Male activists want 'say' in unplanned pregnancy

[jcrod]

Lawsuit seeks right to decline financial responsibility for kids

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/08/fatherhood.suit.ap/index.html)

NEW YORK (AP) -- Contending that women have more options than they do in the event of an unintended pregnancy, men's rights activists are mounting a long shot legal campaign aimed at giving them the chance to opt out of financial responsibility for raising a child.

The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit -- nicknamed Roe v. Wade for Men -- to be filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter.

The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.

The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose.

"There's such a spectrum of choice that women have -- it's her body, her pregnancy and she has the ultimate right to make decisions," said Mel Feit, director of the men's center. "I'm trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly."

Feit's organization has been trying since the early 1990s to pursue such a lawsuit, and finally found a suitable plaintiff in Matt Dubay of Saginaw, Michigan.

Dubay says he has been ordered to pay $500 a month in child support for a girl born last year to his ex-girlfriend. He contends that the woman knew he didn't want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that -- because of a physical condition -- she could not get pregnant.

Dubay is braced for the lawsuit to fail.

"What I expect to hear [from the court] is that the way things are is not really fair, but that's the way it is," he said in a telephone interview. "Just to create awareness would be enough, to at least get a debate started."

State courts have ruled in the past that any inequity experienced by men like Dubay is outweighed by society's interest in ensuring that children get financial support from two parents. Melanie Jacobs, a Michigan State University law professor, said the federal court might rule similarly in Dubay's case.

"The courts are trying to say it may not be so fair that this gentleman has to support a child he didn't want, but it's less fair to say society has to pay the support," she said.

Feit, however, says a fatherhood opt-out wouldn't necessarily impose higher costs on society or the mother. A woman who balked at abortion but felt she couldn't afford to raise a child could put the baby up for adoption, he said.

'This is so politically incorrect'
Jennifer Brown of the women's rights advocacy group Legal Momentum objected to the men's center comparing Dubay's lawsuit to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling establishing a woman's right to have an abortion.

"Roe is based on an extreme intrusion by the government -- literally to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want," Brown said. "There's nothing equivalent for men. They have the same ability as women to use contraception, to get sterilized."

Feit counters that the suit's reference to abortion rights is apt.

"Roe says a woman can choose to have intimacy and still have control over subsequent consequences," he said. "No one has ever asked a federal court if that means men should have some similar say."

"The problem is this is so politically incorrect," Feit added. "The public is still dealing with the pre-Roe ethic when it comes to men, that if a man fathers a child, he should accept responsibility."

Feit doesn't advocate an unlimited fatherhood opt-out; he proposes a brief period in which a man, after learning of an unintended pregnancy, could decline parental responsibilities if the relationship was one in which neither partner had desired a child.

"If the woman changes her mind and wants the child, she should be responsible," Feit said. "If she can't take care of the child, adoption is a good alternative."

The president of the National Organization for Women, Kim Gandy, acknowledged that disputes over unintended pregnancies can be complex and bitter.

"None of these are easy questions," said Gandy, a former prosecutor. "But most courts say it's not about what he did or didn't do or what she did or didn't do. It's about the rights of the child."

[jcrod]

I believe men should have some say. Guys have no options what so ever, even if the child turns out not to be theirs (as I understand it). If you put your name on that child and he turns out not to be yours, you still could be stuck paying child support. That will be the ultimate shit in you face, Fuck you.

[Peter]

'bout time.

[Old School Chic]

http://www.undercovercondoms.com/condomphotos/trojan-variety1.jpg

[jcrod]

Same goes to you, the pill. Of course theres different scenerios, but in some cases its bullshit.

[TDMVPDPOY]

Theres been many cases where men are successfull in suein the woman for damages if the child is not theirs. fruadalent

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.undercovercondoms.com/condomphotos/trojan-variety1.jpgRight, yet after the result we're liable regardless of what you decide. Its unfair bullshit.

Its a woman's body and her right to choose right? Well she can live with the consequences if we don't agree as well. Thats her right, too.
I echo Peter, its about damn time.

[ObiwanGinobili]

I've never been cool with women fooling thier significant others into knocking them up. thst wrong.

but I'm sorry, the guy in this lawsuit is coming off like an ass. what happened was screwed but it happened.
meanwhile he's now publicaly telling the world that he did not/doesn't want his daughter and he wishes she had been aborted. basicaly.
Also I notice the wording in the article
25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter. neatly steps around saying HIS child or HIS daughter.

you know alot of stuff like this (unwanted preganncy, the keep/abort/adopt question, father's rights and so on and so forth) wouldn't even be a friggin issue if people just didn't fuck untill they were married.

Also- can't he sign away his parental rights? What is preventing him from doing that? If he doesn;t want to pay for her and wants nothgin to do with her why can;t he just sign away his parental rights?
I know 2 guys who have done that. One becaue he was honestly trying to get out of child support. The other guy didn't find out he had a daughter untill she was 7 adn his ex- gf who was newly divorced sued him for support. He was then contacted by he ex-husband ex-step dad who had raised her and ended up siginign away his rights so that the ex step dad could adopt her and then pay child support (on top of alimony, but hey that was his decision).

[Jelly]

"18 years! 18 years! 18 years at the kid ain't his????"
- Kanye West

But seriously guys, wear a condom, no matter how she claims to be protected. You created a child and are still responsible. Even if you are having sex with a 60 year old woman, wear a damn condom!

[Jelly]

I've never been cool with women fooling thier significant others into knocking them up. thst wrong.

but I'm sorry, the guy in this lawsuit is coming off like an ass. what happened was screwed but it happened.
meanwhile he's now publicaly telling the world that he did not/doesn't want his daughter and he wishes she had been aborted. basicaly.



What a dick. I didn't read that part. The only person I feel sorry for is the poor child. Of course, he might grow up to be someone like Bruce Bowen and his father will then want a tender father/son relationship.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

woah! I didn't see that one coming... However I do believe they have a point. Its no longer a matter of using a condom or not (what if it was a defective condom?). The choice over wether or not to keep or put in adoption should be a choice made by BOTH parents, because BOTH parents are the ones who are going to have to face the responsabilities that come from having a child, not just the mother. It is not fair for the mother to be able to simply say "I'm keeping this baby, and you are paying for it", that is bullshit.

On the other hand, abortion is and always should be solely a decision made by the mother. She and only she has the right to decide what happens within her body. However, I believe that if she decides to have the baby, then she does so knowing that her companion has a choice in the matter of raising that baby.

[CharlieMac]

woah! I didn't see that one coming... However I do believe they have a point. Its no longer a matter of using a condom or not (what if it was a defective condom?). The choice over wether or not to keep or put in adoption should be a choice made by BOTH parents, because BOTH parents are the ones who are going to have to face the responsabilities that come from having a child, not just the mother. It is not fair for the mother to be able to simply say "I'm keeping this baby, and you are paying for it", that is bullshit.

On the other hand, abortion is and always should be solely a decision made by the mother. She and only she has the right to decide what happens within her body. However, I believe that if she decides to have the baby, then she does so knowing that her companion has a choice in the matter of raising that baby.

