on Aug 3, 2006 2:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've read nearly every post on this string and have had one of best times doing so. So many opinions and so much passion! As some one who has been a part of the "Fathers Rights" Movement for 15 years now, I've seen the tide rise and fall for "equality". I've watched the feminists scream for blood and I've fought against it. I've watched the "deadbeats" get away with far too much also and have fought against them too. In the matter of Mr. Dubay, he is not supported by many in the "Fathers Rights" movement. He is seen as "opportunist" at best, but as the article points out, he does raise serious questions as to the true unfairness of the whole issue.

First, to all the woman who have posted the saying "be a man!" or something sounding like it. Please stop now! What would you know about being a man? You have never been a man, you don't know what it is to experience life as one so don't make a determination as to what it takes to be one. I have yet to hear any man post anything equaling "BE A WOMAN, carry the pregnancy to term!"..That sounds foolish and so do you. I and many millions of men don't have a clue what it is to be a woman and we don't run around trying to tell you how to be one.

2nd, Emotion is driving this debate harder than anything. Whether it be for the "right to choose" or the "right to be a parent". No one is willing to back down and so no solution will be good enough. I see you have argued the point of "abortion on demand", "the toil of child bearing", "the woman's health is in danger" and on and on. These are all admirable things to fight for, but put it in the right perspective, these are WOMEN'S ISSUES! "Opting out" of being a parent is a "Parental Rights" issue...its time to seperate the 2. Tying the 2 together has been the hammer that many have used to beat their opposition down. Not this Father, I swing a big hammer too. Once we seperate the 2 and examine them for what they truly are, you'll find many of you don't have much to stand on or swing with.

I agree that it is a woman's body, there for it is hers to choose, but remember she chose to USE IT as a vessel of pleasure, whether for his pleasure or her own, so there is choice number one. Of course, if it were not her choice then it would be forced, hence we have rape. I haven't heard of mass raping across America, have you? (except from the Ultra-Neo Feminists..you know who you are...). Now does this solely place the responsibility on the woman, HELL NO! Guys, we have to be ready and willing to crack open the wrapper for God and Country and her ultimate pleasure too! Remember God? He's the one we all call on from time to time in that moment of orgasm...yeah you remember..... anyhoo... or swallow a pill or something along those lines. So now we have that immortal moment of "Biology is a Bitch!". Except now once the conception happens, it is "property". Sounds kinda frightening doesn't it? So all of you go off in a tangent about "the toils of child bearing, all the months spent in sooooo much agony". I'm hearing victimhood early! Starting to sound like a horse race yet! Who can cry first?

Where Mr. Dubay has it wrong is trying to walk away after the long or short trip down the birth canal of his little girl has been accomplished. Now we have another life in front of us. Helpless and weak, much like many of the arguements I've read in this string. "Its the child, Stupid"! But here is where we get off track further. A few of you have tried to make the arguement that as the "bearer" of the child...you are owed something. You couldn't be farther from the truth....it is you that owe something. You owe it to that child to create the best life you can for him/her. You owe it to them to have some kind of amicable relationship with the other 50% of the DNA partner you shared in a moment of "worship" ( I use that loosely...refer back to the God part). This blade cuts both ways, remember this fellas.

» Finish what I started Posted by: Phantomfather
» RE: Finish what I started Posted by: kit79
» Jane, you ignorant slut.... Posted by: Madam Hatter
» You bore me... Posted by: Phantomfather
» RE: Jane, you ignorant slut.... Posted by: Phantomfather
Rights
Posted by: kit79 on Aug 3, 2006 3:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women are always going ot have more reproductive options because we have the babies, that's just biology. Pregnancy can even be life-threatening. Reproduction will always be more centered around us. If only both genders could have the babies . . .

How easy/hard is it to get pregnant though? There's the pill and similar methods, there's condoms, there's some truth to the fact that we could learn from the gay/bi community about non-penetrative sex (it's all about the clitoris anyway), there's morning after pills (well, in theory), and as a last resort, there's abortion and adoption. It seems like it'd be really hard to get pregnant. I'm not a mom and I've never been pregnant, so I don't have this particular experience. But there's also spur of the moment sex and not-so-smart decisions.

