mens rights

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

RE: mens rights

SB · ohh, canada

entre new wrote:

I don't think either parent had that right in the first place. Am I imposing my beliefs when if I try to stop someone from abusing a child? In the "accidental" pregnancy/child support debate there is no fault, because the both parties are at automatically at fault and the guy is going to pay child support. And the mother should also be financially responsible for half of the child's needs.

I'm not sure what you mean by child abuse? The abortion?

Typical Pro life 12 week old and fully formed fetus illastration. Not exactly the one inch long fetus it's supposed to be!

the child support system is sooooooooo completely flawed it's not funny.

I agree wholeheartedly but for different reasons.

You don't know what my reasons are for saying why I believe its flawed.

That is because it's in her body and she will suffer greater consequences if it's removed. There has to be some consideration for that.

I agree that is should be taken into consideration. But should a man who never wanted a child and clearly stated that during the relationship pay the same amount of support as a man who wanted a child but the relationship failed?

And the final decision to have sex is also the woman's, as under normal circumstances, a pregnancy doesn't occur until after woman lets a man enter her body.

Maybe the guy should have to pay half of a few years of psychotherapy to help the woman get over the loss of the child? Maybe the woman should pay if it's the father that wants the child?

Why should the man have to pay for therapy for the woman getting over the loss of her child? Are you saying that women are so fragile that need men to pay to repair their minds when they have to make a difficult decisions? Is this another thing they can't take care of themselves?

And some women do pay child support when they leave thier children. My friend receives a whole dollar a month in child support for his two kids.

Please answer this question: Do you or do you not think that both parents are taking the risk of liability when they have sex, and that as adults they should be aware of that?

Yes, I do think that boys should be educated that having sex may mean that they will be unfairly stung with child support payments whether they planned on, or even wanted to be a father, no matter if their intent, or lack there of, was communicated inadvance of the pregnancy.

Should women not be empowered to make better choices in the men they date and take more responsibility for their reproductive systems?

-- Edited by SB at 03:33, 2006-03-22

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

SB wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean by child abuse? The abortion? Typical Pro life 12 week old and fully formed fetus illastration. Not exactly the one inch long fetus it's supposed to be!

I don't think being tiny or not looking like a human means you can't feel pain.

You don't know what my reasons are for saying why I believe its flawed.

I thought you were saying because it favors the woman.

But should a man who never wanted a child and clearly stated that during the relationship pay the same amount of support as a man who wanted a child but the relationship failed?

Stating and making sure something doesn't happen are two different things. Birth control can fail, and the guy should have known that no matter how much he "stated", that didn't mean it wouldn't happen. His actions apparently conflicted with his statement.

And the final decision to have sex is also the woman's, as under normal circumstances, a pregnancy doesn't occur until after woman lets a man enter her body.

The final decision is on both of them. I can't force a man to have sex with me.

Why should the man have to pay for therapy for the woman getting over the loss of her child? Are you saying that women are so fragile that need men to pay to repair their minds when they have to make a difficult decisions? Is this another thing they can't take care of themselves?

Two people did the act which eventually caused the woman to be traumatized. Two people should pay for her to recover. If you prefer, the one who chose the abortion should pay for half of the emotional trauma caused to the one who didn't want the abortion. The therapy would not be because she had to make a decision, but because she lost her child.

And some women do pay child support when they leave thier children. My friend receives a whole dollar a month in child support for his two kids.

I think women should pay child support and the amount should be decided fairly.

Yes, I do think that boys should be educated that having sex may mean that they will be unfairly stung with child support payments whether they planned on, or even wanted to be a father, no matter if their intent, or lack there of, was communicated inadvance of the pregnancy. Should women not be empowered to make better choices in the men they date and take more responsibility for their reproductive systems?

I think it should be drilled into all kids heads that when you have sex you are taking the risk of making a baby, so you had better be darn sure you're willing to take that risk and not cry later, "I didn't mean for that to happen, so make it go away". I taught my son to think BEFORE he has sex, not after.

Regarding the issue of women being so fragile that men need to pay to repair their minds, I'm going to paste this from a PM so I don't have to type it out again:

Consequences for the woman if the father says no child: the horrifically traumatic experience of having to let them suck a baby out of her which she would give her life to protect, weeks or months of mourning for the child she would have loved and cared for, years of regrets and wondering wheher she did the right thing, looking at her future children and always being reminded of the one she lost, missing that child for the rest of her life.

Consequences for the father if he says no child: um...uh...let's see..a future of financial freedom?

SB · ohh, canada

"I don't think being tiny or not looking like a human means you can't feel pain. "

Well, that's arguable. Does a five week old fetus that's the size a fingernail that doesn't have a brain or heart feel pain?

