Men's-Rights Activists Want a "Roe v. Wade for Men"

Contending that women have more options than they do in the event of an unintended pregnancy, men's rights activists are mounting a long shot legal campaign aimed at giving them the chance to opt out of financial responsibility for raising a child. The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit
-- nicknamed Roe v. Wade for Men -- to be filed Thursday in US District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter.

Much more to the story here:
http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=4603850

LOL

"Why should I support my ex girlfriend's kid? We're not even together anymore."

nothing says crazy as much as crazy does.

For a couple of bucks a guy can actually buy a dozen "bullet proof" chances to opt out of a pregnancy. It should be Roe v. Condom Sense.

condoms aren't 100% effective.

I am the proud mother of a 17 year old condom baby.

That being said, I agree wholeheartedly with your statemtn that nothing says crazy as much as crazy does.

Actually I'm bragging. He wasn't that super. The condom slipped off. Nah - he's super anyway.

all 4 involved a birth control failure.

I've been telling my two wonderful kids that for years now. I want to make sure they understand to take precautions yes, but understand that accidents do still happen. If they're not ready to deal with that, they should not do the deed.

Or not...two good kids. And a lesson for them.

You sound like a great parent, either way!

I'm just very fertile I guess. :shrug:

Or it could be that the universe/fates/whatever knew how badly I wanted to be a parent and helped me a little too much? :evilgrin:

(it is a lot "invasive", that's for sure)

So, the woman gets to decide whether or not to keep the child, the man should be happy to accept whatever comes his way after a (hopefully consensual) one night stand. That's equality, indeed!

penis and we will talk about what's invasive. What you fail to address is the child. If it is born, it has two parents, no matter what. Biology isn't fair, agreed, but do you wish to change places? Would you rather be the one to give birth? If not, then keep your pecker in your pants until you are ready to accept the fact that if your sperm find her egg, you just might be held responsible.

or if that's what it really said.

:shrug:

And what about the kid - my goodness. How could any father even try to claim a child was not his responsibility? From the kid's point of view - wow.

it boggles the mind.

or the woman said she was on the pill?

i agree that a man cannot stop a woman from having an abortion, but some man are deceived into think the baby is their own. why should he support a child not his own.

but in the case of child support for all dependents of a marriage, the reasoning is more complex than biology alone.

Still not any less irresponsible to try to wriggle out of it.

If I had a child by a woman who I could prove had "tricked" me into having a child with her, I wouldn't want my child around that woman. I would sue for custody, so just the opposite of trying to get out of it, I'd try to raise the child.

With today's state of the art there is no earthly reason that a baby couldn't be genetically typed if there was a question.

No matter what, you are relying on somebody's word that they won't or can't have a baby. If sex with that person is THAT important to you that is clouds your judgement, it's still your judgement and the responsibility of both parties. I'd hold my horse(s) and get it verified beyond the shadow of a doubt, get my own reliable vasectomy, or find some other way to get my rocks off.

If rubbers fail one in a hundred times and birth control fails 14 in a hundred times, then you're playing russian roulette with a gunbarrel that has a hundred chambers. Think about that. Don't play unless you're prepared to pay, or else pull out of the game before it's over.

I agree if a woman truly does not want to have children, she has equal responsibility to do everything in her power to keep it from happening and equal responsibility for spinning the wrong chamber.

his girlfriend lied to him and said she was on birth control basically to get pregnant and force him to marry her. (Yeah, just when you think the old cliche doesn't happen anymore in this day and age...) When he found out about her lying and her generally being a bad and manipulative person, he left and got custody of their daughter. And from what I've heard about the woman, making sure the child didn't grow up in her custody was definately the responsible thing to do.

but now, he can be technologically sure. Have doubts, have a test.

In most states, men are responsible for paying child support for any child borne into a marriage. This has lead to many cases where men have been forced to pay child support for kids resulting from the wifes affairs. There was even one case on TV a while back that talked about this guy who discovered that three of his four kids weren't actually his. Even though his wife left him to move in and marry the actual father of the children, he was forced to pay child support on them because the law doesn't recognize the validity of these tests.

sue for reparations if this happens to him.

The sad fact is that most child support problems have to do with men taking off from their responsibilities and not contributing to the welfare of their offspring.

(I've lived this--my parents divorced when I was very young and my father stopped pay child support when I was 8 and my sister was 4--there is no excuse for this behavior.)

would be the answer to that, I would think.

once the child is born, the game is over, take care of the child.

to be responsible.

My own for example.

:applause:

If you're not ready to accept the responsibility of being a mother then keep your legs crossed and your panties on.

than telling men to do the same?

women are not capable of handling responsibility...

:eyes:

I mean let's be intellectually honest here. If we are talking abou equality, why isn't the statement
"if she doesn't want to get pregnant, she should just shut her legs"
I wouldn't say that, but it seems that if it workds for men, the same should apply to women.

divine, sweet, fine lust.......ok I'm over it. me and jimmy carter

Men have never had the same consequences for having sex. It is the woman's fault in our society when she gets pregnant--and the woman who has the significant consequences. It is time for men to be responsible for birthcontrol.

I am in total agreement with you about what you said about men needing to be responsible when they choose to have sex. It is what I teach the young men whom I work with and what I plan on teaching my sons when they get old enough to understand. I will not accept anything less.
But your point furthers buttresses my argument. Because the burden of pregnancy falls primarily on the women, she SHOULDN'T depend on a man to be primarily responsible.