Men have only got condoms or abstinance for birth control. Maybe the answer is to make more advances there to put men on equal footing. No relying on women's birth control, no excuses. Everyone responsible for themselves. Are men interested in more birth control options for themselves? That responsibility is usually pushed more on the women? Do men want to run around gorging in the joys of sex without having to think about birth control (and who wouldn't?), going to the doctor regularly, taking pills every day, filling a perscription, relying mostly instead on women's pills for the couple's protection and allow a few good guys to be taken advantage of? I'd like to see more advances in male birth control. Let them control what their sperm does the way we control our own uteruses. Clearly abstinance doesn't work for either gender, so "pay or abstain" seems unrealistic.

For women, there are women who get pregnant on purpose, for a variety of reasons, and the only reason one should get pregnant is because they want a child. As long as we're taught that men are providers and women are caretakers, we're going to have this problem. Every woman needs to be expected to work and provide for herself. Using men for child support instead of going out and making your own money is an ugly side-effect of sexism - men belong at work and women belong in the home. We still live in a society where we think it's ok for a woman to be financially depedant on a man. That's a big part of the problem.

Couples should be able to draw-up contracts for the event of unplanned pregnancy, but we need more advances in male birth control. Accept that reality that people have sex and men don't like condoms give men similar control OVER THIER OWN bodies as to what women have, and get women up and working and supporting themselves. When much of the responsibility for birth control was shoulder on us, most of the power went to us as well. We've got to level that out in a way that's going to work realistically, BEFORe a child comes along how has to suffer for their parents' actions.

Ahh. Another joy of being a gay man...
Posted by: holt9106 on Aug 3, 2006 3:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having to never think about any of these issues. ;-)

The Vaginal Payraise
Posted by: Jersey Devil on Aug 3, 2006 5:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If only we could count the number of women who see financial gain by seducing a man into having intercourse with the premeditated intent of reaping a windfall of revenue. How is it we have no birth control pill for men? The time will come when young men visit sperm banks before having their vasectomy in order to avoid seduction into decades of blackmail aka child support.

» hey, dude Posted by: kit79
» RE: The Vaginal Payraise Posted by: donnaj
I Promise No Over The Top (not so) Humorous Jack Nicholson Rip-Offs!
Posted by: felixcommi on Aug 4, 2006 7:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I made remarks that offended some people, mainly calling several of the men on this board "apes" "alpha male apes" etc...

I apologize for denigrating you folks and your positions. I have been strugglign with civility int his debate because there has been a total failure on the part of all of the people on this post that have penises to understand that

1) opting out of financial/parental care for your child is both neglectful and selfish, in that a single mother will be burdened with an unfairly disproportionate share of the financial, emotional, and physical burdens...

2) also, men having a "choice" and "rights" in whether a women who promises to abort an unwanted fetus actually does this is far too absurd and frightening a notion... if the women changes her mind abd decides to have the baby, does the actualization of your male "choice" and newfoudn agency and rights in this matter imply nothing else than coercive or forced abortions... if she wants the bay how else would you make that abortion happen...

I just feel extremely concerned that in this 21st century we still have this pervasive male mentalityt hat women are ours to control and that we should accept no responsibility, even if "duped," for engaging in sexual conduct we know could turn our worlds upside down ...

From that position I berated others with condescending remarks and taunts and jeers and I apologize ...I just wish that we (men) coudl all see that we have no way in this real world of determinign what a women will do with her body after conception, and that as mutually risk taking entities in sexual escapades, both parties will be responsible for any potnetial children.

Even if you are "duped" you would never in a million years want to live like the single mother that "duped" you... I personally would never trade my white, male, middle class privilege for that overwhelming duty...

I stunned I'm agreeing with Glenn Sacks, but....
Posted by: DaBear on Aug 4, 2006 9:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
at least his arguments, unlike Kai Ma's which was rife with logic errors, are rational and reasonable.

In light of the baseless, moralistic, perverse responses to Glenn's counterpoint, I still say the simplest thing in a grossly overpopulated world is to just get the damned vasectomy! The moralist man-haters can keep finding moralistic nonsense to obfuscate reasonable arguments, but at least it won't be at the expense of the planet or men's consciences and earning power. Hell, women might even find themselves in a better position politically and economically without Kai Ma's burdens-of-womb. It's a harder sell against equality when the field is leveled once "nature" is out of the way.

» Permanence Posted by: YogiBear
Men have 2 opportunities to say "No" to children
Posted by: noden on Aug 6, 2006 1:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author stated that men have no choice when to create a child when he said, "...the current regime, which provides women with a variety of choices and men with none, is also flawed."