"I thought you were saying because it favors the woman."

Well, you were right in part. In some cases it favors the woman to the point that father commit suicide because their lives have been completely ruined the father. We had a case up here was the guy was ordered to pay $5 more than actually earned. He lost his home, his car, his ability to remain employed, and eventually his life.

And in many cases the system is flawed because the money is with held, it's not enough, and it's used to blackmail. Up here if a woman is having problems the government steps in and pays the mother, and the father pays government. That way the mother will always have the "check" on a regular day, etc.

I believe the system is flawed because there are few measures to ensure the child is the actual beneficiary of the support payments.

"Stating and making sure something doesn't happen are two different things. Birth control can fail, and the guy should have known that no matter how much he "stated", that didn't mean it wouldn't happen. His actions apparently conflicted with his statement."

I guess takes us back to contacts and informed decisions.

"The final decision is on both of them. I can't force a man to have sex with me"

But if a guy makes it completely clear beforehand that does want a child and if she gets pregnant, she is on her own or should have an abortion, the she has been informed and a verbal contact has been made. And she consented to have sex based on the conditions of the contact.

"Two people did the act which eventually caused the woman to be traumatized. Two people should pay for her to recover. If you prefer, the one who chose the abortion should pay for half of the emotional trauma caused to the one who didn't want the abortion. The therapy would not be because she had to make a decision, but because she lost her child."

She is not being forced into having an abortion. It would be a decision she would have to make on her own, knowing full well that she chooses to have the "child" that she may bare the sole financial responsibility of raising.

But I'll concede to five fully paid trips to a counselor, but life is full of pain and regret and suggestion of paying for a life time of counceling is ridiculous.

"I think women should pay child support and the amount should be decided fairly."

I agree

I think it should be drilled into all kids heads that when you have sex you are taking the risk of making a baby, so you had better be darn sure you're willing to take that risk and not cry later, "I didn't mean for that to happen, so make it go away". I taught my son to think BEFORE he has sex, not after.

I agree and that's why there needs to be open honest and open communication beforehand, and the "what ifs" need to be talked about. And if the two people can't agree on what they'd do if there was a pregnacy they shouldn't take the risks involved in sex.

Regarding the issue of women being so fragile that men need to pay to repair their minds, I'm going to paste this from a PM so I don't have to type it out again:

Consequences for the woman if the father says no child: the horrifically traumatic experience of having to let them suck a baby out of her which she would give her life to protect, weeks or months of mourning for the child she would have loved and cared for, years of regrets and wondering wheher she did the right thing, looking at her future children and always being reminded of the one she lost, missing that child for the rest of her life.

Firstly, there should be no surpises on where the father's stands on having the child. This needs to be comunicated long before there is a baby. So, if the woman CHANGES HER MIND and wants to avoid having the baby tramatically sucked out her body she should do so and incur the cost of raising the child.

I take issue with the following comments: "a baby out of her which she would give her life to protect, weeks or months of mourning for the child she would have loved and cared for, years of regrets and wondering wheher she did the right thing, looking at her future children and always being reminded of the one she lost, missing that child for the rest of her life." I take issue with these comments because what comes down to, is not love, wondering what the child been like, or who they would have grown up to be, it comes down to money. If a women really she was going to feel all those things and that she would be traumatize her for the rest of her days, she "buck up" and do it on her own. No one is forcing her to have an abortion.

There are women today that go out and get pregnant by friends or go to clinics that do it soley on their own by choice! I have a lawyer friend in Mexico that wanted to have a baby. She asked me if I would be the father, she would have drawn up a contract, etc (A great many things were discussed -far to many to discuss here)

Now in the context of lossing a baby that is "wanted" that's a whole other story. I know what it's like to feel excited about having a child. I have three! And I can only imagine how terrible it would be to lose a baby, and all the dreams and hopes that comes with a "wanted" pregnancy, whether it was accidental or planned.

Consequences for the father if he says no child: um...uh...let's see..a future of financial freedom?

As I stated before it can end the man's life. It may mean that they can't afford to go to school, can't change careers, can't aford a home or lose their a home, and it may ruin chances of finding a spouce or girlfriend. (again you didn't make your intentions known and the woman didn't make her's know once the child is born -too bad so sad)

Now in saying all this! I do believe no matter what once the child is born EVERY father, whether he wanted to be one or not should be responsibile financially for that child. Though, it should minimal in cases whether the father didn't want the child to begin with and comunicated that beforehand. However, in doing that they should relinquish all parental rights to the mother.

zap · texaschickeee translator

My head hurts....and I have not read the last two posts through. But, I will answer this question you posed...

