I disagree... totally. If you as a man choose to have sex with a woman, regardless of the circumstances... your CHOOSING to have sex with her therefore you are taking the risk of a possible pregnancy. Regardless of the probabilities you state in your thread. You can simply choose not to have sex with her, and therefore protect yourself from an unwanted pregnancy and possible child support, simple as that. I think it is common sense. Besides if you are having sex with a woman you hardly know then you might just be asking for it anyway...! The risk is always there. Most women don't make enough on child support anyway, and most women don't want to go through the rigors and physical labor of child birth. You make it sound like there is so much money to be made in child support and the truth is there is not. You would have to be one really wealthy guy for it to even be remotely possible to gain enough money for a woman to make it worth her while. Not to say that some women haven't done this, but most women don't think this way. This is just paranoid thinking as far as I am concerned.
-- Modified on 3/10/2006 12:23:30 PM
If two consenting adults choose to have protected sex so as to primarily avoid conception and the woman still unintentionally conceives she has reproductive "choice" to have the pregnancy terminated.
If two consenting adults choose to have protected sex so as to primarily avoid conception and the woman still unintentionally conceives but she is opposed to abortion; the MAN is held responsible for "Child support" for the next 18 years.
If two consenting adults choose to have sex and the woman tells the guy she is on the pill and is allergic to latex condoms and wishes him to go ahead uncovered and she conceives because she lied about being on the pill; AGAIN the guy is expected/forced by the courts to pay 18 years of child support.
If two consenting adults choose to have protected sex and the condom does NOT fail however the man chooses to throw the used prophylactic in the bathroom trash can where the woman later unbeknownst to him scoops his semen out with her finger and inserts as much as possible into her vagina in hopes of conceiving (it’s been done!) AGAIN the man is held libel for child support if her nefarious effort succeeds.
Roe v Wade issues aside it would seem that WOMEN enjoy much more “Reproductive Rights” then men do. Women can spread their legs when they choose and either rid themselves of unwanted pregnancy if they wish or go to term and seek 18 years of monetary compensation. However; in ALL instances a man is told “You should have kept your pecker in your pants”
It is, nevertheless, a good public policy.
The facts and circumstances of every encounter is filled with conflicting accounts of who said what and when and so forth. It would jam the courts forever to try to iron them all out and in the end, I'm not sure we'd be any closer to being "fair"
You have to right to not have intercourse with someone and you have the right to have the someone sign a release (see a lawyer first) but I doubt you're going to get much action that way.
Bottom line: You must pay to play, and the wheel of fortune goes round and round.
Promptly discard that avenue, it wouldn't be worth a diddlydam, and taking a notary along to the event probably wouldn't add a desirable fla vor either unless you could get her to participate too, in which case both would have to be notarys to sign off on the other's "release." It would probably be the only release involved in the whole caper.
Plenty of witnesses to testify at the trial.
...the guy is the only one who has to support the child. If the mom & dad decide to put the child up for adoption then neither will support it. If the mom wants to keep the child, yes the dad will be paying child support BUT so will the mom. If the mom doesn't want the child and the dad does want it then the dad will get custody and the mom will be paying child support.
...that she has a "right to choose" at a certain point where he does not.
It's very hard for some of us gents to get up in arms defending a right to choose that's not ours.
-- Modified on 3/11/2006 4:18:06 AM
Yea, right . . . . I had custody of my (our) two and she didn't pay one fucking dime. I was told "We can't squeeze blood out of a turnip" and "We don't put mother's in jail". So I gave her the two. Despite haveing cancelled checks, when she said I wasn't paying, that was "the truth". Eventually, they began garnishing my wages and she STILL accused me of not paying. Meanwhile, I was told CS was a requirement and visitation was a privilege. I went ONE full year without seeing my children or even getting a single picture (she moved out of state. Eventually, she lost custody to HRS and I got them back. I asked the court to stop my CS. She told them I was delinquent so the court made me pay another month even though I now had custody. During the next six or seven years, she never ever paid one goddamn dime, not even when my (our) son had $400 surgery - TWICE! So I don't know what planet you are from but on mine the female NEVER EVER pays CS.