Me thinks guys give up their own power far too easily. Guys actually have two chances to say "No" and not bring life into the world. They can say "No" to sex. And they can say "No" to trusting women, God and the pharmaceutical pill that is not 100% effective-- by merely wearing a condom (which is not 100% effective either....which brings us back to choice #1.)

And by the way, answering "Yes" to either choices then complaining later, just makes those men look like little boys.

That is not the Issue.
Posted by: mortalez on Aug 7, 2006 8:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I for one do not want a woman to loose her right to choose, but I do not feel its right for the man to loose said right either.
BOTH parties should have euqual rights in this matter, you cant force a woman to be a mother, and it is also wrong to force a man to be a father, while it is true that a man can choose not to have sex with said woman it is also the same the other way(woman can keep her legs closed).
The exeption should only apply in the case of rape,stautory or otherwise(since in those cases the woman had no legal choice about having sex and producing said baby).
But I digress, we are not talking about rights before conception we are talking about rights after the deed is done.
In the current legal climate after conception all rights seem to fall on the woman, and thats ok but a man should not be forced to deal with the post conception choices of the woman.
If she wants the baby and he does not then the baby is HER responcebility, and father has no say in the upbringing of the child, no visitation rights etc etc......
And if the man does want to be the father all things mentioned above come with it.
Right now in my state if a woman has a baby she can drop it off at a police dept., fire dept or emergancy room no questions asked(by state law) but a man has no such luxaries for forgoing responcebility now how is that fair?
Yes I know life is not fair but our laws should be.
I welcom responces to this thread but please limet them to post conception issues that is the subject after all.
I would also like you all to take part in my pole at:
City of Shadow

MAD John
Posted by: MAD John on Aug 7, 2006 6:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
SEX IS NOT A CONTRACT.
By John Buethe.
Director of M.A.D. MEN UNITED
(Men Against Discrimination)
www.madmenunited.org

Sex is not a contract:

Sexual intercourse is not a contract to be a parent:
The sexual act is not a contract. A man can’t force a woman to have a child if she becomes pregnant, nor can he insist that she keep and raise the child with or without his involvement. So a woman can’t morally or legally force a man into parenthood or financial liability if she decides to have a child resulting from a sexual encounter.

Fem sole:
There is a legal consideration called fem sole, which establishes that women are entitled to contract for themselves as individuals. If a woman wants to be a single mother that should be her individual choice. It should also be her individual obligation or liability if she hasn’t got a husband, mate, or partner willing to be an involved parent.

Child Support is a forced liability and illegal contract.
Consensual sex is not uncommon or extraordinary; it is not an agreement or contract to become a parent or to financially support a child. Men want responsibility not liability. They want the same or equivalent choices to protect their parental rights and reproductive futures. They have a right to be a dad under their own terms and to not be forced into parental liability because of someone else’s desire to be a single parent.

To establish an obligation rewarding women who become pregnant with the financial resources from a man or sperm donor who had no intention of becoming a father is not only immoral but also illegal. True responsibility would be to give men the same or equivalent choices as those extended to women including the right to contract for himself.

The right to be a dad.
Men deserve the right to be a dad on their own terms and at a time of their own choosing and based on marriage or another expressed contract with the woman or mother involved. Children need parents including their fathers. The only way to make this a reality is to protect the parental rights and choices of both parents. We cannot expect a system that rewards illegitimacy with financial entitlements to care or support the concept that children need both parents.

Sperm donors or fathers?
Men want the right to enter into parenthood as committed fathers and not sperm donors.
We have a situation where men are trying to protect their parental rights and their ability to make responsible choices. They are trying to protect what they consider to be their God given rights to self-determination. Is this really too much to ask?

» RE: MAD John Posted by: Madam Hatter
concernedDad
Posted by: concernedDad on Aug 7, 2006 8:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Way to go Jeff and Glenn! It's great to hear someone recognizing that men deserve a say in the birth equation too. It's amazing how the constitution seems to apply until the gender is established as male in a family court. Father's rights movement is now the biggest supporter for the ERA and amazingly the NOW seems to have backed away from it. Why should NOW push the ERA anymore when women right now have all the say in matters that are most important - family. Hopefully the clear anti-male anti-father discrimination will go away someday. In the meantime, I can be thankful for this great article!