Please answer this question: Do you or do you not think that both parents are taking the risk of liability when they have sex, and that as adults they should be aware of that?

Yes. Both parents are taking the liability when they have sex. However, sometimes unexpected things happen. When something unexpected happens (like your car accident mentioned by SB) Why do most women run to the MY BODY theory? They sayd MY BODY MY DECISION....the guy who was equally responsible...now has NO say what so ever. Further...he is subjected to support the child until age of majority, as a direct result of the SOLE decision of the mother.

Now.... How can you get the equation (no emotion please) from SHARED 50/50 decision/liability to the gal having sole descretion and decision making ability and the guys 'half' is supporting the child and mother for the next 18+ years?? The gal still retains 100% decision making authority...she wants to move across the country...he can't stop her, but he still has to pay.

I understand your points. I really do. But how can you logically equate that as being even remotely fair? I think Kat said it best....gals shouldn't be able to have ti both ways.

KatScratch · Bad kitty....in the best possible way

Zap wrote: I think it is wrong for a gal to abort a child against the wishes of the father. However, he has absolutely no say what so ever in the decision. Yet, in the reverse, how can you hold him fully financially responsible for a child that was created by accident (yes both were responsible..but accidents can happen) ...... and he will seldom if ever have any rights to even if he wanted them?

SB Wrote: So, why can't we change the paradign from, "The whore man who impregnants helpless women with his dick and must pay for the 18+years," to one of, "The woman bares sole responsibility for reperductive organs and life she chooses to bare?"

SB Wrote: They want to have the sole decision over whether or not to have and keep a baby without taking the sole financial responsibility in raising it. I wonder why that is?

Entre Wote: That is because it's in her body and she will suffer greater consequences if it's removed. There has to be some consideration for that. Maybe the guy should have to pay half of a few years of psychotherapy to help the woman get over the loss of the child? Maybe the woman should pay if it's the father that wants the child?

Wow....I guess I should have kept up with this thread......I'll try to go in order. Zap, Right on the money with that explanation and question. You know my thoughts here...fair or not (an it's not) women have the upper hand in the courts eye because she gave birth. Well, if not for the guy's donation she would have nothing to bitch about. Simple thought process and stupid logic used in courts today! It needs a serious enema!!!

SB, In your first statement....Here, here! ....and in your second statement, because the truth of it would kill a woman! They want to have equal rights as a woman, but yet they need a "gray" area to retreat to when they deem it necessary (i.e. have it both ways).

Entre, abortions and the risks involved have evolved over times past and the "damage" that was done in the past is less frequent today. And, if the woman chooses to have the abortion against the man's decision, she forfeits any "consideration" in my opinion. Yes, there is mental stress on a woman who decides to have an abortion, but there is equal stress on a man who finds out his woman had an abortion when he wanted the child! The system has problems and everyone who has the power to change it won't.....

On another note: Just because a woman gives birth, doesn't lesson a man's rights. Women need to figure out what the hell they want in this world, equal rights or their opinion of their rights! They can't continue to scream it from both sides of the fence and then get pissed when a man questions this "logic" (and I use the term "logic" very loosely here). Something has to change, men need to have a voice and not just be a paycheck!

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

SB wrote:

We had a case up here was the guy was ordered to pay $5 more than actually earned. He lost his home, his car, his ability to remain employed, and eventually his life.

Something like that should never happen. I wonder how it is that some guys are going through that, and there's other guys like mine who manage to never pay a penny. From what I've seen, it's the guys who are divorced who are getting the worst of it, so I don't know why everyone comes down on the single moms.

Up here if a woman is having problems the government steps in and pays the mother, and the father pays government. That way the mother will always have the "check" on a regular day, etc.

Here they will give you welfare, but you have to give up your right to the thousands of dollars of back payments he owes you, even after you're off welfare.

The final decision is on both of them. I can't force a man to have sex with me" But if a guy makes it completely clear beforehand that does want a child and if she gets pregnant, she is on her own or should have an abortion, the she has been informed and a verbal contact has been made. And she consented to have sex based on the conditions of the contact.

I can honestly say that though I'm in my 40s and live in an area with predominately upper middle class well-educated people, no guy has EVER asked me if I was on birth control, or what I would do if I got pregant or whether I believe in abortion. In fact, there are many things about my personality which would quickly indicate that I would most likely be a person who would choose not to have an abortion. But I've never had a guy wait long enough to learn those simple obvious things about me before he starts pressuring me for sex. If guys look at us women as the evil child support monsters, then why aren't they looking out for themselves better?