David Adams
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
[email protected]
...sorry you got dealt such a bad hand. However, you shouldn't be blasting me. YOU picked a total LOSER to be the mother of YOUR children. Had she any money when she lost custody to you, you may have very well been able to collect some CS. However, I suspect she was broke (as your reply also suggests) and you must have a decent income (also somewhat supported by the fact that you indulge in this hobby), so you saw no CS from her. That does not change my original post. I never said it was a perfect system. I hope for the best for your kids.
She was not broke. She just refused to pay period. I put her through nursing school while we were married.
And there are people that visit this website that do not "indulge in the hobby" so it is wrong of you to assume I had money and that is why I paid.
In Florida, if you are a guy, you pay. If you are a female, you don't. The focus is ALWAYS on the DEADBEAT DAD, never the deadbeat MOM.
But my children are now grown so it really doesn't matter any more. I jsut hope I live long enough to piss on their mother's grave.
...of a woman having to pay child support to the dad, who had custody. I don't recall any of the specifics, so I don't know what state it was in. Again, sorry you got shitted on. But in certain cases, the woman can be made to pay.
What rights do you want?
The right to have sex and not be responsible?
She can't get pregnant without you.
And she is the one who has to live with it.
Anytime you play, you run the risk of an unexpected outcome.
Sorry, I have no problem with the ways things are.
Deal with it.
Just my opinion...
B
I think that's why so many guys loves to get a bj to completion without spills.
Adroit male practitioners of hetero-anal sex should always suck his issuance out of the woman’s rectum then snowball with her immediately there after. That's truly tossing the salad.
hard as several g/fs tried.
And the backdoor is sweet, but there is ultimately nothing so good as just forcing the S.O.'s legs apart, and getting that bareback S.O. pussy all night long, until you're both wasted and thinking that you could live with that indefinitely, and the chance of kids is gravy...if she talks about divorce, she just needs attention & you just need to turn her over your knee & warm her sweet ass...it's the fucking psychrinks who've ruined our country [only half a wink]
I don't see equal opportunity for women yet, or at least without being disparaged in some way, especially if we want to get laid.
Hugs,
ciara
-- Modified on 3/10/2006 5:14:45 PM
But you will always be my equal, if not my better!
Just my opinion...
B
I see your point, but as long as the fetus is part of the woman's body, it should naturally be under her control.
But once there is another human being here, regardless of how that came to be, the two people who created him/her are responsible for the welfare and care.
Like I told my little brother when he was 16 years old, if YOU don't want to have a baby, then YOU wear a condom, never rely on the woman preventing a pregnancy, it's YOUR responsibility to avoid pregnancy.
(I guess that I should have also told him to keep the used condom in his sight at all times and then to destroy it. LOL)
You missed the point misty. A man can wear "3" condoms at the same time and if the woman gets pregnant it is up to HER whether too go to term or abort. Legally speaking a man wearing a condom that has had a vasectomy and somehow still succeeds in impregnating a woman is STILL libel even though the most effective and multiple forms of contraception were employed. The woman however can choose either abortion or extort the man for eighteen years with the blessing as well as aid of the court system. The man has NO CHOICE. The woman can act on her sexual desires and can ameliorate a worst case scenario. A man is held completely by the woman’s decision or agenda.
in one of her "clear" moments,
"Life is a beach, then you die".
No body ever said life was fair.
It's for sure we aren't going to get out alive, so why worry about small, stupid stuff.
Just my opinion...
B
court listening to some harridan with a PhD and no man explain how men are all such bastards because of their body chemistry.
The only advantage that men have is that they usually find it one hell of a lot easier to decide what they want in their coffee; while women mostly expect to hold men responsible for what goes into their coffee, so they can later complain some man fucked it up.
It's not a man's or woman's world; it's just a world. Some of us deal with it, others cry about it, and I'm tired of helping the criers understand this.
As I've said before, don't assume.
No one ever really understands what someone else is going through. That's why some of us reacted to this post with our own opinion, and as you've stated before in several posts, "It's everyone's right to post." I, too, get sick of hearing men bashing women and vice versus. But, yes, I got taken in my divorce years ago because I made too much money. And, yes, I have an extensive degree. 