concernedDad
Posted by: concernedDad on Aug 7, 2006 8:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On a more personal note, while I am not even a believer in god, I find the whole question of abortion entirely sad. There's nothing honerable aborting a child. It's murder plain and simple and yet the government still allows it. Since abortion became allowed in the US, more children have been killed by their mothers than people died in the Hallocaust! And while these murders continue to happen the National Organization of Women have the gaull to describe this right as a matter of the mother's life and death". Huh? Who's going to be dead in most cases??? Give me a break. I used to respect National Organization of Women till I realized how little say - read none - a father has in whether a baby that he just conceived with a woman will ever see the light of day. He doesn't even have a right to be notified. Life happened at the moment of conception - if a woman doesn't like it, she shouldn't have spread her legs. If a woman was tragically raped, it's not the child's fault. Yet abortion still pretty clearly is a death penalty on the child. But thanks to organizations like NOW, we've been brainwashed to think with their sick twised opinion that abortion is entirely about the woman. But if we have to allow these murders then at least our constitution is supposed to grant men an equal right to choose - so how about country? Why is equality suddenly a bad thing when it's a man hoping for it???

» RE: concernedDad Posted by: lc99
Take a Lesson from One Who Has Been There
Posted by: broke_Dad on Aug 7, 2006 8:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Madam Hatter - How ironic that you speak of consequences for one's conduct in your last comment.

People have been having sex for a long time madam and a woman has had the option of aborting the child for many years now.

But women aren't choosing abortion. The babies are being born. What you seem to be saying is that men have started leaving their women more often. If you're a man and you're going to be slapped with a support order for 40% of your income, loose your house (custodial mothers are almost always awarded the home if there is one), and see your kids once a month, why would you leave?

The suicide rate for divorced men is 10 TIMES that of divorced women.

The broke, depressed, indentured men that you seem to think love to abandon women and children kill themselves 10 times more often than their female counterparts.

What's your explanation for that?

ONLY RECENTLY has the out-of-wedlock birth rate skyrocketd to 1 in 3. Tell me, as a woman, why would you choose to have a child when your relationship with the child's father wasn't firm? Why risk single parenthood? Why risk the child's future family life and financial stability?

WHY aren't women waiting to have a child until after marriage? How can the relationship be stable enough for a child, but not stable enough for marriage? ALL the women I know want to get married. So what's the problem?

Is is it so hard to wait? If she's in love with him and vice versa marriage would naturally come next, not childbirth. So either the women aren't being asked to get married and they have the baby despite knowing the relationship is unstable, or they are being asked to get married and are choosing not to because .......why? They don't feel like it? Don't love him? Then why have a child by him?

You say "because drug companies ....years, the blame for failures can be primarily placed on us?"

I assume you mean relationship failures when you say "failures." Who said women are always to blame for relationship failures? It takes two. But what does that matter?

The truth is women have the final call on whether the child is born. Why is she choosing to bring the child into an unstable relationship? If the relationship is stable, why isn't the couple married? Do you think men sleep well at night knowing that all his girlfriend has to do in this no-fault-divorce nation is decide she's tired of him and he loses his assests, half his income and any chance of having another family?

The truth is these women aren't thinking about what's best for the baby. They're thinking of themselves and their own needs. Maybe they're thinking of the longing they have for a child's love. When someone has a child out-of-wedlock (with what is most likely a TERRIFIED man), they are not having the child for UNSELFISH reasons and you know it. Children have tremendous physical and emotional needs. They demand sacrifice from their parents. Having a child out-of-wedlock isn't a sacrifice. It's selfish. It's doing the child no favors. His/her father will wallow in debt and depression, suffer a HIGHLY escalated risk for suicide and his/her mother will be at risk financially and emotionally. Children from such homes fare far worse in every category tracked by a statistic compared to kids from homes with both parents.

They ought to wait until they are married to have a child, or else adopt. Instead they are crushing the father and putting themselves before everyone including an innocent kid who hasn't had a choice in any of this.

What were you saying about consequences for one's actions?

By the way, as for your "women pay support too" comment, Women only pay support 20% of the time - Technical Analysis Paper No. 42 - U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services - Office of Income Security Policy.

Not quite responsible
Posted by: broke_Dad on Aug 7, 2006 8:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Both parties are responsible for what a woman does after sex?

Since we're talking using legalese "parites," fine.

Equal parties. Equal responsibility.

He pays 40% of his income, she gets the home if there is one, and he gets to see his children a few times a month. Children he half created and has a right to see as much as mom.