You'd think the common sense approach you've taken to this issue would be widely accepted by parents everywhere. Sadly, it's not.

[SpursWoman]

In the many, many abortion threads that have come and gone, those that oppose always come out with the inevitable "don't fuck around if you can't accept the consequences."

So this should only apply to women?


What this basically says that a man can fuck around just like he always does, only now if a child results that he doesn't want, he can just walk away. Nice.

[Trainwreck2100]

In the many, many abortion threads that have come and gone, those that oppose always come out with the inevitable "don't fuck around if you can't accept the consequences."

So this should only apply to women?


What this basically says that a man can fuck around just like he always does, only now if a child results that he doesn't want, he can just walk away. Nice.

Adoption, let the homos take care of your kids. For years women have used regnancy to trap, guess the free ride's over.

[SpursWoman]

For years women have used regnancy to trap, guess the free ride's over.


I'm sure this is the motive of all unplanned pregnancies. :shootme

[Dre_7]

In the many, many abortion threads that have come and gone, those that oppose always come out with the inevitable "don't fuck around if you can't accept the consequences."

So this should only apply to women?


What this basically says that a man can fuck around just like he always does, only now if a child results that he doesn't want, he can just walk away. Nice.

Thank you SW!!

If two people willingly have sex, protected or not, they have both made a choice. Therefore, they both have to deal with the consequences. If you have sex, you have an obligation to take care of the child that it produces.

[Slomo]

In the many, many abortion threads that have come and gone, those that oppose always come out with the inevitable "don't fuck around if you can't accept the consequences."

So this should only apply to women?


What this basically says that a man can fuck around just like he always does, only now if a child results that he doesn't want, he can just walk away. Nice.
The reason I agree with SW is explained quite nicely by Dre_7



If two people willingly have sex, protected or not, they have both made a choice. Therefore, they both have to deal with the consequences. If you have sex, you have an obligation to take care of the child that it produces.

[Trainwreck2100]

What about the male that doesn't get a say when the woman wants an abortion, is that fair?

[Slomo]

What about the male that doesn't get a say when the woman wants an abortion, is that fair?No it's not, but since the guy can not "do" the pregnancy instead of her - it is ultimatively her call.

I would also expect this situation to be much more rare than deadbeat fathers using this new "get out of parenthood free" card.

As I said the situation in your post is not fair, but what are you going to do about it? Create more frequent and more unfair situations?

[jcrod]

Why does the women 9.9 times out 10 get to keep the kid. Men are always screwed either way when it comes to children.

I'm not saying a guy should be able to screw around and not ever have to worry about kids, but there should be options in certain scenarios.

[easjer]

What Trainwreck said - the flip side of this coin. Fathers who want the kid and are completley willing to assume full financial, physical, and emotional support for the child but the mother wants to abort.

Another related issue that needs to be dealt with. I know there have been a couple of lawsuits on this based on property rights (the male owns half the genetic property comprising the child) but they've failed because of Roe v Wade.

If men are allowed out of this (and Obi's right - you can always sign away your rights and be done with it) then what happens when a man wants to assert his rights to an unborn child being carried by a woman who does not wish to continue the pregnancy?

[SpursWoman]

What about the male that doesn't get a say when the woman wants an abortion, is that fair?

No, that's not fair. But you can't have it both ways....if you want the right to be able to relinquish any responsibility to an unwanted pregnancy, so should she.

And while I'm very much for adoption as an alternative, I also know what it's like to actually carry a child to term. I can't imagine having to go through everything that's involved with carrying a child and then giving it up...for me that would be extremely emotionally damaging. Woman that have been able to do so are in Saint status as far as I'm concerned...I don't think I could do it. And I doubt I'm alone in feeling that way.

[Trainwreck2100]

No, that's not fair. But you can't have it both ways....if you want the right to be able to relinquish any responsibility to an unwanted pregnancy, so should she.



That was my point, as it stands right now, the woman has all the power when it comes to the fate of an unborn child

[SpursWoman]

Naturally. Literally naturally.


And I do think men should have some rights, btw ... but how much should they have, considering they aren't the ones that have to carry it? I honestly don't think this will ever find an easy remedy.

Best way to ensure this doesn't happen to you is by not sleeping with someone, especially unprotected, that doesn't share your ideals on the subject. And if you're willing to get that intimate with someone, you should know what they are.

Or don't sleep around, period. :fro

[Slomo]

That was my point, as it stands right now, the woman has all the power when it comes to the fate of an unborn childYes she has, but I can't think of a better solution. And this new lawsuit is also not making it better.


Edit: Nevermind SW beat me to it :)

[SpursWoman]

For years women have used regnancy to trap, guess the free ride's over.


And btw ... a woman can't trap a man who protects himself, regardless of whatever method she says she does or doesn't use.

[Spurminator]

Not an easy topic. I don't think the father has any more right to prevent a woman from aborting an unwanted child than the government does, but that's another discussion.

That said, I think there is a legitimate case to be made regarding a man's requirement to pay child support for an unwanted child. While it's true that in life you should accept the consequences for your actions, the degree of those consequences (in this case) is determined by the mother because it is her choice whether she'll keep the child or not.

Either system is ripe for abuse. If you allow men to exempt themselves from responsibility, many will choose to do so and leave the woman forced to choose between abortion, adoption or raising a child she may not be able to afford on her own. Also, the man has less reason to practice safe sex. So this definitely puts a lot more responsibility on women, but maybe that comes along with the right of Choice.

[Peter]

I think if you allow men the option of disowning the kid in order to end a child support liability that the abortion rate will increase...

[SpursWoman]

I think if you allow men the option of disowning the kid in order to end a child support liability that the abortion rate will increase...


I'm inclined to agree....and regardless of their stance, I don't think that's what anyone would like to see.

[Spurminator]

Most definitely.

[easjer]

SW - Well, what you said about protecting himself is partially true. I know of women (via the knot and the nest) who had 'oops' pregnancies because they deliberately tampered with the condoms that their 'mean' husbands insisted on using because said husbands were not ready for kids. I know of this for certain with one woman in Texas, whose story makes me too angry and irate to relate it.

But it's not entirely the same situation, so . . .

Anyhow, I do think the states are more likely to carry a heavier burden if this law were to pass, unless you were to mandate adoptions in the cases of mothers who couldn't support a child on their own. I know for myself that an unplanned pregnancy, married or not (and married men are not exempt from this argument), I could not bring myself to go through a pregnancy and delivery and give away my child. An abortion is not an option for me. If my situation were dire enough, the state would have to step in.

Which is why I do not think a law will ever pass to allow this to help, and in terms of lawsuits, it will continually be thrown out over legal interpretations and technicalities until a law is passed.

Again, men can always choose to sever their parental rights. . .

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

There are too many deadbeat fathers out there already for something like this to get passed into law. Let's go ahead and quadruple the burden on welfare.

[Phenomanul]

In the many, many abortion threads that have come and gone, those that oppose always come out with the inevitable "don't fuck around if you can't accept the consequences."