Hugs,
Ciara
being a woman who pays for everything, or even if women generally paid for everything, does not prove that "it's a man's world"; in fact, I suspect the only evidence of "it" being a "man's world" is somebody saying it, which is lameassed speculation and a conclusion, as evidence goes; (c) there are always variations, just as there are always patterns.
I think the sense of most posters here is that we all know it cuts 2 ways.
So relax. Having my opinion - which may include that yours is a dumbass opinion - does not suggest that you shouldn't post it, including your belief that mine is dumbass. Excepting extreme situations, it's usually more helpful and appreciated to describe WHY. That's discussion.
Unless I agree with one of your posts, you seem to always want to bash me. I was simply responding to your post about never knowing what it's like to be taken if you're a divorced man. I responded by saying I guess you wouldn't know what's it like being taken as a woman in a divorce. I also did not state all the facts in volved with my divorce because it's simply not relevant to the response I was making, nor do I care to divulge a lot of personal information about my divorce. Some of us choose not to always post a book needing to explain everything. I didn't think it was necessary. I also did not state that you were a dumbass. I never go that low, but you -- on the other hand -- say that you treat your girlfriend well and then come on this board and bash me. What makes you think that I'm not a nice lady and that you feel it's necessary to reply with such harsh statements? Yes, TER is often about opinions but not bashing people. Read their guidelines. IF you care to keep bashing, then go ahead. I will not respond to another one of your insulting posts.
-- Modified on 3/10/2006 6:30:10 PM
why are you so thin-skinned that you think EVERYTHING is a bash?
Saying that I have the right to think you are a dumbass, as you have the right to think I'm the same, is NOT saying you ARE a dumbass, although perhaps a smartass would read closely.
IN ANY CASE, check the door, this is the Department of Words Will Never Hurt You.
Sheesh.
(a) have some dentist swab your pussy with sandpaper, or (b) swell up like a waterlogged elephant, barf periodically for 9 months before you eject a brat that mostly acts like an albatross around your neck, between hoping that you can scrounge child support or other resources here or there to feed the little parasite...Jeez, I wish I was a woman, it sounds so cool.
IOW, it ain't all roses. Rights is about a political order, and "fair" is a social judgment, and if you need a politician or social worker between you and your girlfriend, then you shouldn't be reproducing anyway, and PLEASE DON'T ASK ME TO PAY YOUR BILLS, directly or indirectly...it's not about what's fair, it's about what IS....you know, what else were you doing with your life, you may as well be fucking and supporting kids as complaining about it to us.
BTW, "libel" is defamation, "liable" is responsibility. Thus endeth your FREE English lesson [g]
Some of us choose the option of vasectomy. No muss, no fuss, and certifiably effective. Now that's logical.
BTW in your defamatory candor you failed to even note whether I have children (or even can be a progenitor) I have a vasectomy and so the consequences are moot for me in the scenarios.
It is the theology of society I seek in this
matter. Roe v Wade & reproductive rights seems to be on everybody's mind of late due too South Dakota. I thought I would bring forth some muse that I've long pondered.
Between the impassioned responses of others and your Uncharacteristic, emotional umbrage; this particular "muse" certainly warrants further study.
It is obvious we need to be more graphic in communicating with you to establish that, "fair" is a social judgment of humans in a world that has no consciousness, let alone of humans.
People who cry either way (and it's usually the women) are missing the point entirely. You are free or not to do as you wish; but if I'm not around to complain to, tax or enslave, you'll just have to deal with the consequences yourself.
Fair or not is an artificial political construct; and any person that's having problems with it (again, it's usually the equivalent of women telling us they want us to give them more, which is surely understandable, just as we want more from them) should not ask me to pay for the politician to refereee between them.
I am getting along fine with my g/f these days (she takes me all sorts of great places, is a good & ready lay, and we only split the cash bills), and have NEVER asked or wanted a politician. psychrink or relative to get between ANY g/f, because it's logically and obviously asking for disaster; and am here only because you fuckers are all so charming [gg].
has a half dozen human sisters, a couple human daughters, and an allegedly, putative human ex whom he watched go thru that stuff giving birth; and we all have our trials, ya know?