A recent study concluded that women need earn but a fraction of what their divorced husbands make to enjoy a much better standard of living. Many remarry and have more children.

When men remarry they and their new wives must work multiple jobs to make ends meet. Having more children is a pipe dream.

Consider that happening to men 23 and 25 years old.

I'm one of them.

Does that sound like equal responsibility to you?

Hardly.

The Precarity of Existence Under Capitalism Not At All Scrutinized!
Posted by: felixcommi on Aug 8, 2006 5:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this problem could be averted if we pressured for national child care (day care), which could allow mothers to work and reduce the burden of personal child-care that limits women's labour market participation...

Similarly, if we had better job training services and occupational assistance for unemployed mothers or fathers, we could facilitate a boost in income and security...

Along these lines much more social investment by your "democratic" government (if you force it to act like one) would aid all parties involved....

We cannot simply blame women for the immense financial burden men feel upon divorce or their unwanted childbirths... there are huge socio-economic factors at play...

enemy numero uno is free market fundamentalism and the amelioration of social services by right wing repiglicans and right wing dem's who feel corporate profit driven autocratic individualits (see inherently selfish) are better off to provide services than the less expensive route of having services in the social realm (health, childcare, etc) being provided by fellow citizens through dept's of your "democratic" government, which would ease the burdens of this particular situation.

Don't bemoan my suggestion as some "tax and spend" liberal fantasy...once again that would be failing to see the bigger pictures...i.e. that there is a small group of people, try one percent of Americans who own roughly half of America's wealth and if you cut
America down to ten people with ten dollars, 9 people would share 1$ (that's all of us) and 1 person would 9$ (the gazillionaires we "elect")

However, if we did bump the taxes on these buggers it may legitimately hinder corporate profitability, impingin on corporate america's global competitiveness...hence capitalism our sluggish race to the bottom which we can probably all feel crushing down on our shoulders...

Ravings of a Narcissistic Mad Man . . .
Posted by: Tagahanga on Aug 9, 2006 3:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been called Narcissistic . . . yes I am . . . I am proud of myself. But I am willing to bet you are too. I have accomplished a lot in my life . . . and overcome many major set backs.

You see . . . I am came from a drunken and abusive family . . . not just by my father, but also my mother. I was out on the streets still a minor, and I struggled to survived. Honestly, I don't remember running on that day . . . only getting bandaged up by a complete stranger.

I was taken in by a single mother. The father of her child, was in prision for another crime, so she wasn't getting support from him, even though there was a court order.

When I got older, I started working . . . as an entertainer. Even though it was illegal since I was still a minor, but during that they never really checked . . . and with a fake id . . . no one really cared.

I happy for a period of time, until day . . . the person who took me in, was raped and murdered. That is when the state came in. Her daughter when to San Diego . . . and me I stayed with them for three months until my graduation (upon my request). They agreed, because I was almost an adult, plus I was also accepted into a major University. But they had to coorelated all my records, since I have been living under an assumed name for almost 5 years.

After high school, I went straight into College. No time off, I worked off and on, when needed. And eventually I graduated . . . with a degree. But while I was in college . . . something else happen.

My brother and sisters were about to be removed from my parents care. Since I was an adult . . . and since they knew of me, they contacted me. It took almost a year, but I (at the age of 18) was able to obtain guardianship of my brother and sisters, the youngest being 1 years old. I was in school most of the day, so I had to hire a nanny for the youngest. I was able to manage my schedule to be home when they got home and if I worked . . . it was after they went to sleep, with my neighbor keeping an eye on them. Both my parents went through the state detox program . . . and only had supervised visitation rights. I had court orders for them to pay support, which never happen . . . because without jobs . . . how could they pay. So I had to do it by myself.

While I was in college, started a couple business, and yes it was in the same line I was in before. So don't start calling me a names . . . when you are young and you have people counting on you (especially children) . . . you will do absolutely anything to survive.

I graduated college with a degree in Business Administration, plus I was a certified and license massage therapist. After school, I sold the businesses, and got a regular job (into a new industry) . . . a good paying position.

I had several up and down relationships . . . some cases they cheated on me, one case I cheated on her, and some cases . . . they attempted to get pregnant for me to marry them. One did get pregnant and it was determined, by genetic testing that this child was not mine . . . .

My parents eventually moved into my house . . . (after they have been clean for a few year) and I returned guardianship over to them. Yes, I took them in . . . they had no where else to go . . . what would you do.