So this should only apply to women?


What this basically says that a man can fuck around just like he always does, only now if a child results that he doesn't want, he can just walk away. Nice.


No, it does apply to men.... it goes both ways.

[Extra Stout]

This is BS. Men, keep your dick in your pants. Nobody has the right to consequence-free sex. The moment you penetrate, you're accepting the responsibilities of fatherhood.

[MannyIsGod]

This is BS. Men, keep your dick in your pants. Nobody has the right to consequence-free sex. The moment you penetrate, you're accepting the responsibilities of fatherhood.See, this is bullshit.

Honestly, if you guys want to debate morality you can sit here and go back and forth and never come to a consensus.

But what I want is legal objectivity and equality. Right now the system is entirely in a woman's favor. You see, a woman does have the right to consequence free sex. The man should have that very same right.

[pache100]

What about the male that doesn't get a say when the woman wants an abortion, is that fair?

No one ever said life was "fair". Anyone who thinks that is naive. When a man is able to conceive a child (under any circumstances, even the most adverse as well as the most pleasant or "fun"), carry that child to term (under whatever circumstances prevail, financial, emotional, physical, etc.) and deliver that child (by whatever medical means necessary), THEN AND ONLY THEN, will they have a right to say what should or should not happen to the body that carries the child. Until then...no. And I don't give a damn if it's fair or not.

[pache100]

And btw ... a woman can't trap a man who protects himself, regardless of whatever method she says she does or doesn't use.

:tu :tu :tu

[MannyIsGod]

No one ever said life was "fair". Anyone who thinks that is naive. When a man is able to conceive a child (under any circumstances, even the most adverse as well as the most pleasant or "fun"), carry that child to term (under whatever circumstances prevail, financial, emotional, physical, etc.) and deliver that child (by whatever medical means necessary), THEN AND ONLY THEN, will they have a right to say what should or should not happen to the body that carries the child. Until then...no. And I don't give a damn if it's fair or not.I hope next time Women want equal pay and equal rights where men have the edge you're there to give them a speach about how life isn't fair.

Life may not be fair, "unfortunetly" our legal system is supposed to be.

[pache100]

I hope next time Women want equal pay and equal rights where men have the edge you're there to give them a speach about how life isn't fair.

Life may not be fair, "unfortunetly" our legal system is supposed to be.

Missing the point once again. There is NO WAY a man can conceive, carry to term, and give birth to a child. Women produce equal work to men all the time. I do it every day, and so do millions of other women. That was my point.

Come back when you (or any other man) can have a baby and we'll talk again.

[Triumph]

it should be both or neither.

[ObiwanGinobili]

See, this is bullshit.

Honestly, if you guys want to debate morality you can sit here and go back and forth and never come to a consensus.

But what I want is legal objectivity and equality. Right now the system is entirely in a woman's favor. You see, a woman does have the right to consequence free sex. The man should have that very same right.

I tend to think of abortion as a consequence of sex. It;s not a walk in the park.

[pache100]

I tend to think of abortion as a consequence of sex. It;s not a walk in the park.

No, it isn't. And I don't know ANYONE who has ever done it because they wanted to. It's a decision NO ONE in their right mind takes lightly. But, it is a moral decision about a medical procedure. And no one has a right to do that but the woman with the medical problem.

I think people have the wrong idea about pro-choice people in general. We are not "pro-abortion" and we are not "anti-life". I wish there never had to be another abortion. But I believe that the woman has the right to choose. Period.

[SpursWoman]

The fact that only women can have children in and of itself makes the entire situation unequal and not fair to begin with.

In the work place, other than being able to piss standing up at a urinal ... what "edge" or specific knowledge can a man have that a woman can't?

[2Blonde]

First off, I don't think a parent can voluntarily sever his/her parental rights on a whim just to get out of child support, although I could be wrong. :spin I believe the custodial parent has to agree to it. Otherwise, every deadbeat parent out there would just sever their rights in order to get out of paying child support.

Also I see see this issue a little differently. The choice I see is not between abortion, adoption & keeping the child. The way I see it is the when you find out you are pregnant you make a choice on whether to end the pregnancy or continue to term. Two options only. Abortion & Birth. If you choose birth then after that child is born it is going to be raised by either 1 or more biological parents, adoptive parents or the state. The choices of how the baby is to be raised should be made out of love for what is in the best interest for your child. Realistically I don't think these fathers will ever get to walk away with out paying their fair share for the child that is walking around with half of their genetic material, as someone put it.

[SpursWoman]

I tend to think of abortion as a consequence of sex. It;s not a walk in the park.


Give a man an unwanted pregnancy and he gets his legal easy-out and walks away otherwise unscathed.



Give a woman an unwanted pregnancy and she has 3 choices: keep it, abort it, or give it up for adoption. That's it. "Walks away otherwise unscathed" is not an option. That's not fair.

Not a single one of *her* options includes anything that does not physically and emotionally alter or cause significant change to her body. That doesn't sound like "consequence-free" to me.

[2Blonde]

Not a single one of *her* options includes anything that does not physically and emotionally alter or cause significant change to her body. That doesn't sound like "consequence-free" to me.
Well men & women are so different anyway. Men seem so simple and straight forward while we women are are so complicated. Even our bodies are that way. Men have their sexual organs on the outside for the world to see ( kind of a "hey look at me !!!"), while women's are more hidden, discreet and much more complex.

[ObiwanGinobili]

Give a man an unwanted pregnancy and he gets his legal easy-out and walks away otherwise unscathed.



Give a woman an unwanted pregnancy and she has 3 choices: keep it, abort it, or give it up for adoption. That's it. "Walks away otherwise unscathed" is not an option. That's not fair.

Not a single one of *her* options includes anything that does not physically and emotionally alter or cause significant change to her body. That doesn't sound like "consequence-free" to me.

thank you.
you said it much better than me.

[midgetonadonkey]

To avoid all the bullshit, I'm getting a vasectomy.

[2Blonde]

To avoid all the bullshit, I'm getting a vasectomy.
You're a smart man. :lol

[SpursWoman]

To avoid all the bullshit, I'm getting a vasectomy.


:tu :lol



Seriously ... men do have the same & equal rights as women. They have the right to keep their dick in their pants just as a woman has a right to keep her legs closed. Proceed at your own risk. :fro

[pache100]

:tu :lol



Seriously ... men do have the same & equal rights as women. They have the right to keep their dick in their pants just as a woman has a right to keep her legs closed. Proceed at your own risk. :fro


http://i2.tinypic.com/r19ytw.gif

[2Blonde]

:tu :lol



Seriously ... men do have the same & equal rights as women. They have the right to keep their dick in their pants just as a woman has a right to keep her legs closed. Proceed at your own risk. :fro
Excellent post :tu

[MannyIsGod]

I love it. A man has to keep his dick in his pants but not his wallet.

[MannyIsGod]

:tu :lol



Seriously ... men do have the same & equal rights as women. They have the right to keep their dick in their pants just as a woman has a right to keep her legs closed. Proceed at your own risk. :froIndeed. So when you choose to keep the baby, don't come asking for money. Proceed at your own risk.

[Peter]

*opening up the can of gasoline*

Well, men only want the choice to not to have to write a check, not, um, terminate the child.

[MannyIsGod]

Hey, if men can't concieve and carry children, then why shoudl we have to pay for them? The woman's doing all the work right? Thats her deal.

[Melmart1]

Unless she conceived through immaculate conception, the woman did NOT do all the work.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh, so now men do have a part in the pregnancy. Incredible! Someone should tell Pache that.

[pache100]

Oh, so now men do have a part in the pregnancy. Incredible! Someone should tell Pache that.

I understand that perfectly, Manny. I'm not the one with the problem over it.

If I had a child (when I could have had a child) by a man I was not married to, I certainly would not have expected nor wanted him to contribute in any way toward the welfare of that child if he were not willing. Unfortunately, not all women are in the (financial) position to say that.

[MannyIsGod]

Women of America: Seeking control of their bodies and of men's wallets.

[pache100]

Edit: Thought better of it.

Manny, I agree with you on more occasions than I disagree with you. But this argument is not worth any more of my time. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, I don't see either of us budging. I know you will not change my mind. And I will not stoop to personally insulting you.

http://i2.tinypic.com/r1bdxe.gif

[Melmart1]

I find it interesting that the men who have piped up the loudest on this issue have no kids. I am not saying that is good or bad- not even sure what it means. Just an observation.

As for controlling wallets, that is after the fact. And it's not about control, its about responsibility. Men and women will NEVER have equality when it comes to reproduction, and that is something that men have to live with. Just like women have to face choices about career vs. babies and so forth that are unfair, men have their burdens as well. But this law seeks to make a bad situation worse.

Because of reproduction alone, men and women will never be equal, period. If they are not equal,and face different challenges in pregnancy, you can not expect equal rights as well.

[Spurminator]

I wholeheartedly agree with the "Dick in Pants" philosophy as a practice. I just think that in legal terms, that's oversimplifying it a bit.

Make no mistake, I have no sympathy for deadbeat dads. (Cue Mouse alias)

[MannyIsGod]

The constitution disagrees with you. That arguement carries no legal weight. Abortion has set a precedent and if women are willing to have the right that the pregnancy is theirs to decide what to do with, they must also shoulder the financial responsiblity that comes with that right.

You see, you guys are trying to tell guys they can't have it both ways, but right now it is the women of this country who have it both ways.

[Dre_7]

No, it isn't. And I don't know ANYONE who has ever done it because they wanted to. It's a decision NO ONE in their right mind takes lightly. But, it is a moral decision about a medical procedure. And no one has a right to do that but the woman with the medical problem.

Since when is a baby a "medical problem"?



But anyways, back to the original post. My feeling in this situation, is the same feeling I have toward abortion (that is, abortion of a baby NOT caused by rape, incest, or where the mother's life is in danger). And that is: "If you dont want a garden, dont plant a seed." That goes for men and woman. If you are not mature enough to deal with ALL the posible results of having sex, then dont have sex.

[MannyIsGod]

I wholeheartedly agree with the "Dick in Pants" philosophy as a practice. I just think that in legal terms, that's oversimplifying it a bit.

Make no mistake, I have no sympathy for deadbeat dads. (Cue Mouse alias)Indeed.

[pache100]

Since when is a baby a "medical problem"?

A baby is not a medical problem. A pregnancy is.

[SpursWoman]

I love it. A man has to keep his dick in his pants but not his wallet.

Wow. You'd think with all of the money-grubbing, conniving bitches out there that are just fucking and getting knocked up to land themselves a wallet, you men would take better measures to protect yourselves...or at least get to know who you're unloading into a little better so you don't become such a victim.

[pache100]

Wow. You'd think with all of the money-grubbing, conniving bitches out there that are just fucking and getting knocked up to land themselves a wallet, you men would take better measures to protect yourselves...or at least get to know who you're unloading into a little better so you don't become such a victim.

Word.

[Melmart1]

Saying women have it both ways is an oversimplification as well.

[pache100]

Saying women have it both ways is an oversimplification as well.

Again...word.

[Dre_7]

A baby is not a medical problem. A pregnancy is.

Pregnancy is a medical problem? I disagree. How is it a "problem"?

[MannyIsGod]

Saying women have it both ways is an oversimplification as well.Really?

If a woman wants to keep a pregnancy she can and have the father financialy liable and the father gets no say so.

If she doesn't, she can terminate it and the father who woudl otherwise be financial liable has no say so.

[pache100]

Pregnancy is a medical problem? I disagree. How is it a "problem"?

Medical condition would probably be a more fitting description. But many pregnancies cause major health problems, and almost all of them cause at least minor health problems at some point or another. Have you ever been pregnant?

[Melmart1]

Oh... and the thought of women getting pregnant to trap a man and a wallet is completely LAUGHABLE. Do you realize how much it costs to raise a child, and how little of that child support actually covers!?!?!?

Now I think I get why its the guys with no children bitching about this...

[ObiwanGinobili]

Oh... and the thought of women getting pregnant to trap a man and a wallet is completely LAUGHABLE. Do you realize how much it costs to raise a child, and how little of that child support actually covers!?!?!?

Now I think I get why its the guys with no children bitching about this...

agreed.
who in their right mind would think that? Havign a child to care for takes so much tiume and mental energy--- ehy would someone do it JUST to get some $$ form someone else that barely covers the expenses of that child?
ridicules.

a friend of mine is divorced. her ex quit his job and went back to school.. he works part time and (willingly and joyfully) pays $120 in support for thir 4yr old.
yeah. she's rolling in it. she can either - cash the check into $1 bills nad roll around naked in it or pay daycare for 1 week.
wow.

[Spurminator]

Do you realize how much it costs to raise a child, and how little of that child support actually covers!?!?!?

Apparently, $21,782 per month.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=787063&entertainment=true :lol

I'll give you that fewer women abuse the system than don't, but let's not pretend it doesn't happen. Some people aren't smart enough to think about the future costs.

[MannyIsGod]

Its nto about trapping them to get their money. I'm not talking about gold digging.

What I'm saying, is that what you women in here are wanting is to have their sexual responsibility kick in at a different point. I have no problem with a woman having rule over her body, but I think that right should extend to a man as well.

If a woman can decide she has no responsibility to a baby inside of her, so can a man.

[SpursWoman]

Really?

If a woman wants to keep a pregnancy she can and have the father financialy liable and the father gets no say so.

If she doesn't, she can terminate it and the father who woudl otherwise be financial liable has no say so.


I understand your point, but my problem with it is that he chose to have unprotected sex with this person...and as far as I'm concerned anyway, I don't depend or rely on anyone else but myself for those kinds of things...and unprotected sex has a pretty high probability of ending up in pregnancy. As far as I know that's pretty common knowledge.

So he knowingly inserts his unsheathed penis...unloads, and now wants the legal right to walk away from the results if he doesn't feel like dealing with it?

"Eh ... I don't want it, you can't make me pay for it. Laters."


:wtf

[MannyIsGod]

I understand your point, but my problem with it is that he chose to have unprotected sex with this person...and as far as I'm concerned anyway, I don't depend or rely on anyone else but myself for those kinds of things...and unprotected sex has a pretty high probability of ending up in pregnancy. As far as I know that's pretty common knowledge.

So he knowingly inserts his unsheathed penis...unloads, and now wants the legal right to walk away from the results if he doesn't feel like dealing with it?

"Eh ... I don't want it, you can't make me pay for it. Laters."


:wtfOk, now go back replace the HE with a SHE and make the issue abortion. Then its legal, right?

[Dre_7]

Medical condition would probably be a more fitting description. But many pregnancies cause major health problems, and almost all of them cause at least minor health problems at some point or another. Have you ever been pregnant?

So if this medical condition causes health problems, then why not prevent it by not having sex?

And no, I have never been pregnant, but I also wouldnt get a girl pregnant unless I was ready to deal with whatever posible results of having sex could cause.

Again, if you dont want a garden, then dont plant a seed.

[pache100]

So if this medical condition causes health problems, then why not prevent it by not having sex?

I'm all for that for those who refuse to use protection. That's all that's really required.


And no, I have never been pregnant, but I also wouldnt get a girl pregnant unless I was ready to deal with whatever posible results of having sex could cause.

That's commendable. But, why is that more commendable than this:

"If I had a child (when I could have had a child) by a man I was not married to, I certainly would not have expected nor wanted him to contribute in any way toward the welfare of that child if he were not willing."


Again, if you dont want a garden, then dont plant a seed.

Again, my point exactly (and apparently, that of a host of other women here).

What exactly is your beef with me?

[SpursWoman]

"If I had a child (when I could have had a child) by a man I was not married to, I certainly would not have expected nor wanted him to contribute in any way toward the welfare of that child if he were not willing."


:tu I wouldn't, either.

[Vashner]

Put some kind of wire in there so it zaps the little sperms... like a bug blaster.. ZZZT.

[timvp]

He contends that the woman knew he didn't want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that -- because of a physical condition -- she could not get pregnant.

:lol

Sucker.

[Trainwreck2100]

So because a woman is born a woman she has complete control over how the man's life is affected, didn't we get rid of gender discrimination years ago. Roe v. Wade set that women could do what they want to with their own bodies, it shouldn't be a man's problem about a decision that she makes about her own body..

[SpursWoman]

Ok, now go back replace the HE with a SHE and make the issue abortion. Then its legal, right?



The roles are totally different for each person involved, as are the consequences. There is no possible way you can devise an equal law when it's not an *equal* issue to begin with...without being "unfair" to either the man or the woman.

Giving men that easy of an out when their consequences aren't nearly as great as a woman's to begin with only makes a bad situation worse, IMO.

[Triumph]

Fathers should simply have more rights with regard to keeping the child when the mother is in favor of aborting. This case is just the opposite side of the coin.

[SpursWoman]

So because a woman is born a woman she has complete control over how the man's life is affected, didn't we get rid of gender discrimination years ago. Roe v. Wade set that women could do what they want to with their own bodies, it shouldn't be a man's problem about a decision that she makes about her own body..


A man can either not sleep with her or make sure he protects himself. He has plenty of control over how his own life is affected. "An ounce of prevention...blahblahblah."

[SpursWoman]

Fathers should simply have more rights with regard to keeping the child when the mother is in favor of aborting. This case is just the opposite side of the coin.


I would support that. :tu

[SpursWoman]

:lol

Sucker.


No shit. :lol


If you weren't there to actually witness the hysterectomy ... wrap it. :lol :lol

[easjer]

So then if we do what Manny suggests and make this a law . . . then we are at the point where the guy can just walk away without any problem. Then the woman has to decide whether or not to have the baby or abort it, right? So we'll initially see a lot more abortions (which nearly all politicians agree, regardless of their stance on aborition's legality) would be a shame. BTW, why does the woman have to pay for the entire cost of the abortion if the man is equally unwilling to have the child? They aren't cheap medical procedures - not talking a $20 copay.

Or she can have it and give it up for adoption. Which is a health risk and trauma, and emotionally tramautic.

Or she can keep it. Now, either she would be able to afford to maintain a child or she wouldn't. In the first case, no big deal. In the second, that means that the state has to step back in to clean up a mess that the guy made with the girl. The girl has to deal with the fiscal hardships of the child, and so do you and I, the taxpayers. In fact, the only one not dealing with this problem is the other party that created the problem, the father, unless he's a tax paying citizen.

Still, if the argument is that if the guy doesn't want the child, he shouldn't have to pay, then does that mean that since I don't want any of these 'welfare' children, I don't have to pay the portion of the taxes that goes towards their assistance? I should think so, since I never had unprotected sex to create the unwanted child that I am now paying for. After all, if the dad doesn't have to pay, why do I? I didn't even get the orgasm out of it.

[Spurminator]

So we'll initially see a lot more abortions (which nearly all politicians agree, regardless of their stance on aborition's legality) would be a shame.

A dark secret is that many people don't necessarily think that would be a bad thing.

[SpursWoman]

After all, if the dad doesn't have to pay, why do I? I didn't even get the orgasm out of it.


That's the only thing that's really unfair. :tu :lol

[easjer]

A dark secret is that many people don't necessarily think that would be a bad thing.


Then I am truly saddened, because any moral stance aside, abortion is a medical procedure that can cause damage to the woman's reproductive organs and affect her future fertility. There is little worse than losing the ability to conceive a child when you are emotionally, physically, and financially ready to provide a good loving home.

[jcrod]

I find it interesting that the men who have piped up the loudest on this issue have no kids. I am not saying that is good or bad- not even sure what it means. Just an observation.

As for controlling wallets, that is after the fact. And it's not about control, its about responsibility. Men and women will NEVER have equality when it comes to reproduction, and that is something that men have to live with. Just like women have to face choices about career vs. babies and so forth that are unfair, men have their burdens as well. But this law seeks to make a bad situation worse.

Because of reproduction alone, men and women will never be equal, period. If they are not equal,and face different challenges in pregnancy, you can not expect equal rights as well.

I have kids and I say its bullshit. Men have no choices, women have every choice.

[Dre_7]

What exactly is your beef with me?

No beef.

Sorry if I gave that impression.

[SpursWoman]

Men have no choices


Your wife, past girlfriends...whomever, have consistantly pointed a gun at your head and made you come inside them?


Damn. :wow

[Spurminator]

Then I am truly saddened, because any moral stance aside, abortion is a medical procedure that can cause damage to the woman's reproductive organs and affect her future fertility.

Any worse than giving birth?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8334095&dopt=Abstract

[jcrod]

Oh... and the thought of women getting pregnant to trap a man and a wallet is completely LAUGHABLE. Do you realize how much it costs to raise a child, and how little of that child support actually covers!?!?!?

Now I think I get why its the guys with no children bitching about this...

In most cases about 20-25% of his pay is taken. That is a lot of money to dish out when your child is not living with you, or you don't want anything to do with the kid. If I ever (god forbid) get a divorce I would hate living without my kids and then having to give a 1/4 of my money, when you know all of that won't go to the kid. If you want to keep the kid(s) then you pay for you housing, food, etc. It's not going to cost you 1/4 of my pay to feed that child every month. You're not going to be buying that much worth of clothes.



a friend of mine is divorced. her ex quit his job and went back to school.. he works part time and (willingly and joyfully) pays $120 in support for thir 4yr old.
yeah. she's rolling in it. she can either - cash the check into $1 bills nad roll around naked in it or pay daycare for 1 week.
wow.

If that guy is only working partime and is going to school 120 dollars is a lot of money to give every month. That takes a big chunk of his pay I bet.

[jcrod]

Your wife, past girlfriends...whomever, have consistantly pointed a gun at your head and made you come inside them?


Damn. :wow


I don't have kids with anybody but my wife, but you know there is a thing called the PILL :wow

A condom can break, if you don't want to take full responsibilty by yourself, then I'll suggest you'll protect yourself too, don't just expect the man too everytime. You can do it!

[MannyIsGod]

Your wife, past girlfriends...whomever, have consistantly pointed a gun at your head and made you come inside them?


Damn. :wow:lmao Christy. You crack me up sometimes.

[easjer]

Spurminator - it depends on the when of the abortion and the details of birth. But generally, I concede the point. However, repeated abortions, because of the scarring by the D&C, can seriously impact future fertility, and that would be where I would see this ending up.

[Spurminator]

Well, I wouldn't have a whole lot of pity on a woman who had four or five abortions done and then decided she wanted to have kids only to find out she was infertile. In the whole scheme of things, anyway.

[SpursWoman]

:lmao Christy. You crack me up sometimes.

Shit....you're lucky you only got cracked up... I just made myself horny as all hell...I'm glad it's time to go home.


:oops :lmao :hat

[easjer]

jcrod, not every woman can take the pill, you know. I can't. And other forms of birth control for women are MUCH less effective than a condom. Condom failure rate (method, not user) is 2-3%. Method failure rate for a diaphragm with spermicidal jelly is 15% +, but goes way up if they are not fitted at their most fertile point in the month, because of the way that the cervix lengthens and changes shape from an infertile period to a fertile window. Sponges for women who have children (which contain spermicides) have a method failure rate of 20% +. BTW, the pill and other forms of hormonal bc are rated very high in method failure, but the user failure is higher than that, because many women are not fully educated about the way the horomones work. If the pill is not taken at the same time everyday, that can impact it's effectiveness. If a 'light' pill is prescribed for a woman over 150 lbs, it may not have enough hormones present. If a single pill is missed, it can seriously disturb the hormonal cycle. That doesn't mean it always will, but it CAN. There are a lot of women who don't know that.

Outside of sterilization and hormonal bc (pill, patch, nuvaring, depo-prevara), the condom is by far the best method of birth control. Also of STD prevention.

The whole point is that BOTH partners should be taking measures for prevention if they don't want kids. I'm really surprised that there isn't more talk of double birth control. Maybe it's just that all my friends are Type A, but almost everyone I know uses at least two, and sometimes three different types of birth control.

Birth control could fail at either end, which is why BOTH partners should use it.

And I still don't get why the guy doesn't have to pay for the abortion, or why I have to pay for the kid if they guy doesn't want to.

(Sidenote, child support payment DOES go toward food and shelter, not just clothing. If a parent feels the child support is not being spent on the child, they can petition the court to demand an account from the primary spouse to ensure that the money is being used appropriately, and if not, the court can cease payments).

[SpursWoman]

I don't have kids with anybody but my wife, but you know there is a thing called the PILL :wow

A condom can break, if you don't want to take full responsibilty by yourself, then I'll suggest you'll protect yourself too, don't just expect the man too everytime. You can do it!


I take 100% responsibility for myself ... But I could be lying. :spin


But it's not me I'm talking about ... it's the guys out there fucking anything that walks, relying on what she says she's using for birth control ... I'm sure there are girls out there that lie about it. Don't you think everyone would be better off if he took a little responsibility for himself, too? I don't think that's too much to ask...because the Pill doesn't protect against other creepy-crawlies that might getcha during the act anyway.

:fro

[ObiwanGinobili]

I don't have kids with anybody but my wife, but you know there is a thing called the PILL :wow

A condom can break, if you don't want to take full responsibilty by yourself, then I'll suggest you'll protect yourself too, don't just expect the man too everytime. You can do it!


and the pill can fail.
I've been pregnant twice on the pill. and yes i took it every friggin day. unfortunatly they were miscarriages - but you see my point.
no matter how well either party has protected themselves they shouldn;t be screwing around unless they are prepared to clean up the mess.

of course I'm prob. the only person in this thread who doesn't believe in sex before marriage. :lol

[ObiwanGinobili]

Your wife, past girlfriends...whomever, have consistantly pointed a gun at your head and made you come inside them?


Damn. :wow


now thats hott. :p

[Vashner]

Hey getting Oprah in here...

[jcrod]

The whole point is that BOTH partners should be taking measures for prevention if they don't want kids. I'm really surprised that there isn't more talk of double birth control. Maybe it's just that all my friends are Type A, but almost everyone I know uses at least two, and sometimes three different types of birth control.

Birth control could fail at either end, which is why BOTH partners should use it.


That was my point. I kept seeing the guy just needs to put a condom, where there are plenty of options for women also.




And I still don't get why the guy doesn't have to pay for the abortion, or why I have to pay for the kid if they guy doesn't want to.

If an abortion is their option, then it should be 50/50, or the guy should pay it. I don't think it should lay with just the women, unless he doesn't want the abortion.


(Sidenote, child support payment DOES go toward food and shelter, not just clothing. If a parent feels the child support is not being spent on the child, they can petition the court to demand an account from the primary spouse to ensure that the money is being used appropriately, and if not, the court can cease payments).

I think the money should "just" go for food and for clothing, not housing. You fought to keep the kid, you pay for housing. Believe me all the money they receive does not go to the kid, trust me I know. And the courts will always favor the mother, that crap will not work 9 times out of 10.

[easjer]

But Obi, it's not just about sex before marriage. There are married couples that don't want kids but get pregnant. There are couples that have abortions and couples where one partner wants kids and the other doesn't. They are not exempt from this discussion.

Example - my friend Stephanie. Badgered relentlessly by her husband to have a baby. He wanted a son to carry on the family name. Stephanie told by docs she couldn't have kids, due to the number and size of the cysts on her ovaries (later resulting in ovarian cancer and removal of her ovaries). Some miracle happens and she gets pregnant. Her husband decided when she was three months pregnant that he didn't want kids after all, and walked out on her, leaving her with the greatest kids ever (twins).

But he was the one who wanted them and then he left her. Incidentally, he then later changed his mind and tried to kidnap them, but that's a different story. His rights have been severed.

[jcrod]

But it's not me I'm talking about ... it's the guys out there fucking anything that walks, relying on what she says she's using for birth control ... I'm sure there are girls out there that lie about it. Don't you think everyone would be better off if he took a little responsibility for himself, too? I don't think that's too much to ask...because the Pill doesn't protect against other creepy-crawlies that might getcha during the act anyway.

:fro


Those aren't the guys I'm talking about and my point was there's more than just a condom.

[jcrod]

But Obi, it's not just about sex before marriage. There are married couples that don't want kids but get pregnant. There are couples that have abortions and couples where one partner wants kids and the other doesn't. They are not exempt from this discussion.

Example - my friend Stephanie. Badgered relentlessly by her husband to have a baby. He wanted a son to carry on the family name. Stephanie told by docs she couldn't have kids, due to the number and size of the cysts on her ovaries (later resulting in ovarian cancer and removal of her ovaries). Some miracle happens and she gets pregnant. Her husband decided when she was three months pregnant that he didn't want kids after all, and walked out on her, leaving her with the greatest kids ever (twins).

But he was the one who wanted them and then he left her. Incidentally, he then later changed his mind and tried to kidnap them, but that's a different story. His rights have been severed.

:lmao I'm sorry I know its not funny, but damn. Now that guy should be paying somthing.

[easjer]

Where do the rights end? First trimester of pregnancy? Second? Third? After the kid is born and the 'father' realizes how his life will change? What provisions are there for men who have sex knowing it might result in a child (by which I mean, unprotected sex, not condom failure or medical miracle)? What provisions if the man initially decides he will acknowledge and support the child and enters into an agreement (verbal) and then changes his mind?

By implying or making into law that there are rights which can be terminated, you are also stating that fathers have rights over an unborn infact which can be enforced. How does that work with equal protection under the law, given that it then forces the woman to have a child by legal measures, which is a governmental invasion of privacy prevented directly by Roe v Wade.

Why does the taxpayer have to assume the burden for these children when their parent is given a free ride on responsibility?

When these concerns are answered in a satisfactory way, then sure, bring it all in.

It's not a simple matter of man doesn't want baby. If not, sever rights. The degree of difficulty in doing so and what obligations exist before/after severance vary by state. In some, it's really easy, in others it is not. But that option is always available.

Another alternative, but one which requires forethought is a legally binding contract, signed by both partners stating that the man reliquinshes all claim and responsibility for any child accidentally produced of the union, if the woman should become pregnant and choose to carry the child to term and raise it herself. Then both partners know what they are getting into, and the situation is neatly and legally resolved.

But then that might mean knowing your partner well enough, and that's not generally the type of situation we are really speaking of, is it?

[Melmart1]

So JCrod... you are willing to pay housing for your kids as long as you are married. But if you got a divorce, you no longer want to pay for housing?!

[DieMrBond]

It has been mentioned before, but the pill is NOT 100%. You can get pregnant on the pill, whilst using condoms. Although it is very hard, it can and DOES happen. Two of my female friends have had this happen to them, one kept the child, and the other did not. The one who kept the child, is now VERY happy with their child, but is a single mother. The one who aborted the child, is now VERY UNhappy that they lost their child, and is also single. Who made the right choice? Myself, i think the single mother did (but i would never tell them that). Its unbelievably hard to be a parent, but the joy they bring is worth every dollar that they cost.

Also, while we are talking about the pill - there is NO 'cooling off' period when the woman takes the pill. As soon as you stop taking that little thing, you CAN get pregnant. My wife and I decided we wanted to get pregnant - in about 9 months - which is how long the pill supposedly takes to wear off... Well, we had a kid in 10 months instead!

On a similar note to the woman in the topic, who had a child when told she couldnt - my wife was told by a doctor she would not be able to bear children to full term - yet we have 2 children. Now, if she wasnt a smart lady, she might of been having unprotected sex and of had a child, all due to wrong information from a doctor... theoretically, they could maybe sue the doctor for the child support! :)

My personal belief is that abortion is NOT a choice, and it never has been. Too many young kids thing sex is consequence free, and a fun way to pass the time. There are consequences - and a lot of them. If your willing to do it, then you better be willing to support the partner. Not to mention, you shouldnt really be sleeping with someone for the hell of it! Its not supposed to be about that.

NOTE: Thats my opinions, not ones i would force on anyone else. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and i wouldnt condemn them for it.

[SpursWoman]

now thats hott. :p


Oh, I know ... I'm going to finish making dinner and try to figure out where Chris hid my shotgun.

:smokin :makemyday

[CharlieMac]

That was my point. I kept seeing the guy just needs to put a condom, where there are plenty of options for women also.

You know, I was getting too wrapped up in that too. I'm not sure what I said earlier in this thread, but perhaps I was wrong. We're getting wrapped in whether or not it's fair or not that women have some choices we don't. It doesn't really matter because in the end, that child needs to eat, needs clothes and so on. The child support isn't punishment fopr not using a condom or consolation to a woman for taking the risks of childbirth, it's for teh food that that child needs.

I was sitting at my mom's earlier today and my nephew was there. I started thinking of how furious I'd be if his father stopped sending child support because he just didn't feel like being a part of that child's life anymore. Should that child have to eat shit like Ramen and bologna sandwiches every day for the next 14 years because his father just felt like he didn't want to send money anymore.

It's just one of those things we have to deal with. It's retarded that women use the "You should have taken some responsibility" excuse, because that obviously works both way. Getting pregnant isn't some new concept to females and they know the risk involved with having sex. But in the end none of that really matters because that child needs food in his mouth. Like I said, he shouldn't have a shitty life because the male wants to spend his money on other things.

[SpursWoman]

It's just one of those things we have to deal with. It's retarded that women use the "You should have taken some responsibility" excuse, because that obviously works both way. Getting pregnant isn't some new concept to females and they know the risk involved with having sex. But in the end none of that really matters because that child needs food in his mouth. Like I said, he shouldn't have a shitty life because the male wants to spend his money on other things.

I wasn't trying to be a hypocrite by any stretch of the imagination ... of course a woman should be responsible and accept the consequences of her actions. But if a man chooses not to wear a condom (like the guy in the article) regardless of whatever she tells him, he's taking a risk that he shouldn't be able to back out of just because he doesn't want to deal with it.

[ObiwanGinobili]

Oh, I know ... I'm going to finish making dinner and try to figure out where Chris hid my shotgun.

:smokin :makemyday

iI'd go with somethign smaller for this one. A piecethat you can easily hide under your pillow or behind you back.. then once things get going pull out the "surprise" :p

man... i know what i'll be "discussing" on the phone tonight! :princess














fucking 4 whole motherfucking weeks! :pctoss

[CharlieMac]

I wasn't trying to be a hypocrite by any stretch of the imagination ... of course a woman should be responsible and accept the consequences of her actions. But if a man chooses not to wear a condom (like the guy in the article, which is to whom I was mostly referring) regardless of whatever she tells him, he's taking a risk that he shouldn't be able to back out of just because he doesn't want to deal with it.

Oh, it wasn't a shot at you or anything, so I apologize if it came across that way. I haven't even read the majority of this thread to be honest. I garee though, once that baby is born, whether a guy wanted to wear a condom or not doesn't matter anymore. It happened, and now that baby needs to eat.

[SpursWoman]

Those aren't the guys I'm talking about and my point was there's more than just a condom.


Why aren't they? They are a good part of the population that are making these situations happen.

Of course there is more than just the pill....but I guess if you're laying all of the responsibility on the woman to take care of birth control, it would naturally follow that all the responsibility of a pregnancy should fall on her too.

I mean shit ... all you want to do is have an orgasm, why should you care what the consequences may be?

[Sapphire]

This lawsuit will never fly because I think all states have an "in the best interest of the child" clause written in, and I think the father declining to provide support is not in the best interest of the child. And anyone who thinks a lousy $300 or $400 a month is keeping the ex's nails and hair done, and her driving a Porsche and dressed to the nines, has been dropped on their heads once too many times. Child care alone will eat that up!

That being said, we are living in a dying, desperate world--and it is becoming more and more so with each passing day. It's pretty damn disgusting--not just what this guy is trying to do, but stuff you read about and see every day. It's amazing, albeit sickening, to see the depths we humans manage to sink to. God help us all.

*steps down off soapbox and finds a quiet corner of my house to pray in*

[Trainwreck2100]

I mean shit ... all you want to do is have an orgasm, why should you care what the consequences may be?


Then why put out?

[midgetonadonkey]

Why aren't they? They are a good part of the population that are making these situations happen.

Of course there is more than just the pill....but I guess if you're laying all of the responsibility on the woman to take care of birth control, it would naturally follow that all the responsibility of a pregnancy should fall on her too.

I mean shit ... all you want to do is have an orgasm, why should you care what the consequences may be?

If the only thing that matters is an orgasm than maybe masturbation is the answer.

[SpursWoman]

Then why put out?

Do they have a cure for AIDS yet?

[SpursWoman]

If the only thing that matters is an orgasm than maybe masturbation is the answer.


Actually ... I thought about this a lot last night and it became even more disturbing to me. I couldn't afford to have another child on my own...I'm already raising two that my ex-husband refuses to pay a dime for (you know, just like jcrod would do) ... my daycare alone in the summer is over $900/month, how the fuck could I survive another $5-600/mo for an infant? I don't qualify for any government assistance at all, unless I had triplets then I might a little bit ... but I'd lose my house, no question...my car really doesn't have that much longer to go...so when it finally dies I'd be totally FUBAR'd.

And he'd just get to walk away without having any liability at all? Man...what a fucking deal that'd be for you guys. That seriously makes me not want to have sex ever again until either my insurance covers voluntary hysterectomies or I can save up enough to pay for one myself....because the only birth control that's 100% effective is abstinence or not having the equipment to make one...and to hell if I'm going to put myself in the position for whoever to be able to just leave without recourse if something like that ever happened and he decided he didn't want it or the responsibility that comes with it...with the law behind him. I mean, my ex-husband used to tell me all of the time that he loved me and would never leave me hanging...so even committed relationships aren't enough to make sure any child I might have has a roof over its head. You never know how someone will react to that second little line turning pink until it actually happens. And adoption or abortion aren't choices for me.

Fuck that.

[pache100]

So JCrod... you are willing to pay housing for your kids as long as you are married. But if you got a divorce, you no longer want to pay for housing?!

Got dammit! Just let those li'l varmints live outdoors! And their mother, too!

[SpursWoman]

Got dammit! Just let those li'l varmints live outdoors! And their mother, too!


They won't even have to live outdoors. Once the man walks out the door they all just cease to exist...just like me and my two don't really exist. To make his life easier, of course. Because that's the only important thing.

[pache100]

They won't even have to live outdoors. Once the man walks out the door they all just cease to exist...just like me and my two don't really exist. To make his life easier, of course. Because that's the only important thing.

SpursWoman, I feel your pain. There but for the grace of God...and all that.

But, for those who think all the responsibility should be on the man...and those who think all the responsibility should be on the woman (the "other" one, whatever the case)...the bottom line is...there is no one, (no one!) on this earth that a person can totally, 100% trust...except themselves - no one you can rely on 100% of the time except YOU. So...if you want to have sex and you don't want to be a parent, be responsible yourself, don't depend on someone else. And if you screw up, or there is just an unavoidable accident, be a man...or a woman...and take care of your responsibility and quit bitching about it. That's all I'm saying.

[Useruser666]

Well, that's the last time I'm having sex.

[nkdlunch]

I think they should make it simple. All the responsibility of the child should come down to whoever was on top

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

I think they should make it simple. All the responsibility of the child should come down to whoever was on top

I'll do you one better. Now I think we can all agree that an equal share of the burden of raising the child should be on the mother and father. However, nature provides us an ingenious solution. The child is already genetically equal parts of the mother and father. So if the child is forced to raise itself then technically each parent is bearing an equal load while neither has any real responsibility.

That logic is so airtight you could build a submarine from it.

[2Blonde]

I think they should make it simple. All the responsibility of the child should come down to whoever was on top
At what point? Don't you ever change positions, mid-stream, so to speak? :angel

[Darrin]

My opinion is that even in the heat of the moment some thinking has to take place. I personally assume that every sexual encounter will lead to a baby. Is that reality? No. That mindset forces me to remove alcohol from impairing my judgement and to ask myself before anything happens 'Am I willing to be a parent at the end of the night?'. It takes a split second, nothing more. And if the answer is no, our night only goes so far. This is from having a father, while I was conceived and born in wedlock, disappear for three years after my parents divorced. I couldn't do that to a child of mine. Now what the mother does - that's an entirely different story and something I have had to face in my life. But for my part, before I go to bed, I commit to that kid that doesn't exist. It's just a part of the responsibility of sex.

I'm just as strict about test results. It is the ultimate mood killer not to show them. This is why I'm not big on one-night stands. Because it does kill the mood to ask 'hey, do you have herpes?' But somewhere between our first kiss and past relationships, I show up with my tests and ask for hers. Our generation knows too much not to be careful, no matter our baser instincts.

As you can see, I'm not one for sex outside of a relationship. In fact, I am no fun at all.

As for this guy - it's my opinion that if he is the father of this child, he should just accept that it's as much his responsibility as it is hers. Her decision to have the abortion or not is independant from the life of this child. Don't compound a mistake in judgement with another error. His chance to weigh in was the night they had sex.

[TDMVPDPOY]

is it true when talkin on the telephone with ur GF, she can get pregnant? :D

[JoeChalupa]

In the words of my father, "A man who is not willing to take responsibility for his child is not a man".

[SpursWoman]

is it true when talkin on the telephone with ur GF, she can get pregnant? :D


Only if while on the phone with you, there's another guy there with her in your business...so to speak. :spin

[2Blonde]

Only if while on the phone with you, there's another guy there with her in your business...so to speak. :spin:lmao