It's not that I wouldn't trade places with them, or expect them to know how truly fucking miserable a grunt can be; it's rather that the only real issue is adapting to the situation without making your SO so miserable s/he walks.
-- Modified on 3/10/2006 1:26:49 PM
All I read from you throughout this thread is a stream of consciousness outpouring of misogyny directed not just at the women who dared correspond with you within this thread, but also toward your own g/f with whom you profess such a grand relationship. Why all the vile language?Why all the rage? It adds nothing and just makes you sound mean-spirited and foolish. Please bring back the Spock who so often makes so much sense.
Spock has entered the pon farr (mating cycle.)
Reference Star Trek TOS. Episode 34, second season, "Amok Time"
Vulcans have strong emotions, but they normally repress them. Spock need our help and support to get him through this.
-- Modified on 3/11/2006 5:59:25 PM
often for example because they react in unpredictable ways to words or phrases randomly selected by their subconscious, then we must try alternate means of communication.
Here, we are limited to the written word. We can readily alter our pattern according to the response of the person/s involved, and considering the audience too.
Face to face communication presents many alternatives. For example, particularly obtuse people can often understand 2x4s. When you are dealing with emotional people, you must identify the emotion, and its cause. That is often difficult, and often pointless anyway.
Posts are easy to misread, because in voice communications, one sees facial expressions and hears voice inflection. It's also easy to misread a post because of sheer laziness or stupidity, or the poster's convoluted syntax or logic. Those are all, of course value judgments that vary among people, but a reasonable standard must be inferred.
Now, as we have noted before, there are always variations among individuals, but there are also patterns.
My suggestion to you, my child, would be to deal with the post itself, and less from your opinion of it, because just to start, neither of us have any way of knowing what the other person's history is; and the most efficient way to deal with any ambiguity or issue a given post presents is to ASK THE POSTER.
Answering your question is as logical as asking you, is your post a symptom of your diagnosis? So what if it is?
BTW, you should talk to your dr. about your diagnosis, and its proper management, remembering that he's fooling with your legal competence. Most people who are told they are manic-depressive, and in fact the most common psychiatric diagnoses, are being labelled so that they can be condescended to, blown off, drugged and generally not treated as if they were human. Life ain't easy for any human, but the chances of a psych being worth the cost is a complete crapshoot, at best. Refer eg to current edition of Bloch, et al, Psychiatric Ethics, Oxford U. Press for discussion of the common issues.
-- Modified on 3/11/2006 6:12:34 PM
a vasectomy !!!
Try getting one in your early 20's
I DID TRY! I was essentially shown the door wherever I went. I was married at the time too my first wife (an obligatory but brief right of passage in SoCal). My health provider which was a good one sent the both of us to counseling and tribunals for nearly a year in efforts to stave off and dissuade me in my choice of permanent volunteered sterility. I/we finally gave up. Not until I was 35 and with a required "permission slip" from my then second and LAST wife was I given the procedure that I had cogently chosen as the best course for me some 12 years prior.
I've been told the spousal "permission" is no longer needed for a married man to obtain a vasectomy any more; but the difficulty in obtaining one for a young man who has never fathered children is still daunting.
I'm sorry that you fathered a child at 20 (or at least that's what it sounds like), and we've all made mistakes. I hope you don't regret having him/her now, but you cannot blame the majority of women for your bad mistake. Yes, you have to take some blame in the pregnancy too. It was your sperm. Now that you're older, your child is probably nearing college so it's probably more troublesome to think about money for that situation and the ex. We all have our sad stories to tell and it's okay to vent.
Hugs,
Ciara
I am so effing glad, unspeakably ecstatic for my steady (civvie) g/f with her nice warm bod, easy smile and BAREBACK PUSSY!!! This babe even splits bills, and tells me my dick is too big. (Actually, it's her pussy that's too tight - ain't life a bitch?)
So why am I here? Because you're all so freaking charming, of course [GGGG]
I HAVE a vasectomy! I NEVER fathered any children(THANK GOD!) And I made that decision to never procreate cogently at the tender age of 21. The "System" made it all but impossible for me to get a vasectomy until I was in my thirties because "they" all are all so fuggin sure that the drive too parent is ubiquitous and a 24 year old male is incapable of making such a serious long term mostly irreversible decision for himself.
-- Modified on 3/10/2006 6:33:52 PM
It just seemed like maybe you were venting about women taking advantage of men. A lot of men who do this have been badly burned (as many women, too). I think it's great that you had a vasectomy because you knew you didn't want children. I didn't read that part on the post until later. Sorry.
My thought behind starting this thread was not to demonize either sex or say one sex takes advantage of the other. (We seem to do a great job of taking advantage of each other every day)
It is when a legal system I live and work within freely affords choice too one faction and not another and gives aid too the favored faction too further exploit the lesser that I take umbrage.
I disagree... totally. If you as a man choose to have sex with a woman, regardless of the circumstances... your CHOOSING to have sex with her therefore you are taking the risk of a possible pregnancy. Regardless of the probabilities you state in your thread. You can simply choose not to have sex with her, and therefore protect yourself from an unwanted pregnancy and possible child support, simple as that. I think it is common sense. Besides if you are having sex with a woman you hardly know then you might just be asking for it anyway...! The risk is always there. Most women don't make enough on child support anyway, and most women don't want to go through the rigors and physical labor of child birth. You make it sound like there is so much money to be made in child support and the truth is there is not. You would have to be one really wealthy guy for it to even be remotely possible to gain enough money for a woman to make it worth her while. Not to say that some women haven't done this, but most women don't think this way. This is just paranoid thinking as far as I am concerned.
-- Modified on 3/10/2006 12:23:30 PM
I think the real question here is not if a woman gets pregnant and how the man will have to pay support, but how is a woman going to raise a child on a limited income?
Most women with an education -- and at a certain age -- don't want to get pregnant just to keep a man. The old 50s through 70s thinking is over. There may be some women who still -- as you make it sound poster -- want to trap a man, but most women now are independent, hard-working women. They're not looking for a hand-out through bearing a child. That is more work than it's worth, unless you really want to settle down and have a family, and many women will hopefully choose a partner who shares similar feelings (consensual).
Hugs,
ciara
[[You make it sound like there is so much money to be made in child support and the truth is there is not. You would have to be one really wealthy guy for it to even be remotely possible to gain enough money for a woman to make it worth her while. Not to say that some women haven't done this, but most women don't think this way.]]
Generally, true. But there are always freaky people - obviously, men have different scams - people who aren't real good at calculating if the game is worth the candle, and these folks make up a fair chunk of the clientele of our social agencies, prisons, etc...
The trick is to be able to identify (as much as possible) and only hang out with reasonable people, at least until you're in a mood for an interactive circus...
This is not a debate over the physiological maladies caused by carrying, the pain of child birth or the financial woes there after for a single mother not getting enough subsidies.
I brought this up because if adult women want the reproductive rights afforded by Roe v Wade then WHY are men not given any say in the decision or the draconian fiscal liabilities if the woman is either Pro-life or has a fiscal agenda should the father be of financial means.
'Mr.Spock' sapiently brought up that "fair" has little value in the context of a race as fucked up as homo-sapiens. However; equal justice and protection under law IS a major precept in the American system of Jurist Prudence. Too afford an "out" for women who have unwanted pregnancies and NOT afford the same consideration for men who cogently use birth control devices but are caught in the small percentage of failures or worse yet a woman who sabotages his efforts for financial gain goes beyond "fair" and enters the realm of FRAUD!
What you promulgated ‘Kat’ is elitism You want total reproductive rights for women (I assume you’re pro choice?) Yet men do not deserve a say in the matter either way.
"similarly situated", and I don't think you can make that finding as between boys & girls in the reproductive context.
Sure, some cunt can conspire to bear your child - or just lie about it - and plague your days. You can also get run down by a car in the parking lot - doesn't happen all that often, and even less if you keep your eyes open. More often that some babe (maybe your sister) gets abandoned by some deadbeat, and I don't think the courts are all that generous about child support issues.
(Separate rant: family courts don't help anybody by getting off into subjective issues that will NEVER be resolved anyway. All you need to do is split the property - and lawyers fees should be capped when they start going over a percentage, so lawyers stop their dumbass clients from insane arguments - and a PI's investigation that the parent is able willing and not inappropriate for child custody - given less than the standard probation officers' report, judges can handle these issues as well as shrinks, and a whole lot cheaper, with less pain. Then the biatch can go and whine to her therapist, like she will anyway, and saves time all around.)
she can have whatever rights she wants as long as she makes it worth it to me.
Once I recall such a hot sweet girl, so skilled, with a pussy like silk, and we loved to flirt, it was too bad she had medical problems that she couldn't enjoy it as much as I, and there wasn't a whole lot I could do for her, but I would have if I could.
Now many years later, another g/f & I are finding that we just don't care that much if we get off, the hours of making out are better than being 17 again. And once again, "rights" aren't the issue, because there's not much I wouldn't do for her, and she values it too much to abuse it.
Both parties have the "right" to not participate in those activities.
The thing is, it is not like child support will make a woman wealthy. Most child support payments aren't for half of what of what it takes to raise a child, and doesn't cover unforeseen expenses.
It does not punish, the woman for her choice, or for "nefarious" acts to not support the child, except in that she will perhaps have to work more than one job and/or longer hours to try and earn enough to take care of the child, and seeing the child do without will cause pain...
But, the real target of punishment that may be meted out by the "father" (I use the term loosely for a guy that doesn't at that very least pay support for a person he was half resposible for creating) for the mother's acts or choices is the child.
Thing is, the child is the only one that didn't make any decisions, didn't have any choices, didn't have a chance to think it might be better to keep it zipped, didn't give into a moment of arrousal, didn't have too much to drink, or seek a bit of strange, or anything else.
Yes, what a good idea, punish the only one completely innocent in the equation for the acts of those that knew what could come of their activies.
While you are punishing monetarily, might as well throw in the emotional and psychological crap that will come from a "father" that looks at the child as an extention of a "nefarious" mother or as something he is now burdened with via checkbook.
I mean hell all he wanted to do was get his nut off, and even though he knew that action could result in a child, it certainly isn't his responsibility...nope, it is the responsibility and fault of the child produced from his orgasm...and it is only fair it be denied at the very least monetary support.
You are correct that it seems women have more Reproductive choices then men in such situations, but it is for the purpose of protecting and assuring the well being of any child produced, not to be a boon to the mother or a hardship to the father.
1.
“The thing is, it is not like child support will make a woman wealthy. Most child support payments aren't for half of what of what it takes to raise a child, and doesn't cover unforeseen expenses. “ WT
Whether it makes her wealthy or not it’s an encumbrance to the father who in regards too my argument was USING birth control to preclude conception in the first place. GI
2.
“ But, the real target of punishment that may be meted out by the "father" (I use the term loosely for a guy that doesn't at that very least pay support for a person he was half resposible for creating) for the mother's acts or choices is the child.” WT
Enough with the friggen violins WT. Were not talking about some irresponsible yahoo were talking about a guy who doesn’t want kids and uses the precautions(short of abstinence) to insure that sex is recreation and not procreation. GI
3.
“Thing is, the child is the only one that didn't make any decisions, didn't have any choices, didn't have a chance to think it might be better to keep it zipped, didn't give into a moment of arrousal, didn't have too much to drink, or seek a bit of strange, or anything else.” WT
As long as there is Roe v Wade this sad scenario need not play out. Both mother and father were “consenting” Why the father must acquiesce to her CHOICE when they were of equal concupiscence is ludicrous. GI
4.
“I mean hell all he wanted to do was get his nut off, and even though he knew that action could result in a child, it certainly isn't his responsibility...nope, it is the responsibility and fault of the child produced from his orgasm...and it is only fair it be denied at the very least monetary support.” WT
It’s ALL his fault huh? The woman had no say in the matter? I reiterate HE USED BIRTH CONTROL WITH INTENT TOO NOT CAUSE PREGNANCY!!!!. Your logic here falls right into the Right Wing zealots hands who wish too overturn Roe v Wade.
5.
“You are correct that it seems women have more Reproductive choices then men in such situations, but it is for the purpose of protecting and assuring the well being of any child produced, not to be a boon to the mother or a hardship to the father. “ WT
See #2 & 3 GI
The system is totally fucked up.
First off, Web let me say I agree with your
post.
Now my two cents worth, I was married, and the
reason for my marriage, was A. She got knocked up,
I used comdoms, she poked holes in them, No Lie!
She admited this to my Sister a few years into the
marriage.
B. Was married for 19 years, supported my family
as any good man would do, I am not perfect,
and made some mistakes, but I always provided
emotional love and support to my family.
During the marriage my second child was born,
A beautiful daughter to go along with the wonderful first child, my son.
After the birth of my second, I wanted to get
cut, had to fight with the wife and medical
provider for over a year, to get this done.
At the end of my marriage, She went out and
got knocked up by her boyfriend,
I got kicked out of my house, lost custody of
my children, and had to pay support for a year
and a half to a child that I did not father!
In the end, I continued to persue custody of
my children, succeeded in doing so after a year and a half. Got my totally trashed home back
with a defaulted mortage, almost bankrupt because
of the our wonderful twisted leagal system with
its crooks in suits (lawyers ) and dishonorable
bench, ( Judges who were more worried about when
they were going to get to go jack off in chambers
than actually preform an objective job)
I raised both children on my own, no child
support from the EX bich, court let her off because she is a female?
End of story. My youngest is graduating this
spring. She is now 18, my Son and daughter are
doing a wonderful job of contributing to the
human race.
For all the Shit that I had to go through,
I wouldn't change a thing, My kids are the Best!
The only redeeming thing that my EX ever did was
share in the birth of our two wonderful kids,
but its her loss that she lost out on sharing
in the task of raising the kids.
Me and my kids share in many wonderful moments
and memories in life, that the ex missed out on.
And to top it all off, she also lost the respect
of these two great kids!
Moral of the story is that life is not fair,
but that does not give anyone the right to
dump innocent people who had no say in what
happens between two parties.
Thanks for your attention.
and I hope I didn’t come off as a heartless misogynistic chauvinist in bringing my muse to bear. Unfortunately just as the Pro-Choice camp is villanize as “baby killers” by the Pro-Life camp; so too can voices campaigning for equity in other moral legislative considerations be misconstrued.
Force a woman to have an abortion to avoid child support? That sounds rather unfair to me. Now, how do we make that fair?
I guess we could redress the unfairness of it this way: the man gets to force an abortion so as to prevent child support, but he has to have his balls cut off when he does. Now that might make it fair-- but it's still all barbaric.
Suppose the guy wants the child and the woman doesn't? Do we incarcerate her to make sure she doesn't end the pregnancy? At public expense?
Another alternative, we could disallow abortion, completely so that neither side has any choice about it whatsoever. That's a restriction on freedom than anything else. At least if the choice is given, the man and woman can work it out and can agree.
I realize that it's unfair, but in all truth, the guy has given her his sperm, or has otherwise "donated" it. The default position from there has to be the guy must provide support.
I realize that rights are supposed to be equal and justice is supposed to be blind and all that, but sometimes nature trumps our ideals. It's an unsolvable problem right now; perhaps technology will fix it in a century or two, and if we're lucky, less than that.
The can of worms that is opened whenever morality is legislated and policed is historically ugly and most often one sided for sake of simplicity. Forcing an abortion on a woman is truly as repugnant as forcing child support from a man who took all the precautions(short of abstinence) to avoid her conceiving in the first place. Tell every guy too keep their pecker in there pants? That’s as futile as telling the ladies to keep their knees together. If medical science DID come up with an EASILY reversible procedure to sterilize men our country is so inundated with cultures holding archaic beliefs in virility equating too masculinity that many young men would shun the procedure anyway. The medical community's fears from the legal community also would impede its implementation; and God knows the “Pope” would be against it!
-- Modified on 3/11/2006 5:25:10 PM
that consideration trumps either of the parent's rights.
The possibility of a woman deliberately getting PG contrary to the man's wishes are no more likely out of marriage than in; and it seems to me that the real issue is less paying money to support kids, than managing their support; and the real problem there is not who gets what amount as the fact that the parents simply aren't working together. Johnny's shoes are an issue, but so is Johnny's homework, and friends, etc etc...and this is an area where men historically get short shrift, for a lot of good and not so good reasons...it's just one of those things.
I do have to disagree on one point. Forcing an abortion on a woman is far uglier than forcing child support from a man, anyway you slice it. I don't have trouble distinguishing which is the more barbaric solution.
I wouldn't suggest that men generally "keep it in their pants," but I would suggest that they do it if they suspect that a woman wants a child with child support that badly, or is opposed to abortion so much. I realize that this might be difficult to perceive, but men have to keep their eyes open before they open their zippers. Don't spill your sperm everywhere.
"But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care."
Sorry, couldn't resist.
There is a certain justice to demanding that men pay for children that they have conceived, and at least the father be identified and held responsible. The ugliest thing about prostitution historically has been its association with the birth of neglected, abandoned children, who were cut off from their mother's extended family, and for whom the father was unknown. "Bastards" if you will. They were outcasts, and they did end up being criminals, mostly.
I am happy that this is now, largely, no longer the case. I don't want to change this. It is really the best environment for getting prostitution accepted.
A lawsuit actuall has been filed regarding this very subject by the National Center for Men. The following is a quote from their website:
"More than three decades ago Roe vs. Wade gave women control of their reproductive lives but nothing in the law changed for men. Women can now have sexual intimacy without sacrificing reproductive choice. Women now have the freedom and security to enjoy lovemaking without the fear of forced procreation. Women now have control of their lives after an unplanned conception. But men are routinely forced to give up control, forced to be financially responsible for choices only women are permitted to make, forced to relinquish reproductive choice as the price of intimacy."
Now if we can keep wind of this away from Oprah Winfrey and the League of Brow-Beaten White Knights. I'm sure the NCM had something to do with married men no longer needing permission from their wife to get a vasectomy. Hopefully they can even out this playing field also.
A--Life is not fair. B--Become gay. C--Become monastic. D--If you're so convinced women have "more rights", please have your internal plumbing rewired so that you have to have a monthly period, carry a fetus, and then make the wrenching emotional and physical decision to terminate a pregnancy. Oh and by the way, please make sure when you do D you are making no more than 80 cents on the dollar of your male counterparts, work in any of the majority of US industries where women still get silently discriminated against, and be prepared to be called a slut or whore because you engage with as many sexual partners as your male friends. When you've done all that, spend some time educating yourself before passing off equally injudicious and unwarranted generalities as "TRUTH" (love your use of all caps) again. And please spare us the pseudo facts--it just sounds like whining.
you also believe that spousal abuse is only suffered by women?
There are so many untruths and invalid comparisons in this statement that I really don't know where to begin. First of all, your proposal that we just accept that life isn't fair is a really easy excuse to make when you're not the one getting the short end of the stick. Why not just say to all those women who want abortions, "well, maybe you shouldn't have gotten knocked up by some loser. Maybe you should have been more careful in choosing a partner. Now you're stuck with a baby. Life isn't fair."
Or perhaps the father isn't a loser and wants to take care of his kid, but mom won't allow it and has the abortion. "Too bad dad, life isn't fair. Mom gets to have sex with no consequences of childrearing responsibility, but you don't have those same rights. Sure, mom has to carry the baby for nine months, but then you're on the hook financially for 18 years for a child that you don't want. You can't make mom have an abortion, so you're stuck. Life isn't fair."
Secondly, your claim that women make 80 cents on the dollar must come from a factoid sheet directly from Ms. Magazine and the Gloria Steinem femi-nazi handbook. The truth is that if women do get paid less it is because the majority of them choose to go into lower paying professions like teaching, and they often choose to work part-time to handle family duties as well. Incidentally, I would probably guess that female escorts get paid a hell of a lot more than their male counterparts, but that's just a guess.
Lastly, there is no comparison between women who have many sexual partners and men who have many partners. Women are offered sex every single day of their lives, and can get sex pretty much any time they want. It may not be with the exact person a woman wants, but for the pure availability there is no comparison to a man's situation. Believe it or not, a vast majority of men have to work to get sex and face rejection every single time they try. Seems to me that could be the reason there are a whole lot more female escorts out there than there are males. Men want to be with a woman who places a value on her sexuality and will not give it out to just any schmo who buys her a drink. Many times we can't get that, so we try to replace it with the company of a provider. It's a poor substitute, but sometimes its the only option.