I was able to send two of my siblings to college . . . they both obtained degrees one in Accounting, the other in Manufacturing (even though I am still unsure what he does, if he does anything). The youngest will be finishing High School this year and she have been accepted to several universities.

» Child Support Posted by: Tagahanga
» Paternity Fraud . . . Pays Posted by: Tagahanga
» RE: Paternity Fraud . . . Pays Posted by: Tagahanga
» Child Custody and Visitation Posted by: Tagahanga
» No Choice . . . Posted by: Tagahanga
» RE: No Choice . . . Posted by: Tagahanga
» Absurdistan in America Posted by: Tagahanga
» RE: Absurdistan in America Posted by: Tagahanga
Fraud vs. Responsibility
Posted by: lc99 on Aug 11, 2006 10:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the debate is not who is responsible (both parties are) for conceving a child, I think its more a question of who should pay the price in a case where FRAUD has happened.

If a woman claims she is infertile, or claims she is using a form of brith control (the pill) that is 99.9999% effective in preventing pregnancy, she is inviting a man to have sex with her, sans condom (the only choice of contraceptive a man has), "knowing" that his chance of having a child is statistically less than winning the lottery (how many times have you won the lottery?). Some measure of trust must exist between two people who are having sex with each other. If the woman is lying (poking holes in diaphrams, not taking the pill regularly, etc.) she's knowingly committing fraud (fraud: A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain. A piece of trickery; a trick. ).

As it stands now, a woman who lies in order to get pregnant, or as a result of a lie puts herself into a position where she is at risk of getting pregnant, will (if she chooses to keep the child) receive thousands and thousands of dollars in child support payments for the next 18 years. Given the many chioces, such as 1) abort, 2) give up for adoption, 3) leave on the steps of a hospital/firehouse, etc., we can only conclude that she has kept the child because she DESIRES to raise it, despite whatever circumstances that were surrounding conception, or the marriage state, or her financial situation. She must believe she is cablable to go it alone as a single parent, and has made this choice by telling the lie, and then having sex.

As a woman, I am completely impatient with other women (like Ma) who prattle on about pregnancy and childbirth like they are terrible burdens and a horrible experience that is thrust upon women because of our biology. I don't know what her bad experience was, but I enjoyed pregnancy, I feel fortunate to have experienced child birth, and I have grown as a person from being a parent. None of it was easy, all of it I would do over again. AND still, I know I always had the choice to opt out of parenthood, but that I CHOSE to be a mother. I believe it is completely irrelevant to bring the "burdens of the biological state" in as an argument to justify a case of fraud.

In the case of fraud, once the damage is done, a mother can ALWAYS choose, a father can NEVER choose - either to keep his child, or to opt out of parenthood. There is something seriously wrong with a society that rewards an individual for perpetrating fraud, some times many many times. Step back and think about what kind of women are doing this, and then ask yourself what kind of mothers are they? They probably aren't the best people to raise upstanding/contributing citizens - strike one for the child... not a great way to begin a life -- but oh, yeah, it was HER choice, not their choice or the father's choice.

It is my personal opinion that women who committ this kind of fraud should be made to live with the consequences of their actions. If they choose to raise their child having concevied it out of a known lie, they are choosing to take the respoinsiblity to be its only parent and provide it with all it needs, not to endenture the victim of their lies (the sperm donor) for 18 years. We already have provision in the law to take children away from parents who are not providing the child with what they need. Its sad that women make the wrong choice to lie and that innocent people are hurt all around them, including the children. However, I think if we, as a society, want to see some change in out of wedlock births in situations like this, we need to give these women a little tough love, and stop making it so easy to benefit from their fraudulant acts at the expense of the men and children in their lives.

» RE: Fraud vs. Responsibility Posted by: Madam Hatter
» RE: Fraud vs. Responsibility Posted by: Tagahanga
» RE: Fraud vs. Responsibility Posted by: Tagahanga
» RE: Fraud vs. Responsibility Posted by: Madam Hatter
A Comment on Condoms
Posted by: Bat Leaper on Aug 13, 2006 3:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Condoms are not a satisfactory method of birth control. Women don't seem to understand this, but the best way of describing wearing a condom during sex is that it is like taking a bath with your socks on. A condom destroys a good part of the sensation of having sex. Older men with a slower trigger can have trouble climaxing at all while wearing a condom.

At the moment, there are no non-intrusive temporary birth control methods available to men.

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement