mens rights

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

RE: mens rights

shit happens · Fresh Meat

wrote:

zap wrote:   In MOST instances the guy is required to pay ALL the support. So the issue really is (as we steer back to the original topic)....why should the woman make all the decisions and have all the rights that will affect the guy's financial future?

Scarecrow wrote: zap.. could you direct me to the site or source of information where I could find the statistics to back up your statement?   Are you looking at one particular state? or the entire country? does this include divorces or only 2 single people with a child between them, never married?   what year was this study completed? and is there more than 1 study that cooberates (spell) these findings?

ENTRE NEW WROTE:

zap wrote:

With this I agree....except for one thing. In MOST instances the guy is required to pay ALL the support.

ENTRE ASKED:

I really would like to see some statistics on this (though I'm not much on looking up statistics). When you say most guys are required to pay all the support, I have to wonder what planet you're living on. As I've said, I've been in the community of single moms all my life and I've NEVER known this to happen. Divorced moms yes, but that's a whole different ball game.

ZAP     2 different people have asked for you to cite your sources for the statement you have made that "In MOST instances the guy is required to pay ALL the support. "

Here is an opportunity to show people that your information is based on FACTUAL DOCUMENTED STATISTICS rather than possibly a personal bias, gossip, or possibly an ax to grind against your ex-wife(s?)

I read that you advocate logic and not emotional debating. Logic is based on provable facts. Emotional basis would include "presentation of statements as fact" which are in reality "statements of opinions".

You have excellent debating ability...

Back you your statements with provable information and sources. It gives you greater leverage and credibility.

end two cents

*temporarily leaving to go grill a steak and looking forward to seeing a great debate.*

shit happens · Fresh Meat

entre new wrote:

SB wrote: I am trying to due two things. The first, to even the "reponsibility playing field". Because as it stands, the decision is all on the female side, with the inherent knowledge that she can make that desicion knowing that she receive current prescribed child support. But then what would compensate the woman for the fact that the "opt-out" choice offered to her was unacceptable and unfair in the first place - as unfair to her as the child support is considered to be by the man? What if the government decided that a man could be relieved of child support payments (which would be taken over by public assistance) if the man, to ensure that there would be no further problems with unwanted children, were willing to get a vasectomy? If he refused, he would continue to be liable for full support of the child. To me, this would be completely unacceptable as a choice and should not even be considered (although for a man who had a problem with repeated unwanted pregnancies I might re-think that). Even though he didn’t have to do it, he would if he couldn't pay the support, so that would be an invasion of his privacy and rights. In this case, the man would have every right to say “it’s my body”. Sure, he had the option, but the option was offered unfairly and inappropriately. It’s not the same but similar to say that since a woman refuses to have an abortion she cannot receive child support in the amount to cover half the needs of the child. The choice offered to her was offered unjustly, and therefore should not even be considered in the equation.-- Edited by entre new at 12:53, 2006-03-29

Excellent points and examples to concider.

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

SB wrote:

The first, to even the "reponsibility playing field". Because as it stands, the decision is all on the female side, with the inherent knowledge that she can make that desicion knowing that she receive current prescribed child support.

Also, how about evening the playing field when the man is able to completely walk away from the situation after saying "yes" to an abortion, and the woman then has the choice between emotional pain or financial hardship ahead of her. How can that be evened up?

-- Edited by entre new at 13:03, 2006-03-29

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

zap wrote:

It doesn't do anything to solve the rights of the guy issues in determining the decisions, however.
What decisions do you mean? If the man is taking responsibility for half of the care of his child, he should also have the right to have an equal share in making decisions regarding that child.

SB · ohh, canada

Ok, EN and SH go sober up and come back later.

Firstly, men don't have unwanted pregnancy, because men can't get pregnant. And do you really want to open the door to the debate of vacsectomies and tubaligations. Because we are still settling 50 yr old lawsuits over state forced birth control.

Secondly, in the end ultimately the woman's responsibility to NOT great pregnant, because it's her body! So, say NO to unsafe birth control practices.

EN wrote: "But then what would compensate the woman for the fact that the "opt-out" choice offered to her was unacceptable and unfair in the first place - as unfair to her as the child support is considered to be by the man?"

I know this is hard for you to wrap your head around because of your pro-life beliefs, but her compensation is THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE!!

I mean, if you want to give up your "rights" because making a choice is difficult, then go ahead. I'm sure there are plently men out there that would love to turn the clock back few years. However, as the father of three daughters. I rather see they move through this world with the freedom to be no better, or no worse than other human being, regardless of gender.

EN Wrote: "It’s not the same but similar to say that since a woman refuses to have an abortion she cannot receive child support in the amount to cover half the needs of the child. The choice offered to her was offered unjustly, and therefore should not even be considered in the equation."