She is not being forced into having an abortion. It would be a decision she would have to make on her own, knowing full well that she chooses to have the "child" that she may bare the sole financial responsibility of raising.

Many of us have made that decision which is why we'll never catch up to our peers financially. But we've accepted that.

And if the two people can't agree on what they'd do if there was a pregnacy they shouldn't take the risks involved in sex.

Seems like this would solve everything.

If a women really she was going to feel all those things and that she would be traumatize her for the rest of her days, she "buck up" and do it on her own. No one is forcing her to have an abortion.

But most people will tell her that she had no right to choose a life of poverty for the child. Not that she has to listen, but she will receive an ongoing guilt trip about it. Also, many women are able to make little more than the total of their child care bills.

Now in the context of lossing a baby that is "wanted" that's a whole other story. I know what it's like to feel excited about having a child. I have three! And I can only imagine how terrible it would be to lose a baby, and all the dreams and hopes that comes with a "wanted" pregnancy, whether it was accidental or planned.

Wait a minute, I can't believe you said that. I thought 5 sessions of psychotherapy would clear that up!!! Or are you saying that a child wanted by the father is different than a child wanted by the mother? I hope I'm misunderstanding.

You know that we're never going to agree on this, right? I actually see your point to a large extent. I think if men did have the option to back out of fatherhood beforehand, that would at least necessitate some serious discussion between potential partners, and that's something which does not normally occur.

-- Edited by entre new at 20:46, 2006-03-22

zap · texaschickeee translator

You know that we're never going to agree on this, right? I actually see your point to a large extent. I think if men did have the option to back out of fatherhood beforehand, that would at least necessitate some serious discussion between potential partners, and that's something which does not normally occur.

Now you are getting it.

As distasteful as the idea of guys being able to say I don't want the baby and walk away from the situation is....it is the necessary equality for the MY BODY MY CHILD MY DECISIONS argument by the mothers.

Until guys have that right....women will always have all the options and few if any risks associated with making the baby. As I said early on....why can't women say NO?

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

zap wrote:

They sayd MY BODY MY DECISION....the guy who was equally responsible...now has NO say what so ever. Further...he is subjected to support the child until age of majority, as a direct result of the SOLE decision of the mother.

You already know how I feel about the "my body" defense, but I do think the woman should have more than a 50/50 say in the matter because her body is involved.  I'm afraid I'll never agree that both parties suffer the consequences of an abortion equally, so I can't agree it should be a 50/50 decision.

Now.... How can you get the equation (no emotion please) from SHARED 50/50 decision/liability to the gal having sole descretion and decision making ability and the guys 'half' is supporting the child and mother for the next 18+ years??

She shouldn't have sole discretion and decision making ability. Who said that? If both parents are paying equally they should both be equal partners. And the man is NOT supporting the mother and child, he's supporting the child. And there should be some control over whether the child is taken somewhere where the father will not readily be able to visit.

The gal still retains 100% decision making authority...she wants to move across the country...he can't stop her, but he still has to pay. I understand your points. I really do. But how can you logically equate that as being even remotely fair? I think Kat said it best....gals shouldn't be able to have ti both ways.

If it was the other way, it would be the perfect situation for guys, because they can have sex freely and never have to worry about pregnancy. Why should sex be risky only for the woman? Describe to me exactly what you see as a fair way to handle this.

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

What about this scenario:

People start recognizing sex as risky business and learn to take it seriously. Couples make an attempt at getting to know each other and learning each other's beliefs before allowing their relationship to become sexual. Then at some point they sit down and discuss the issues involved: pregnancy, STD's and the emotional aspects of a sexual relationship. They decide on what form/s of protection to use and what they will do if the birth control fails. If one party says they would want to keep the baby, they discuss whether that party is fully capable of taking financial responsibility. They write a letter of intent, stating what action will be taken if a pregnancy results. If any party chooses to go against what was agreed on, they take full responsibility for the child.

How's that?

-- Edited by entre new at 20:49, 2006-03-22

zap · texaschickeee translator

entre new wrote:

You already know how I feel about the "my body" defense, but I do think the woman should have more than a 50/50 say in the matter because her body is involved. I'm afraid I'll never agree that both parties suffer the consequences of an abortion equally, so I can't agree it should be a 50/50 decision.

Well again Entre...you are relying on emotion. Understandable....and even appreciated...but not logical, defined, or consistent.

She shouldn't have sole discretion and decision making ability. Who said that? If both parents are paying equally they should both be equal partners.

Yes, they should. However, they are not.

And the man is NOT supporting the mother and child, he's supporting the child.

Again, that is how it should be, but often not the way it really is.

And there should be some control over whether the child is taken somewhere where the father will not readily be able to visit.

Yes, there should be. However, if she has all the superior legal rights...as she does in this state...there is nothing the guy can do.

If it was the other way, it would be the perfect situation for guys, because they can have sex freely and never have to worry about pregnancy. Why should sex be risky only for the woman? Describe to me exactly what you see as a fair way to handle this.

Ok... so you say the laws and rules should not favor the guys, which means they should favor the woman. See how this is not logical or fair?

I said before, I think BOTH should be equally responsible and have equal rights and standing in ALL the decisions. However, if that can't be because it is the woman's body....then offset that some other way for the guy so that he is NOT dependent only on the whim of the woman in question. I think the guy should pay for at least half the pregnancy...and then determine if he is to be part of the child's life. (you know...DAD not biological father) ........the support issue should be based on what it costs to RAISE the child...not on how much they can get from the guy (or gal in the reverse).

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

What you say sounds reasonable. But what about this? Say the child is of a minority which sadly may not be easily adoptable. The mother wants to raise the child but the father says he doesn't want it. Since adoption is not an option, what should happen? Should the child live his life in a series of foster homes, when he could have been with his mother if she'd had help?

It's usually minority poplations which are accused of being "baby mills" so I think this is relevant.

-- Edited by entre new at 19:13, 2006-03-23

zap · texaschickeee translator

entre new wrote:

What you say sounds reasonable. But what about this? Say the child is of a minority which sadly may not be easily adoptable. The mother wants to raise the child but the father says he doesn't want it. Since adoption is not an option, what should happen? Should the child live his life in a series of foster homes, when he could have been with his mother if she'd had help? It's usually minority poplations which are accused of being "baby mills" so I think this is relevant.-- Edited by entre new at 19:13, 2006-03-23

I think it is a good question.

I am not so sure that minority babies are basically unadoptable, and therefore think there is a flaw in the posing of the question...but, for sake of discussion, assuming that they are we will proceed.

First, as things currently are, the mother can't be forced to have an abortion (which I am against her doing anyway) .....or forced to give the child up. The father of the child does not have that legal power.

Let's say that he does however have the legal obligation to help pay for half of the pregnancy, and can then opt out of child support. (as distasteful as this is to me personally) The mother now has the option of accepting the responsibility for her portion of this equation based upon the decision by the guy. If she decides to keep the child, there is help available to her. If she opts to give it up, either for selfish reasons or for the benefit of the child, that is her decision.

I am not certain that the child will perish in foster homes if it is adopted. However, that child will be given the opportunities to succeed as are others.

None of us are given the opportunity to choose our birth status in society. I know people my age who were born with the golden spoon in their mouth. They always had financial backing for every project, and therefore they only needed to apply themselves to make millions of dollars. On the other hand, I was not born with that advantage. While my parents have helped me as much as they could when I needed help....I have not had the opportunity to simply put together multi million dollar realestate deals if I chose to do so. Finally, there are those who are less fortunate than I.

We are not promised a given set of equal circumstances. The simple fact is that "life...is not fair". It is, however, up to us what we do with it. For this reason, I think relying upon the emotional issues surrounding one's starting position in society because of their birth, really has no logical bearing on the issue of men's rights as it is opposed to the legally superior and all encompassing power of women's rights in the area of pregnancy, birth, and the financing of children.

-- Edited by zap at 19:55, 2006-03-23

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

I understand what you're saying, but despite the fact that life is unfair, I think every effort must be made to ensure that laws ARE fair. I know you want to remove our emotions and personal experiences from the equation, but I'm not sure it's possible to do that.

As I've said, I received about one year of support in an amount which covered half my son's day care bill. My unmarried friends' experiences have been similar or worse. So when you talk about the power of women's rights in the financing of children, I have to laugh. It makes me think you're basing your statements on theory and not reality. If women have so much power, why are so many on welfare?

You say the father cannot force an abortion or adoption but I say that in effect he can. If a woman knows her day care bill will be exactly the same as her paycheck (as mine has been at various times), she has little choice. As you say, "there is help available to her". But then, what it comes down to is that the burden is falling on the taxpayers while the father no longer has any obligation. Doesn't the father have a greater responsibility in this than Joe Taxpayer?

-- Edited by entre new at 20:45, 2006-03-23

zap · texaschickeee translator

entre new wrote:

I understand what you're saying, but despite the fact that life is unfair, I think every effort must be made to ensure that laws ARE fair.

I agree

I know you want to remove our emotions and personal experiences from the equation, but I'm not sure it's possible to do that.

Well you simply must set emotions aside to form a logical position. I agree...it is often not easy to do especially in an issue that is so close to our hearts.

As I've said, I received about one year of support in an amount which covered half my son's day care bill. My unmarried friends' experiences have been similar or worse. So when you talk about the power of women's rights in the financing of children, I have to laugh. It makes me think you're basing your statements on theory and not reality.

Your reality might be different than another's in any given circumstance. You must look at the bigger picture.

If women have so much power, why are so many on welfare?

Because they WANT TO BE. Or, continue to make poor choices.

You say the father cannot force an abortion or adoption but I say that in effect he can. If a woman knows her day care bill will be exactly the same as her paycheck (as mine has been at various times), she has little choice.

No, she has EVERY choice. Whether she blames HER choice on someone else, or takes responsibility for it, is up to her. No one said it would ever be easy.

As you say, "there is help available to her". But then, what it comes down to is that the burden is falling on the taxpayers while the father no longer has any obligation.

Didn't you leave the mother's responsibility out of the equation again?

Doesn't the father have a greater responsibility in this than Joe Taxpayer?

I think so yes. No one suggests that this is a quick fix. My issue, expressed on the first page or so, is that if the women realize they will NOT have ALL the choices, and the guy involved will not be subject to her whim thereby removing her responsibility from the equation.....I think the incidence of unwanted pregnancy will drop drastically and therefore the resulting burden on taxpayers would decline as well.

SB · ohh, canada

I just want to throw in a couple comments. One I don't buy the "minority babies don't get adopted" issue. It's the crack babies, fetal alcohol syndrome, and other health/behaviour problems, kids (regardless of age) that can't seem to find good homes to adopt them.

Because around the US people are flying to places like Africa, China, Russia, Romania, etc to adopt children at a huge expense, and it's not just rich people doing it!

Second, the comment about the counseling was for women who decide to make the choice to "abort" a pregnancy, not about someone who miscarried. They are two very very different things. And to be respectful, I won't comment on miscarriages again within this thread.

Now here is a question, how come the welfare system can say that is cost "X" number of dollars to support a family, but the courts say it costs "XXXXX" dollars to support a family?

Up here we're a bit luckier, child support is child support, and the welfare department won't touch it. (as far as I know) We also have a "Child Tax Credit" for the low income types like me, that year I quit my job to join the RCMP (6 mos no pay). Because in 2003 I had only made 36,000 we received an extra $525 monthly child benfit. This year I made $62000 and It'll drop to $300 a month. The full amount for a family with three kids would be upwards of $800.

So a single mother with two kids on welfare may end up with $900 base rate, get another $500+, and see another $450 in child support. So, they are hardly fricken poor, but you wouldn't know it. I had a friend on welfare that was making more than I was working for $25 an hour. Though, she had two kids and I had only me to worry about. And I forgot, the kids get FULL medical and dental benefits, that are better than company extended health benefit.

The idea is not to have them live in poverty, though "dads' child support is 25% of the equation.

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

zap wrote:

Didn't you leave the mother's responsibility out of the equation again?

I have always been very clear that I believe the father should only be responsible for 50% of the child's support, so I have trouble seeing why you'd say I'm leaving the mother's responsibility out, much less "again". Obviously what I meant is that the father's part is now falling on the taxpayers. I'm not sure why I should have to say that each time.

the guy involved will not be subject to her whim thereby removing her responsibility from the equation.....I think the incidence of unwanted pregnancy will drop drastically and therefore the resulting burden on taxpayers would decline as well.

I'm still having trouble with the idea that making sex risk-free for the male will result in less unwanted pregnancies.

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

SB wrote:

I just want to throw in a couple comments. One I don't buy the "minority babies don't get adopted" issue. It's the crack babies, fetal alcohol syndrome, and other health/behaviour problems, kids (regardless of age) that can't seem to find good homes to adopt them. Because around the US people are flying to places like Africa, China, Russia, Romania, etc to adopt children at a huge expense, and it's not just rich people doing it!

If this is accurate then that's good news. My brothers adopted from Russia and Romania, because they wanted white babies and did not want to choose from the plethora of minority babies which were available in the U.S.

Second, the comment about the counseling was for women who decide to make the choice to "abort" a pregnancy, not about someone who miscarried.

You never said you were talking about miscarried babies.

Things are apparently much different here than in Canada. There's no way to even rent an apartment with what welfare pays. When you get a job, welfare stops immediately, even if you won't get paid for another month. (When I informed them I was offered a job they actually pulled my check from the outgoing mail.) Medical insurance is available but the doctors who accept it are not the best. (Three of the doctors I used while on state medical insurance ended up in jail for one reason or another.) My dentist eventually killed someone in the chair. Another tried to convince me I had to have my perfectly healthy teeth removed. Like I said, things are much different.

-- Edited by entre new at 23:43, 2006-03-23

SB · ohh, canada

"Things are apparently much different here than in Canada. There's no way to even rent an apartment with what welfare pays. When you get a job, welfare stops immediately, even if you won't get paid for another month. (When I informed them I was offered a job they actually pulled my check from the outgoing mail.) Medical insurance is available but the doctors who accept it are not the best. (Three of the doctors I used while on state medical insurance ended up in jail for one reason or another.) My dentist eventually killed someone in the chair. Another tried to convince me I had to have my perfectly healthy teeth removed. Like I said, things are much different."

Well, we do pay higher taxes!

Welfare here isn't great if you are a single person - $525, which will rent you a "room" and leave you $150 for food and clothing. But for single parents it's enough to rent a basement suite, or get you in a co-op style townhouse and buy a beater car. It's enough to get by but never ahead.

There was a couple years where I bought my friend her groceries for the month December, so she wouldn't have to decide between food and having a "Christmas."

Once both her kids were in school she took advantage of a program for single mothers where they paid her to go to school and she now works with disabled elementary school kids. She now is working and still going to school to become a "regular" teacher. Up here the system can work, if the people in it actually take advantage of it.

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

Yeah, I was going to say you guys must pay a lot in taxes.

We have some kind of program where women can learn to teach reading, but it's more of a token job - nothing they can make a living at. It used to be that you weren't allowed to go to school, because they'd say if you could go to school you could work.

It was nice of you to buy your friend groceries in December. My dad is a sweetheart and used to give me $100 to buy Christmas presents, as well as buying his own presents for my son.

There are definitely ways to make things work. I rented a room in someone's house and became a pre-school teacher so I could bring my son to work with me. Still, it wasn't easy, and I can't help but think that my son's father could have tried to contribute something.

-- Edited by entre new at 01:36, 2006-03-24

zap · texaschickeee translator

If this is accurate then that's good news. My brothers adopted from Russia and Romania, because they wanted white babies and did not want to choose from the plethora of minority babies which were available in the U.S.

Well that would seem to say that in your opinion, your brothers are part of the problem and not the solution.

Entre, this is going in a circle now. Let me ask you only one final question. Who do you think is responsible for making everyone's life all rosey, pink, and perfect? ....and who should pay for it?

SB · ohh, canada

zap wrote:

Who do you think is responsible for making everyone's life all rosey, pink, and perfect? ....and who should pay for it?

Good question! I don't mind paying my share of taxes if it will benefit myself (healthcare, infastructure improvements, etc) and people who are truely in need of state sponsored help. However, the problem with handouts, is the more people get - THE MORE THEY WANT!!! And it also removes the onus for (some) people to be responsible.

As a society we're always going to have unemployable people, either though (temporary)childcare issuses, physical disabilities, and that small segment that simply don't want to work (which is probably due to addiction or mental illness) And I believe the first two groups of people should not be marginalized for their situations. The other group should receive some minor assistance so they don't have to commit crime to survive. It's probable cheaper to assist them on welfare than to throw them in prison and pay the costs associated with that.

Though, I am in favor of labour camps for property offences. Prison up here is pretty comfortable, and a guy 60 days for shoplifting and had to make big rocks into little rocks, he might think working for McDonalds isn't such a bad thing after all!!!

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

zap wrote:

Well that would seem to say that in your opinion, your brothers are part of the problem and not the solution.

That's right.

Entre, this is going in a circle now. Let me ask you only one final question. Who do you think is responsible for making everyone's life all rosey, pink, and perfect? ....and who should pay for it?

The woman is responsible for half. The male is responsible for half. They become responsible when they decide to have sex, and neither should be able to give up that responsibility as an afterthought. I know you don't agree, and I accept that.

-- Edited by entre new at 13:04, 2006-03-24

Date: Mar 24, 2006

zap wrote:

eltsacon wrote: ZAP –“In no way do I condone irresponsibility...and I don't agree with abortion in most all cases either. But if the guy is on the hook to pay for everything...why should he not have a say in what happens??” Wow, That, in a nut shell, could not be said more simply or better. I totally agree! *fallingoffhischair*

slight error in this statement. ...But if the guy is on the hook to pay for everything...??”

e-con, I'm not sure what state you are from, Zap claims Ohio. In Ohio, the guy is NOT on the hook to pay for everything. a very misleading statement, not even accurate of the truth.

SB · ohh, canada

entre new wrote:

The woman is responsible for half. The male is responsible for half. They become responsible when they decide to have sex, and neither should be able to give up that responsibility as an afterthought. I know you don't agree, and I accept that.

Around and around and around we go!!!

So, you are pro-life, save for exception of "rape". Just curious though, why it's ok for a mother to abort a fetus that's a product of rape, and why the other a product of "opps" has to be saved?

Either way, wouldn't the woman be extingushing a innocent life?

And I forgot, where are the man's rights in this again?

Date: Mar 24, 2006

zap wrote:

....the guy who was equally responsible...now has NO say what so ever. Further...he is subjected to support the child until age of majority, as a direct result of the SOLE decision of the mother.

The guy and the gal have equal risk/responsibility in creating the baby... and equal responsibility to the child for the first 18 years of its life.

Mother has the deciding vote in whether or not to carry the baby to full term because she is the only one that can make the decision if she is willing to put her life on the line because carrying and bearing a child has health risks, some permenant and some mortal.

Now.... How can you get the equation (no emotion please) from SHARED 50/50 decision/liability to the gal having sole descretion and decision making ability and the guys 'half' is supporting the child and mother for the next 18+ years?? The gal still retains 100% decision making authority...she wants to move across the country...he can't stop her, but he still has to pay. I understand your points. I really do. But how can you logically equate that as being even remotely fair? I think Kat said it best....gals shouldn't be able to have ti both ways.

Why ask for "no emotion please"answer, and then ask the question liberally laced with emotionalism? (what a con-artist)

SHARED 50/50 decision/liability is the preventing conception in the first place and responsibility in support in the second place.

gal having sole descretion and decision making ability and the guys 'half' is supporting the child and mother for the next 18+ years??

The gal has sole descretion regarding the decision to carry the baby to full term because she can die in the process..

"the guys 'half' is supporting the child and mother for the next 18+ years"

The guy's half in the decision making was whether he prevented conception. The guys half is contributing support for HIS child.... THE SAME AS the gal's half at this point is contributing support for HER child.

Every time you allude, state, suggest, infer that child support is required by the state to support both the mother and the child, you are standing on the wrong platform:   This is NOT Ohio law. you are stating emotions not facts.

The gal still retains 100% decision making authority...she wants to move across the country...he can't stop her, but he still has to pay. I understand your points. I really do. But how can you logically equate that as being even remotely fair? I think Kat said it best....gals shouldn't be able to have ti both ways.

The gal still retains 100% decision making authority...

The only situation in which the mother has 100% decision making authority on decisions regarding the child after birth, is a situation in which the COURT confirred those responsibilities upon her.  DID YOU HEAR THE WORD RESPONSIBILITIES??? A COURT could confir those responsibilities on a father as well. That was emotional, sexist, illogical, and not accurate of Ohio law.

she wants to move across the country...he can't stop her, but he still has to pay.  Again... non-factual, emotional, innacuracies.

"But how can you logically equate that as being even remotely fair? "

Pretty tough to respond purely logical when the questions are rampant with emotionalism, and are illogical, and prejedous, rather than clear headed, non-emotional, facts and logic.

zap · texaschickeee translator

Hey Scarecrow.....

First....I didn't know you were from Ohio. More of us here than anyone knew.

Second...You are correct that Ohio law does NOT include support of the mother in child support calculations. That is a fact. However, in actual practice....it is the MOTHER"s sole discretion where said 'child' support is spent. There is no accounting. Further, if you really think all the child support goes only for the kids, you are dreaming. Perhaps I should have made it more clear I was speaking about actual practice rather than legal technicalities and name issues.

Finally..... How much support do YOU get? Round numbers are fine.

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

scarecrow wrote:

In Ohio, the guy is NOT on the hook to pay for everything. a very misleading statement, not even accurate of the truth.
Not in California either.

SB · ohh, canada

zap wrote:

child support calculations.

For not have any (or very few) rights when it comes comes to an umwanted pregnancy, men should be forced to fair market value for 50% of housing, feeding, and clothing the child.

If a one bedroom apartment cost $1000 a month and 2 bedroom costs $1200, then guy should pay $100.

Right now the baby is costing us about $100 a month for formula, diapers, wipes, so there is another 50 bucks.

And clothing $50? So, another $25.

I think a $175 a month, or a lump sum lifetime payment of $37,800 sounds about fair for not having any rights.

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

SB wrote:

Just curious though, why it's ok for a mother to abort a fetus that's a product of rape, and why the other a product of "opps" has to be saved? Either way, wouldn't the woman be extingushing a innocent life? And I forgot, where are the man's rights in this again?
I have no clue where you think I said this. Ideally, no one should extinguish the child's life. The man has the right to choose not to have sex with a woman who does believe in abortion, and vice versa. They both have the right to use birth control.