mens rights

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

RE: mens rights

zap · texaschickeee translator

If the man is forced to provide half the support of the child while the woman pays the other half, the man will suffer significant financial hardship. He didn't want the child and will receive no benefit from the money he pays. That’s unfair.

With this I agree....except for one thing. 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?

AGAIN....I am NOT advacating abortion OR the lack of responsibility for men. I do however feel that until MORE responsibility is placed on the woman, they will continue to make all the decisions with little risk to themselves financially.

Date: Mar 27, 2006

entre new wrote

If the man is forced to provide half the support of the child while the woman pays the other half, the man will suffer significant financial hardship.

There are financial and non-financial hardships for both mother and father.

Ummmm.. if the man is required to pay HALF the support... and she the other HALF... this means (#1) that they have the same income.

(2) that she'll suffer just as significant hardships and the man.... if not greater.

(3) that she is functioning and providing a home, life, stability in addition to working, orchestrating sports, school activities, extracurricular activities, medical and dental appointments and maintenance, monitoring homework deadlines, and paying for daycare for that child during the times that she is at work. These are some of the intangible factors which are actually taken into account as part of the equation when the court is figuring child support guidlines.

ENTRE WROTE: He didn't want the child and will receive no benefit from the money he pays. That’s unfair.

IF he really was adamently against fathering a child.... then( as several people have said during this 9 page thread...) then he should have taken precautions to absolutely make sure this did not happen. There is a base line accountability for pregnancy.. and there are 2 people involved in it. He already made his choice by providing sperm to the fertile area. From that point on.. he does not have a choice..     the mother had that same choice... if she absolutely did not want a child she should have prevented the sperm from reaching the egg.... I believe that she has already made her choice. I dont believe that abortion for convenience is ever an option. BOTH will have to make sacrafices for the next 19 years. it is unfair to child when both parents do not step up to their provisional responsibilities, as well as unfair to the peripherial parties involved. Mostly so for the child which had absolutely no voice in any of this involving his or her life. Mom and dad quit whining and grow up.... you both caused this situation... be responsible about it.

BENEFITS?? there are tangible and non tangible benefits for both parties.    Non-tangible benefits....Wouldn't knowing that he is supporting his son or daughter be a benefit? Knowing that he is not burdening society and is rather taking responsibility for his actions a benefit? Well, now there might be a key.... if he doesnt place value on that type of integrity and honor and character.... he might not understand those benefits either.... he might not be able to recognize the non-tanblible benefits because he doesnt value those commodities. really depends on his paradigm.... the set of glasses that he is looking at the world through. Instead of viewing his offspring as a blessing and opportunity and all the wonderful benefits that come with that... if he catagorizes his son or daughter into strictly monitary loss and gain... or if he cant get past the preconceived mental picture of the mother as a money grubber...   there is a great chance that he will never see the benefits.

The same should be said for anyone receiving child support.... the support is there for the needs of the child, no other reason.  Exercise integrity and good stewardship and use the money for the child. it's not "free income". It's not to pay for cable tv or internet, when the child is 1, for instance. It's not to provide your beer or smokes or pepsie, replacement tires on your vehicle, phone bill, or the vet bills.

I really see this as a black or white issue.

it really all goes back to.... 2 people involved in intercourse have a choice.... to prevent pregnancy or be responsible for the next 19 years for the result of their actions..WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT THAT CHILD. If either one didnt want it badly enough then they should have prevented conception. this is not about finger pointing and shifting blame and responsibility... this is about being responsible for your actions or lack of actions to prevent the outcome, and thus creating a new innocent life that YOU are responsible for taking care of.

Men have the same rights as women during the act of intercourse. You have the right to prevent conception if you do not want the burden and responsibility of a child for the next 19 years.

Stricktly speaking on the subject of mens rights when the man was involved in conception and does not want the child: Men do not have the right to insist on abortion (the taking of life) because of the inconvenience of having to provide for the life they created. . they gave up their right when they didnt prevent pregnancy. Men do not have the right to shirk their responsibility for a life they created. They gave up that right when they didnt prevent pregnancy.

Date: Mar 27, 2006

zap wrote:

If the man is forced to provide half the support of the child while the woman pays the other half, the man will suffer significant financial hardship. He didn't want the child and will receive no benefit from the money he pays. That’s unfair. With this I agree....except for one thing. 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? AGAIN....I am NOT advacating abortion OR the lack of responsibility for men. I do however feel that until MORE responsibility is placed on the woman, they will continue to make all the decisions with little risk to themselves financially.

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?

USofAcop · Banned

It is in the book of 'ZAP Talking out his ass and more' available nowhere except where he goes and makes bullshit up.

I believe that you believe.

woodbutcher · Giggidy, giggidy, gig-gi-dy!

USofAcop wrote:

It is in the book of 'ZAP Talking out his ass and more' available nowhere except where he goes and makes bullshit up. I believe that you believe.

It was?? I thought that I saw that in "Zap's Law of Dummies" Maybe that was his other book.

USofAcop · Banned

NO, no, you are thinking of 'ZAP an ignorant ass who didn't know shit but wanted to be in charge.'

It was a best seller, but full of copyright violations

woodbutcher · Giggidy, giggidy, gig-gi-dy!

USofAcop wrote:

NO, no, you are thinking of 'ZAP an ignorant ass who didn't know shit but wanted to be in charge.' It was a best seller, but full of copyright violations

That's right, I stand corrected

foxfyre · Buttercult Founder

USofA & Woody: Toooo fuckin' funny. Please continue hi-jacking.

Any man who claims that women are evil & manipulative is incapable of a logical, rational discussion about anything. Anywhere. Ever.

SB · ohh, canada

scarecrow wrote:

Stricktly speaking on the subject of mens rights when the man was involved in conception and does not want the child: Men do not have the right to insist on abortion (the taking of life) because of the inconvenience of having to provide for the life they created. . they gave up their right when they didnt prevent pregnancy. Men do not have the right to shirk their responsibility for a life they created. They gave up that right when they didnt prevent pregnancy.

We still are unable to get past Three points;

1. Abortion is currently a legal option exercised by thousands of women each year,

2. And a man that wants to take custody of the child cannot legally prevent a woman for having an abortion (taking a life).

3. A man can't legally force a woman to have an abortion (which I'll remind you again, is legal whether you believe in abortion or not)

So, the only logical conclusion is that that women are the only ones to have rights when it comes to reproduction?

And that must be prepared to pay the current "prescribed" child support no matter what, ultimately for a child they protested having?

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

zap wrote:

With this I agree....except for one thing. In MOST instances the guy is required to pay ALL the support.
But you DO agree with what I said. If in reality it's not done that way, that really has nothing to do with what I said. I thought we were discussing how it SHOULD be.

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.

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

scarecrow wrote:

There are financial and non-financial hardships for both mother and father.

In the first paragraph I was acknowledging that there can be unfairness to the man. I believe in the next paragraph I mentioned the unfairness to the woman. I was answering a specific question asked by SB, and trying to spell out my reasoning for him in a concise manner. There wasn't room to debate the whole issue in one paragraph.

It was simply an acknowledgment that there is unfairness on both sides. It was a comparison. As far as I'm concerned, financial hardship to the mother is a given, but I don't think we can have a logical or equitable discussion without also acknowledging the potential for unfairness, or perceived unfairness to the man.

IF he really was adamently against fathering a child.... then( as several people have said during this 9 page thread...) then he should have taken precautions to absolutely make sure this did not happen. There is a base line accountability for pregnancy.. and there are 2 people involved in it. He already made his choice by providing sperm to the fertile area. From that point on.. he does not have a choice..

If you'll notice, I've stated this over and over again. Let me repeat, I am simply trying to consider both points of view.

Wouldn't knowing that he is supporting his son or daughter be a benefit? Knowing that he is not burdening society and is rather taking responsibility for his actions a benefit?

You'd think so, wouldn't you? But from what the men in this thread have said, I don't believe so.

-- Edited by entre new at 05:26, 2006-03-28

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

USofAcop wrote:

It is in the book of 'ZAP Talking out his ass and more'
Let's not forget the book "US Is Obsessed with Zap and Can't Seem to Move On"

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

SB, I answered your question but you didn't respond to my answer. Let's take this one step at a time and not try to deal with every nuance of the issue at once. Can you see my reasoning in thinking that men should pay child support? Can you understand how I believe it's a matter of weighing one unfairness against the other, and choosing the lesser unfairness?

-- Edited by entre new at 05:37, 2006-03-28

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

SB wrote:

We still are unable to get past Three points; 1. Abortion is currently a legal option exercised by thousands of women each year, 2. And a man that wants to take custody of the child cannot legally prevent a woman for having an abortion (taking a life). 3. A man can't legally force a woman to have an abortion (which I'll remind you again, is legal whether you believe in abortion or not) So, the only logical conclusion is that that women are the only ones to have rights when it comes to reproduction? And that must be prepared to pay the current "prescribed" child support no matter what, ultimately for a child they protested having?

SB, if there was anything I could do to prevent women wanting to have abortions I would. I would be absolutely devastated if a woman aborted a pregnancy which was wanted by my son. But we have to be realistic and realize that we can't change biology.

Realistically, how many aborted babies do you think were wanted by the father? Look at all you've said about the financial burden on the father for 18+ years. I'm sure the majority of guys were thanking their lucky stars that those babies were aborted. To say that no men should be forced to support their unwanted babies because a tiny percentage of men might have wanted babies which were aborted is just unreasonable. You're trying to relieve men of responsibility based on one little loophole which nobody can do anything about.

-- Edited by entre new at 06:19, 2006-03-28

USofAcop · Banned

entre new wrote:

USofAcop wrote: It is in the book of 'ZAP Talking out his ass and more' Let's not forget the book "US Is Obsessed with Zap and Can't Seem to Move On"

Lest we forget 'How to get your ass stomped you bald headed bitch, blow me!' by a very popular artist. I think it is relevant to you.

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

USofAcop wrote:

entre new wrote: USofAcop wrote: It is in the book of 'ZAP Talking out his ass and more' Let's not forget the book "US Is Obsessed with Zap and Can't Seem to Move On" Lest we forget 'How to get your ass stomped you bald headed bitch, blow me!' by a very popular artist. I think it is relevant to you.

Bald headed?

Blow you? Seriously?

zap · texaschickeee translator

entre new wrote:

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.

Ok...just for a moment. I have noticed that you say there is a difference in divorced moms v never married moms. WHY? What really is the difference...and what legally is the difference?

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

zap wrote:

Ok...just for a moment. I have noticed that you say there is a difference in divorced moms v never married moms. WHY? What really is the difference...and what legally is the difference?

Married women with children going through a divorce are more likely to get a higher amount of child support, plus she stands to get the house, all household items, and in some cases alimony on top of child support! The calculation form is different in Ohio for a woman going through a divorce verses an unwed woman filing for child support. A woman who didn't marry, is not allowed any of his assets, just 65% of his paycheck....in a divorce the percentage jumps up to more like 85%.

SB · ohh, canada

entre new wrote:

SB, I answered your question but you didn't respond to my answer. Let's take this one step at a time and not try to deal with every nuance of the issue at once. Can you see my reasoning in thinking that men should pay child support? Can you understand how I believe it's a matter of weighing one unfairness against the other, and choosing the lesser unfairness?

I agree with you that as a compassionate society we have to take into consideration the "greatest" unfairness. I have said all along that men in these special circumstances should pay child support. It's just my belief that it should be at a minimal rate to cover food, clothing, and shelter, due to the loss of rights in the decision making process of a completely legal act.

SB · ohh, canada

entre new wrote:

Realistically, how many aborted babies do you think were wanted by the father? Look at all you've said about the financial burden on the father for 18+ years. I'm sure the majority of guys were thanking their lucky stars that those babies were aborted. To say that no men should be forced to support their unwanted babies because a tiny percentage of men might have wanted babies which were aborted is just unreasonable. You're trying to relieve men of responsibility based on one little loophole which nobody can do anything about.--

It doesn't matter how many men wanted to keep their unborn baby, and protect it, love it, and to have held it close to their hearts, etc, because one is enough. Currently the "Law" allows women abort with with out the consent of the man.

I agree many would thank their lucky stars, but many for numerous reasons may not.

I addressed the issue of "not paying support" above.

Lastly, I am not trying to relieve men of any responsibility because of a loop hole. 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.

And the second, by creating a two tier child support system it would compensate men for their loss of rights.

zap · texaschickeee translator

SB....you know our opinions will never gain favor... they make too much sense.

zap · texaschickeee translator

KatScratch wrote:

zap wrote: Ok...just for a moment. I have noticed that you say there is a difference in divorced moms v never married moms. WHY? What really is the difference...and what legally is the difference? Married women with children going through a divorce are more likely to get a higher amount of child support, plus she stands to get the house, all household items, and in some cases alimony on top of child support! The calculation form is different in Ohio for a woman going through a divorce verses an unwed woman filing for child support. A woman who didn't marry, is not allowed any of his assets, just 65% of his paycheck....in a divorce the percentage jumps up to more like 85%.

I wasn't aware there was a different calculation for non married v married. (however they are getting more than 85% of me right now)

-- Edited by zap at 13:20, 2006-03-28

SB · ohh, canada

zap wrote:

SB....you know our opinions will never gain favor... they make too much sense.

hahaha... too funny. Opps was a laughing or crying.

This could end this, if we could come to an agreement over childcare costs, and if the child support were to remain static (not increase, other than cost of living) regardless of what the man's income is.

zap · texaschickeee translator

You might be right. If the cost of a child were X......regardless of the actual income, or income potential of the parents, there might be less animosity among those who pay it and see those who receive it spending money on things that weren't allowed when they were together (if married)

It doesn't do anything to solve the rights of the guy issues in determining the decisions, however.

USofAcop · Banned

zap wrote:

entre new wrote: 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. Ok...just for a moment. I have noticed that you say there is a difference in divorced moms v never married moms. WHY? What really is the difference...and what legally is the difference?

You can't really be that fucking stupid, can you!?

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

zap wrote:

Ok...just for a moment. I have noticed that you say there is a difference in divorced moms v never married moms. WHY? What really is the difference...and what legally is the difference?

I was saying that despite years of being immersed in the community of single moms, I have never met one who was having the child's full support paid by the father. By contrast, I have heard of very many divorced women who are being fully supported by the fathers of their children. I used to babysit for some or their ex's are friends/acquaintances of mine. I do know men who are working 80+ hours a week, and can barely make their house payments, while their ex's don't work. I'm not saying "all" or "most". Just what I happen to have been exposed to personally.

I'm not sure what the difference is, except maybe that formerly-married women can afford better lawyers. Or maybe judges feel that if a woman wasn't married to a man she doesn't deserve anything. I think most people feel that way.

Edit - Oops, I didn't see that Kat had already addressed that question.

-- Edited by entre new at 04:58, 2006-03-29

zap · texaschickeee translator

No problem. I was just wondering where you were comming from.

shit happens · Fresh Meat

entre new wrote:

At least Zap keeps an open mind, and seems to make an attempt at looking at both sides and seeing things realistically. Edited by entre new at 05:30, 2006-03-25

....inquiring minds want to know..... exactly in which thread did you see Zap keeping an open mind?..... and attempting to look at both sides?.... and seeing things realistically?

I must have completely missed that thread and I would truely look forward to the unique experience such discourse would present. Please site several examples that I might thoroughly enjoy the moment.

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

SB wrote:

entre new wrote:I agree with you that as a compassionate society we have to take into consideration the "greatest" unfairness. I have said all along that men in these special circumstances should pay child support. It's just my belief that it should be at a minimal rate to cover food, clothing, and shelter, due to the loss of rights in the decision making process of a completely legal act.

My internet went down last night and I had to write this on Works, so sorry about the margins being weird.

If child support were meant to be punitive, fairness would be an issue in figuring the amount. I would then agree that the man's payment should be reduced if he could show that he made every effort before conception to convey that he didn't want a child, AND had shown responsibility in using or ascertaining that the woman was using birth control OR if he could show that he was significantly misled by the mother.

But since it's not punitive but to fill a need, I think the amount should be based on what is required by the child, and fairness to either parent is unfortunately irrelevant in figuring that amount. We agree as far as food, clothing and shelter (though I would add medical care and a little bit extra for things like a crib, required school materials, etc.).

We disagree on child care. This is my view on that: A child needs care 24 hours a day. Because adults have to work to support themselves and their children, there will be 8+ hours a day when no parent is available to care for the child. The child cannot provide for his own needs or protection during that time. It is also required by law that the child have care by an adult. It's in no way a luxury but a basic need.

So because I believe that both parents must provide for the needs of the child, I believe both should contribute for child care.