Is food, shelter, and clothing not the "needs" of the child?

It seems as far as "equal" rights are concerned you want your cake and have too. I'm sorry, but you can't have both.

-- Edited by SB at 13:30, 2006-03-29

shit happens · Fresh Meat

*saluting SB*

ok.. i'm fully sober and eating my steak.

shit happens · Fresh Meat

sb wrote:

Secondly, in the end ultimately the woman's responsibility to NOT great pregnant, because it's her body! So, say NO to unsafe birth control practices.

I heard scarecrow voice that in different words. (the underlined = main point, the rest just supports the main idea.)

Men: responsibility for not preventing unwanted pregnancy is your responsibility...if you do your part there will be NO pregnancy.... no child support.... no responsibilities for the next 18 years, no financial hardship.. no unfairness on this particular issue.... no feeling your rights have been abused/missused/ sold out, taken advantage of nor denied.

Women: responsibility for not preventing unwanted pregnancy is your responsibility... if you do your part there will be NO pergnancy.. no risk to your body in any regard related to pregnancy/termination/fullterm carriage and delivery.....No child support... no responsibilities for the next 18 years..no financial hardhsip, no restrictions on your ability and freedom to support yourself.... no unfairness on this particular issue.... no feeling pressured, no moral and ethical decisions to make... no accusations that you are a dead beat mom living off child support... no feeling your rights have been compromised or that you have been taken advantage of or that you are a martyr.

Darn... steak is getting cold!

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

SB wrote:

Ok, EN and SH go sober up and come back later.

Unless this was a joke, I find it offensive and am surprised to hear it from you.

Firstly, men don't have unwanted pregnancy, because men can't get pregnant.

Then say "unwanted zygote". I'm not going to debate semantics, at least not in this instance. And actually, if the woman wants it, it's NOT an unwanted pregnancy, is it?

And do you really want to open the door to the debate of vacsectomies and tubaligations. Because we are still settling 50 yr old lawsuits over state forced birth control.

I was using it as an example of a surgery which should be personally decided upon and which should not be imposed on an individual by the government or his/her sex partner.

I really don't care what we debate.

Secondly, in the end ultimately the woman's responsibility to NOT great pregnant, because it's her body!

No, it's a woman's responsibility to not get pregnant because she should not bring a life into the world which she cannot provide for (which she has ALREADY DONE by having sex). Ditto for the man. When two people fail in their responsibilities, they will both experience consequences.

So, say NO to unsafe birth control practices.

Huh?

I know this is hard for you to wrap your head around because of your pro-life beliefs, but her compensation is THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE!!

The man has the right to choose whether or not to have sex, he has the right to use birth control, he has the right to insist that other birth control be used over and above condoms, he has the right to be discerning in the partners he chooses, he has the right to wait for sex until he knows his partner well enough to know her feelings on abortion, and he has the right to refuse sex if the situation does not meet his conditions. The woman has those same rights. That is their "RIGHT TO CHOOSE!!"

I mean, if you want to give up your "rights" because making a choice is difficult

I don't remember giving up any rights because making a choice is difficult. I don't know what you're talking about.

However, as the father of three daughters. I rather see they move through this world with the freedom to be no better, or no worse than other human being, regardless of gender.

And I hope for them the freedom to never feel that they must choose between an abortion or living in poverty because their partner will not take equal responsibility for the child they both created.

Is food, shelter, and clothing not the "needs" of the child?

And that's all I'm asking for, as well as medical care and day care (which you totally ignored my argument on). You throw me when you say that the father should support the child but in a reduced amount. Again, you're treating child support as though it was punitive and as though the "fine" should be reduced if the father can show his good intentions and that he realizes he made a mistake.

-- Edited by entre new at 14:42, 2006-03-29

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

shit happens wrote:

sb wrote: Secondly, in the end ultimately the woman's responsibility to NOT great pregnant, because it's her body! So, say NO to unsafe birth control practices. I heard scarecrow voice that in different words. (the underlined = main point, the rest just supports the main idea.) Men: responsibility for not preventing unwanted pregnancy is your responsibility...if you do your part there will be NO pregnancy.... no child support.... no responsibilities for the next 18 years, no financial hardship.. no unfairness on this particular issue.... no feeling your rights have been abused/missused/ sold out, taken advantage of nor denied. Women: responsibility for not preventing unwanted pregnancy is your responsibility... if you do your part there will be NO pergnancy.. no risk to your body in any regard related to pregnancy/termination/fullterm carriage and delivery.....No child support... no responsibilities for the next 18 years..no financial hardhsip, no restrictions on your ability and freedom to support yourself.... no unfairness on this particular issue.... no feeling pressured, no moral and ethical decisions to make... no accusations that you are a dead beat mom living off child support... no feeling your rights have been compromised or that you have been taken advantage of or that you are a martyr. Darn... steak is getting cold!
I agree with you.

Except about the steak. I'm having a smoothie.

shit happens · Fresh Meat

sb wrote: I know this is hard for you to wrap your head around because of your pro-life beliefs, but her compensation is THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE!!

Both of their rights are to prevent unwanted pregnancy and the ensuing multi-faceted and LONG term responsibilities that go with a baby IF THEY DO NOT WANT A BABY.

I respectfully disagree that her compensation is the right to choose life or death of a human...

(Maybe I misunderstood your meaning?)

then again.. your bringing the term pro-life into the thread shines some light on something.

The individual definition we each carry as to the value of human life, the right to take human life, and at what point human life is concidered "human life" could be a major factor here that isnt being discussed.

Do men that wish for the right to order an abortion believe that a baby isnt human life?
Do the men that wish for the right to block the mother's decision to have an abortion believe that a baby IS human life?

Do Women that abort with out father's consent believe that a baby isnt human life?
Do Women that refuse to abort a baby....period no matter what.. even if her life were on the line..refuse to abort because they believe that a baby is human life?

I'm not sure where to go to find interviews and stats on this???

I believe in accountability of an individual's actions. Both the praise and the punishment. I have also been told that I am harsh with this point of view, because I am staunch about it. That may be truth as well.
I hold myself to the same level of, if not greater level, of accountablility that I hold others to.

Goodluck on your debate.

Enjoy your smoothie...(what flavor????)

SB · ohh, canada

The definition of insanity - doing (debating) the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

SH, good points.

EN, the woman still gets the choice to abort a pregnancy, with or without a man's consent. So, saying that the genders are on equal footing is simplily not true.

And to asnswer your question. I am waivering on childcare and medical costs, but at an absolute minimum. To put it simpliy, is it fair to charge "medical costs" for a child he wanted not to exist?

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

SH, I'm not sure how to answer your questions (except one - blueberry ). I suppose we all believe differently and make our decisions for different reasons.

I agree with you completely about accountability. But some people feel they should be relieved of accountability if someone else (the woman) pays the price (abortion).

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

SB, I simply think that if the parents are responsible for supplying any of the child's basic needs they are responsible for all of them. If they are really "needs", then it's hard to pick and choose between them.

However, as you pointed out, we live in a benevolent society. So if supplying the child's needs is an undue hardship for the man he should be able to apply for help just as the woman can. If she can apply for assistance, based on need, to support her child, he should also be able to apply for assistance to support the same child (with no overlap of course). Then it's not a matter of any one parent being relieved of responsibility, but of society giving help to those who need it.

By the same token if the public is willing to pay for the mother to get an education so she can better support her child (as is done in CA), they should do the same for him. It should be equal in as many ways as possible, and in no way should become more of a burden for the man than it is for the mother. I believe there are many ways to make child support more fair to both parties.

-- Edited by entre new at 16:10, 2006-03-29

SB · ohh, canada

At this time I think I would bring up another "unfairness".

The current child support scheme does not take into consideration when the women enters into a new relationship or marriage.

My brothers wife receives $500 a month in Child support even though she married by brother. My brother in all aspects is her son's father (save for a couple times a week) and yet never had to assume any financial responsibility.

Now on the flip side, if a man that re-marries he will still have to pay child support to re-married ex, to the financial detriment of his new family. Why is only family unit now benefitting from another?

MYTH: Abortion causes depression and long-term psychological trauma.

Any life decision can cause feelings of regret, joy, relief, or sadness. Some women do regret having an abortion, just as some women regret placing their child for adoption, and some regret that they had a child when they weren't ready. An unwanted pregnancy is a stressful and emotional situation, no matter what the outcome. There is no evidence to suggest that women who have abortions experience any more or less sadness and regret than women who complete an unwanted pregnancy. Each individual woman is the best judge of what is the most positive decision for her.

In the late 1980s, after reviewing the many studies that have been done on this subject, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, M.D. (who opposes the right to choose abortion), concluded that the emotional problems following abortion are “miniscule from a public health perspective.” Two studies published in the Journal of the American Psychological Association, which analyzed data from almost 10,000 women, found that having an abortion had no effect on women's psychological well- being.

Source:

http://www.choiceusa.org/facts/myths.pdf

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

I don't know, SB. I wonder if any man should ever have to assume financial responsibility for another's child. That wouldn't seem quite fair. If your brother wants to provide things for the girl, that's great, but I don't think he should have to.

It also bothers me that if a married woman has a baby her husband is financially responsible whether he's the father or not (at least in CA). That just seems wrong.

Regarding abortion, I would think there'd be a difference in the psychological effect if the woman didn't want an abortion but felt she was forced by circumstances. I think that would cause more deprssion and lasting trauma. I know it would have for me.

-- Edited by entre new at 22:31, 2006-03-29

zap · texaschickeee translator

[quote=Entre] "But then what would compensate the woman for the fact that the "opt-out" choice offered to her was unacceptable and unfair in the first place - as unfair to her as the child support is considered to be by the man?"

(copied this from SBs post btw rather than look all the way up for yours )

Lets look at this a mite closer.

Where is the compensation for the woman, if the man is able to opt out of child support?

Now...lets reverse it....

Where is the compensation for the man if the woman decides he will pay child support?

This is the issue at the heart of this thread. When a man says that he is being treated unfairly by the 'system in general' in regards to making decisions that will or will not result in his requirement to pay support based upon a large portion of his income....he is considered irresponsible, substandard and uncarring.

On the other hand, if the woman decides to have a child, expecting the guy to provide the support for that child, why is she not being just as uncarring and irresponsible as the guy in the previous paragraph?

What is the oppisite of deciding whether or not to continue a pregnancy? The only oppisite available to counter balance that power is to not support the DECISION. In the case of pregnancy...not supporting the child and its mother.

The fact is that the guy has no right to share in the decision making process. That is just the way it is right now. But why should the guy's future be hung on the decission of the woman when he has no input in that very decision. If she chooses to abort (God help her), or to offer the child to adoption, the guy has no right or bearing in that decision. If she chooses to keep the child, the guy has no right or bearing in that decision either...yet he is fully responsible for a minimum amount...and for a percentage of his income if above that minimum amount.

The fact is that while I would say most women are honorable in how they handle the issues here....a large portion of them are not. In fact, it can be looked at as if they are being paid for being mothers. Let's say for sake of argument that it is considered $200 per month is what it actually costs to keep a child healthy, but dad has a decent job and pays $500 a month in support. Since the courts tend to assume that the mother provides at least half, anything over 200 is compensation...and anything over 400 is PROFIT. Now...lets add a second child by another father with the same basic income. Rent and utilities are already paid for....so the second child costs LESS to raise...but does that father pay less? NO. So if will cost $400-500 a month to raise the two children and the mother is getting $1000 a month. You do the math. They are getting PAID to be moms at the expense of the guys.

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

zap wrote:

Now...lets  reverse it.... Where is the compensation for the man if the woman decides he will pay child support?

He should not be compensated by being relieved of responsibility. What compensation do you suggest?

This is the issue at the heart of this thread. When a man says that he is being treated unfairly by the 'system in general' in regards to making decisions that will or will not result in his requirement to pay support based upon a large portion of his income....he is considered irresponsible, substandard and uncarring.

Then THAT is what needs to be worked on. There are many ways to make the system fair other than letting the man be free of responsibility. And why should the man pay support based on his income? I've already conceded to SB that he should pay what is required for the support of the child. If men feel they're being treated unfairly, their concerns should be addressed. Maybe if they'd stop crying about not having a choice, and work on lowering the payments, they'd get a lot farther.

On the other hand, if the woman decides to have a child, expecting the guy to provide the support for that child, why is she not being just as uncarring and irresponsible as the guy in the previous paragraph?

I'm sure most guys would think she was uncaring, or even a "bitch" for taking advantage of the guy. Like I've said, I've been told by both men and women that boys will be boys and that if I chose to be a slut I shouldn't have got myself pregnant and then expected someone else to pay for it.  I've even had a relationship break up partly because my partner (a female) was so bothered by the fact that I received child support (albeit for a short time) from a man who had never wanted a child. We women get as much negative opinion as you men do.

If she chooses to keep the child, the guy has no right or bearing in that decision either...yet he is fully responsible for a minimum amount...and for a percentage of his income if above that minimum amount.

Zap, I can't re-work human creation for you. Again, it has to be the lesser of the two evils. THE WOMAN SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY THE PRICE TO RELIEVE THE MAN OF RESPONSIBILITY. The woman isn't expecting to be relieved of anything. She's willing to take her half of the responsibility.

And it sounds to me like your issue is the man paying a percentage of his income, which I have already conceded he should not be doing.

In fact, it can be looked at as if they are being paid for being mothers. Let's say for sake of argument that it is considered $200 per month is what it actually costs to keep a child healthy, but dad has a decent job and pays $500 a month in support. Since the courts tend to assume that the mother provides at least half, anything over 200 is compensation...and anything over 400 is PROFIT.

If it is decided that it costs $200 to care for a child the father should pay $100. Not $500 and not $0.

Now...lets add a second child by another father with the same basic income. Rent and utilities are already paid for....so the second child costs LESS to raise...but does that father pay less? NO. So if will cost $400-500 a month to raise the two children and the mother is getting $1000 a month. You do the math. They are getting PAID to be moms at the expense of the guys.

Your issue is with how child support is figured and not whether child support should be required. I completely concede to you and SB that the way it's figured needs to be revised, so why do we have to keep going back to debating whether the father has a choice (as you have above)? That's just non-productive.

Ultimately I'd like to know exactly what it is you want. You say you don't believe in abortion, but you keep going on about the man having to have a choice. If not abortion, then what choice do you want to offer him?

-- Edited by entre new at 00:06, 2006-03-30

eltsacon · I have seen USofA's big balls

Zap wrote :Let's say for sake of argument that it is considered $200 per month is what it actually costs to keep a child healthy, but dad has a decent job and pays $500 a month in support. Since the courts tend to assume that the mother provides at least half, anything over 200 is compensation...and anything over 400 is PROFIT. Now...lets add a second child by another father with the same basic income. Rent and utilities are already paid for....so the second child costs LESS to raise...but does that father pay less? NO. So if will cost $400-500 a month to raise the two children and the mother is getting $1000 a month. You do the math. They are getting PAID to be moms at the expense of the guys.

I to have seen this many times. So I agree, and the math is just fucked up.

SB- Normally I would not post to this thread simply because reading it makes my head hurt. The same thing is said over and over and I have to admit, you are more “settled” then I. With that, I have got to tell you. Many years ago I did allot of debating on this very subject, or rather the abortion side of it. You have done something I truly have never seen done with it. EVER. Somehow you have managed to completely take all emotion, morals, and anything else that makes it, (human?). Personally I find this fascinating. I have waited and waited for the other shoe to drop and frankly,,,, it just hasn’t. I rarely say this but , I’m impressed. You have it well thought through. I don’t agree with allot said here by most, including you. But, I sure wouldn’t want to argue with your points in the manner you put them. However I fear that if any attempt and/or act to put them in a “real life” situation was to happen, it would in time, fall apart.

zap · texaschickeee translator

Now...lets reverse it.... Where is the compensation for the man if the woman decides he will pay child support?
He should not be compensated by being relieved of responsibility. What compensation do you suggest?

Well that is just the point I was trying to make Entre... there IS no other option that redily presents itself that is similar in weight. After all, paying is what most people consider to be the man's part. So why should women not pay? (yes...I am being devil's advacate to get the ideas across)

Then THAT is what needs to be worked on. There are many ways to make the system fair other than letting the man be free of responsibility. And why should the man pay support based on his income? I've already conceded to SB that he should pay what is required for the support of the child. If men feel they're being treated unfairly, their concerns should be addressed. Maybe if they'd stop crying about not having a choice, and work on lowering the payments, they'd get a lot farther.

Ok.... but how can you get anyting done in a negotiation unless the other side has something to loose if they don't play fairly? You don't. And, as I have said before, I think the idea of this is to gain greater control (where there is currently none) in the decision making process.

Realize what you have said in various ways. The guy should have to pay if the woman decides he should by keeping the child. He has no say. BUT, in the reverse, the guy can't say he won't pay with the very same disregard for the consideration of the mother. Can't you see that that is just totally unequitable?

Zap, I can't re-work human creation for you Again, it has to be the lesser of the two evils THE WOMAN SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY THE PRICE TO RELIEVE THE MAN OF RESPONSIBILITY The woman isn't expecting to be relieved of anything

Not in all cases for sure...but I can't agree with that statement.

The fact that we cannot rework human creation is the very reason this is an issue. If the womon should not have to pay the price for the man to be relieved of responsibility....why does the man have to pay the price to relieve the woman of the responsibility?

She's willing to take her half of the responsibility

Well again we go back to what is her 'half'? (and how you determine what half is) Why does the guy not have input in the decision making process that will affect them both...and often the guy more than the gal (sorry...not pc but true)

If it is decided that it costs $200 to care for a child the father should pay $100. Not $500 and not $0.

We agree

Your issue is with how child support is figured and not whether child support should be required. I completely concede to you and SB that the way it's figured needs to be revised, so why do we have to keep going back to debating whether the father has a choice (as you have above)? That's just non-productive.
Ultimately I'd like to know exactly what it is you want. You say you don't believe in abortion, but you keep going on about the man having to have a choice. If not abortion, then what choice do you want to offer him?

I don't have all the answers...I have never said that I do. And yes...I am against abortion in all but very limited instances wherein I do not think it should be legislated but left to the mother. (between her and God)

The equation boils down to the gal's half is keeping and raising the child because she gave birth to it. The guys half is paying for it.

I don't think those should be as cut and dry as they are today.

I guess if I look at your question...the thing I think should be changed is that there should be more options. The gal should somehow be forced to consider the wishes of the man in the decision making process. I am not saying either should be relieved of responsibility...but BOTH should realize that there are penalties for not considering the other in the process. The gal currently has no pressure (from what I can tell) about keeping the child. She gets more benefits from keeping a child than letting it be adopted. So what is the downside for her to hang the guy with full blown support??

You are correct...we can go around over and over...I am just not sure you really understand what I'm trying to convey. If you understand and disagree...that is one thing. If you just don't get it...that is something else. I am thinking you arn't quite getting it yet. right? wrong??

SB · ohh, canada

eltsacon wrote:

SB- Normally I would not post to this thread simply because reading it makes my head hurt. The same thing is said over and over and I have to admit, you are more “settled” then I. With that, I have got to tell you. Many years ago I did allot of debating on this very subject, or rather the abortion side of it. You have done something I truly have never seen done with it. EVER. Somehow you have managed to completely take all emotion, morals, and anything else that makes it, (human?). Personally I find this fascinating. I have waited and waited for the other shoe to drop and frankly,,,, it just hasn’t. I rarely say this but , I’m impressed. You have it well thought through. I don’t agree with allot said here by most, including you. But, I sure wouldn’t want to argue with your points in the manner you put them. However I fear that if any attempt and/or act to put them in a “real life” situation was to happen, it would in time, fall apart.

Well, thanks for taking the time to thoughtfully read what's being posted. I don't expect everyone, or anyone for that matter, to agree with me. Mainly because I don't fully agree with me!!! hahaha I just expect that people will open their minds a little and think about a little more deeply and try not to inject there prejudices into the debate.

And you are right none of this would work in real life. And no one has mentioned this yet - (and I have been waiting) life is dynamic and ever changing. There is really no one size fits all shoe here, and there are plenty or rights and wrongs. There are fathers that disappear and show up 30 yrs later and want relationship with the children they abandoned. There are women that lie to their boyfreinds inorder to get pregnant, and there are women who have abortions that never even tell the fathers they were pregnant.

And in my situation I would have paid my father to fuck off.

What I would have liked to have heard from my friend EN, and yes Kim, you are my friend is some arbitrary number or precentage off of the child support for men who wanted to have their girl friends pregnancy terminated, even if it was just one dollar.

We live in this world and we try and make our own way, but all of us are guilty at some point of wanting someone else to help us out of a bad spot we've put ourselves in.

Lastly, I am also pro-choice. And I am pro-choice because the last thing this world needs is more children that can't be cared for, or are raised by screwed up people. Though, if someone decides to keep a child they shold get all the help in the world. If that help comes from my tax dollars then so be it. It is a small price to pay to keep that child on right track, and we all know how much it's going to cost in dollars and human suffering if we don't invest in those kids.

So, too everyone that's read this thread, those are my final words on the subject.

Thank you all for reading them.

Shane

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

zap wrote:

Well that is just the point I was trying to make Entre... there IS no other option that redily presents itself that is similar in weight. After all, paying is what most people consider to be the man's part. So why should women not pay? (yes...I am being devil's advacate to get the ideas across)

I feel that point was made long ago and I acknowledged it. Yes, that's very true. There would be no compensation for either party if they had those choices forced upon them. That's why it's a matter of choosing the LESS unfair option, as well as choosing the option which makes BOTH parties responsible.

Ok.... but how can you get anyting done in a negotiation unless the other side has something to loose if they don't play fairly? You don't.

I think there's something to be said for doing the right thing just for the sake of doing the right thing, especially when laws are being made. If men can show that they're having undue hardship imposed upon them, they should be listened to. But instead they complain about things which are impossible to change.

Can't you see that that is just totally unequitable?

That inequity can unfortunately never be changed, and focussing on it, to the exclusion of real issues is unproductive.

Not in all cases for sure...but I can't agree with that statement. The fact that we cannot rework human creation is the very reason this is an issue. If the womon should not have to pay the price for the man to be relieved of responsibility....why does the man have to pay the price to relieve the woman of the responsibility?

That's where you're inaccurate. She does not or should not expect to be relieved of responsibility. If some women are, then your issue is with them. Argue the concrete issue that men shouldn't have to pay more than half, rather than an abstract issue which can never be solved.

The equation boils down to the gal's half is keeping and raising the child because she gave birth to it. The guys half is paying for it.

I've said over and over again that it just isn't that way. I think a lot of that is in your mind. Reality is probably the middle ground between how you think it is and how I think it is.

She gets more benefits from keeping a child than letting it be adopted.

Your view is so distorted on this. The life of a single mom is difficult emotionally, socially and financially, even if the man is paying half support.

So what is the downside for her to hang the guy with full blown support??

Then your issue is that they shouldn't be allowed to do this. You should be wondering, "Why should one person have to pay for the mistake of two?" rather than "Why does biology make things unfair for men?"

You are correct...we can go around over and over...I am just not sure you really understand what I'm trying to convey. If you understand and disagree...that is one thing. If you just don't get it...that is something else. I am thinking you arn't quite getting it yet. right? wrong??

I feel I completely understand what you're saying. You're saying that if a man is not allowed to help make the choice in whether a baby is born, he should not then be responsible for the baby he would have chosen not to have. I'm hearing you, and saying that indeed his situation is unfortunate, but society has to choose the lesser unfairness, as well as the option which holds both parties accountable.

I don't look at it as we're going over and over. I think concessions have been made on both sides and we're closer to an understanding. But if you'd like to stop at any time, I'm fine with that.

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

SB wrote:

So, too everyone that's read this thread, those are my final words on the subject. Thank you all for reading them. Shane

It's been fun debating with you, babe. Now go and answer the Hypothetical Sex Question survey.

zap · texaschickeee translator

entre new wrote:

I feel that point was made long ago and I acknowledged it. Yes, that's very true. There would be no compensation for either party if they had those choices forced upon them. That's why it's a matter of choosing the LESS unfair option, as well as choosing the option which makes BOTH parties responsible.

Ok, so why is the guy being subjected to support less unfair than his being unable to participate meaningfully in the decision to keep or adopt the child?

Ok.... but how can you get anyting done in a negotiation unless the other side has something to loose if they don't play fairly? You don't. I think there's something to be said for doing the right thing just for the sake of doing the right thing, especially when laws are being made. If men can show that they're having undue hardship imposed upon them, they should be listened to. But instead they complain about things which are impossible to change.

YES! There is. Unfortunately, we are plaugued with people who do NOT do the right thing!! We have criminals, cheats, liars, drug addicts, etc. If I wanted to fight with you, how can you prevent me from hurting you by not fighting back? The obvious answer is that you can't. Just as you are saying we should accept "the way things are" is often an unfair burden, you consider any response to be unfair in return. In this case, the status quo IS what is unfair.

That's where you're inaccurate. She does not or should not expect to be relieved of responsibility. If some women are, then your issue is with them. Argue the concrete issue that men shouldn't have to pay more than half, rather than an abstract issue which can never be solved. T

Ok, then how do we GET TO that issue that you are calling abstract and unsolvable? By being ignored when trying to ask for more fair treatment. The argument IS abstract (I don't think anyone here has advocated the relief of responsibility of anyone other than as a means to an end to show the unfairness of the current status quo) but it IS also the logical counter balance to the decision making process that is possessed solely by the gals.

I've said over and over again that it just isn't that way. I think a lot of that is in your mind. Reality is probably the middle ground between how you think it is and how I think it is. She gets more benefits from keeping a child than letting it be adopted. Your view is so distorted on this. The life of a single mom is difficult emotionally, socially and financially, even if the man is paying half support.

She doesn't have to be a single mom. She made that decision often WITHOUT the input from the guy. So, the logical argument is that she is choosing this life and dragging the guy down with her against his wishes.   (obviously not in all cases)

OK lets equate this to a scale.  My side of the scale/argument is 0 and yours is 10 Looking at it like this the obvious balance is 5 . BUT, for years the status quo has been at more like 7 or higher. This is not balanced or fair.  So, what is fair to you looks as if it were 7 because that is the way it has always been. This shifts the center focus, but not the balance point. So, to try and shift the focus, I begin argueing for 0, knowing all the time I only want to pull the focus to 5.

Does that make sense? I don't think guys should be relieved of responsibility...but that is the ONLY counterbalance to the gal making all the decisions that will FORCE the guy into a disadvantageous situation for the next 18 or 20 years. She CHOOSES to keep or adopt the child. BOTH equally make the mistake of getting pregnant. So why should only SHE have the decision making power for them both? Most gals have a child because they WANT the child. But there is no downside knowing that the guy has to PAY for the child. There is just nothing there now to counter her making that choice. Sure she has issues and risks...but those are brought on by HER CHOICE. If she doesn't want them...adopt the child.

So what is the downside for her to hang the guy with full blown support?? Then your issue is that they shouldn't be allowed to do this. You should be wondering, "Why should one person have to pay for the mistake of two?" rather than "Why does biology make things unfair for men?"

Why should one person pay for the decision of the other? Why accept that bioligy makes things unfair for men rather than unfair for women? What if we turn that around and say ok...it sucks to be a woman? What if women had no right to choose the outcome of pregnancy or of the disposition of the child? What if the guy had sole discretion to choose to either keep or adopt the child at birth??

Years ago it was accepted that minorities were slaves. It was accepted that women didn't work or vote. Were those right or fair arguments just because that was the way it was? NO!   Entre...where do you START this type of discussion if not right here with the fact that the status quo is NOT balanced??

-- Edited by zap at 08:24, 2006-03-30

-- Edited by zap at 08:27, 2006-03-30

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

Zap, all I know is that it's society's job to choose the less unfair solution, as well as to see that all responsible parties are held accountable. Do you dispute that?

When a man says he shouldn't have to support the child because he had no choice in the abortion, he's saying "the woman should have paid the price to relieve me of responsibility". Isn't that truly what it comes down to? Nobody wants to listen to that kind of lack of accountability.

On the other hand, if you're saying, "Why does my child need ballet lessons when I can't even pay my mortgage?" then I for one am very willing to listen.

Men can complain about it all they want, and women could just as well complain about being the ones who have to bear the children in the first place. Both complaints are just about as realistic and productive.

I just can't understand what you're looking for, unless it's for someone to say, "yes, it's unfortunate that men can't have a choice about whether the woman has an abortion, but still have to pay the child support". If that's what you're looking for, then there I've said it. And not for the first time, either.

-- Edited by entre new at 12:12, 2006-03-30

zap · texaschickeee translator

entre new wrote:

Zap, all I know is that it's society's job to choose the less unfair solution, as well as to see that all responsible parties are held accountable. Do you dispute that?

I thought WE were society....

When a man says he shouldn't have to support the child because he had no choice in the abortion, he's saying "the woman should have paid the price to relieve me of responsibility". Isn't that truly what it comes down to? Nobody wants to listen to that kind of lack of accountability.

NO. It certainly does not come down to that Entre.

......which is what makes me think that you really don't get the concept that I've been trying to get across. *shrug*

-- Edited by zap at 14:42, 2006-03-30

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

The concept you're trying to get across is that if the man can't have a say in deciding whether the pregnancy should be ended he shouldn't have to support the child which results from the pregnancy.

shit happens · Fresh Meat

simply a power trip. how interesting.

zap · texaschickeee translator

entre new wrote:

The concept you're trying to get across is that if the man can't have a say in deciding whether the pregnancy should be ended he shouldn't have to support the child which results from the pregnancy.

Entre...that is actully just the opposite of what we have been saying.

We make that point as the opposite of what is happening now when women have ALL the rights and make ALL the decisions and the guy can only wait and see what his fate will be. He is both powerless to influence the decision if the gal chooses not to listen, and equally powerless to defend his future.

.....you should recognize that argument...I thing we made it on page one and went to the other to show that the mirror image of what IS HAPPENING NOW is so far out of whack...that if it were reversed women would be up in arms.

Earlier you asked what I wanted. What I want is for people to see how screwed up the system/status quo is now....so that they might realize THEY ARE the SOCIETY that will decide something needs to be done. YES...it is an emotional issue. And the only way to debate it is to do so without emotion. BUT, when you insist on being emotional about it (not a bad thing...I am that way on some topics also) the only way to show how bad something is, is to paint the picture of what the reverse would be and let you be equally emotional about that too.

NOW.......don't get pissed off. Just wait a day or two then think about it again. Here is what you should be able to see I was trying to point out....

Guys should have some power in the decision making process that will affect their life also ..is the SAME as.... Women should not be told no one cares and left to fend totally by themselves. Therefore guys should be given more real influence in the system.

As long as the system is the way it is now, the incentive is for the woman to have the child...well...many children actually...and get paid for it at the expense of the fathers. In many cases, they will be able to have similar income without working at all.

As long as guys have no power to influence the decisions and the gals have no real risk based on THEIR decisions to have children....they will KEEP DOING IT. If there was risk, unwanted pregnancies would be lower. Adoptions would increase short term, and then drop off as the number of children born into very low income level families would likely decrease considerably.

Reforming the status quo is a long term process...but it starts with people like you and I, and those reading but not posting. Before it can start to change...the inequity of the current system must be recognized as it truely is. The lawsuit that sparked the OP to post here is just the start of the process. We have talked about it. We have looked at it. I found out some things I was unaware of, and my guess is that anyone who looks at this honestly will also.

Yes...Before anyone runs a broomstick up their ass....this is MY OPINION...which doesn't make it wrong btw.

eltsacon · I have seen USofA's big balls

WELL, that opened the door............. Personally, if you're suggesting this "debate" be taken one step further, like to government, then it really doesn't matter. You see, if you two, or three have spent soooo much time saying the same thing over and over a billion times just to agree to change one word here and there as to how it should be, and still not agree in the end, then what the hell do you think politicians are going to do with it? Believe me, you 2,or 3 are better at figuring it out then any of those morons in DC and none of you could agree either. Not saying that some things don't need changed, but good god, if some of the simplest points to this are that disagreeable, how the hell does anyone plan to make a "law" on how it should work in all situations? (As mentioned before.)

A noble effort I think, but I hope (realistically) none of you expect real change any time soon in the law.

-- Edited by eltsacon at 22:14, 2006-03-30