Let me clarify. I think both should be primarily responsible if we are talking about a perfect world, but the reality is that the woman suffers more by becoming pregnant, so SHE NEEDS to ensure her safety and her choice to plan families. The bottom line needs to be her and not him. Ideally, I think both should be prepared, but if a woman chooses to have sex, she has to be the one who is carrying birth control, whether for him or her own.

You may not like my answer, but it doesn't matter whether you approve.
In a nutshell, men NEED to be responsible for birth control, but wishing it or wanting doesn't really matter if the current reality does not reflect an equality of consequences. Ultimately those consequences will be on her.

that "invasivenes" of the condom is a joke (that's why it was in quotes.)
Nobody compares a condom to giving birth, god forbid. The comparison was between the condom and the pill.

I agree, once the child is born it's a joint responsibility. The question was who gets to decide whether or not that child is born. Should a man have some say? And yes, the situation is not symmetric, as you pointed out, because of biology.

but even then your comparison falls short. Taking a pill every single day at the same time, is less invasive than putting a condom on right before having sex? Just curious how you come to that, joke or not. Besides that, most health insurance won't cover the cost of a pill, and last I checked, it costs more to get a doctors appt and prescription than a box of rubbers. Also, to keep your birth control pill prescription, you have to go in for an annual exam (pap smear and checkup), or the doc will pull the prescription. Nothing invasive about that, right? :D Not that I think it's a bad idea, it helps prevent and screen for potential problems, but it is a royal pain. Especially if one doesn't have health insurance. I guess I just want to explain that it isn't just a simple thing. As convenient as the commercials try to make it seem, it is still far more of a hassle than just wearing a condom when the actual "event" takes place. Maybe the difference is that the hassle is hers, not yours?

If one pill is missed all bets are off. The pill also does nothing to protect against STDs. It's ALWAYS better to protect yourself, male or female, by wrapping it up, or saying no condom, no nookie! We have to be adamant about educating people to PROTECT THEMSELVES NO MATTER WHAT!

I am not sure it is a promising course of this discussion with you saying I can't judge the matter because I have not been on the other side. (I could also point out that you have not tried wearing one those rubbers either. Plus, the old joke that having sex in a condom is like smelling flowers in a gas mask. And for avoidance of doubt I will repeat that it is a joke :))

Then the issue of health insurance is certainly outside of the scope of this thread.

The whole point was that the decision to have sex is a joint one. There is a certain asymmetry with the woman having a complete control over the birth/abortion decision, and the man not having any say at all. (Clearly, that asshole that wanted to get rid of his alimony payments doesn't address this issue. No matter what you and I will agree on, he would remain an asshole.) I can point out to a few cases where the man's rights were disregarded in an obvious way. How about this one: a guy's wife has an affair, gets pregnant on the side, and has a baby. They divorce. Even though it is proved that the guy is not the father of the child, the judge rules that he still has to pay child support. (because it is better for the child.)

And yes, before the flaming begins, I will say the injustice in the direction is probably more common. All I am trying to say is that there are two parties involved with their rights and responsibilities.

I really meant no harm or offense, just trying to discuss something.

:hi:

both together, whether married or not.

Chance that a baby might result, or that HPV or chlamydia or HIV or some other hootch cooty was transmitted, even with rubbers.

In each case your responsibility varies but in the case of a human life both parties have the greatest responsibility, if the mother decides to bring that pregnancy to term.

Gents if you want to cover yourself, buy a child-birthin' and rearin' insurance policy. If she gets pregnant and you don't want to have anything to do with the natural genetic offspring of your loins, you forfeit your policy.

I'll bet it's an insurance product worth developing.

If you WANT to get someone pregnant and raise the child with her, I highly recommend marriage and the mutual goals for the sake of the kid(s).

This is just another irresponsible whiney selfish self-interested dishonest human. These are the people that end up in jail for being deadbeat genetic parents, and would probably have made lousy fathers anyway, since fatherhoold implies a level of responsibility.

She was the one who chose to have unprotected sex with deadbeat. She was the one who chose to take the pregnancy to term. Granted she may not have known he was a deadbeat that first night, but it would be pretty obvious by the time she had to tell him about the baby.

BTW, I think that insurance policy is a GREAT idea. If they are going to make abortion and birth control difficult or impossible to obtain. I should be able to buy a policy that will pay all bills if I should accidentally become a parent.

baby. If you don't want to support a kid, don't have sex with the woman. The victim here is the kid in my opinion. Imagine growing up knowing your father doesn't want to take responsibility for you. I am glad everyday that I am not a single mother. They have to struggle all their lives yet are blamed for getting pregnant. Remember it takes two to tango.

The woman allowed a man to have unprotected sex with her. Then she carried a pregnancy to term knowing full well the man was not father material. You're right, it takes two to tango, but the woman--since she has clearly more to lose than the man--needs to be responsible for avoiding unwanted pregnancy.

What I hear you saying is that is perfectly OK for a woman to engage in irresponsible sexual behavior because she can always make the man pay.

pregnant! She may be the one carrying the baby but both of you made it happen. You cannot say you take no responsibility for birth control. You can wear a condom, you can have yourself fixed, you can not have sex. You cannot walk away from taking responsibility for your actions.

No where did I say "{I}take no responsibility for birth control". I said the woman allowed a man to have unprotected sex with her. It is her responsibility when dealing with an obviously irresponsible man--as evidenced by his lack of a condom--to say "NO".

with the current situation, imagine the disparity if this wanker gets his way.

I mean, how can you prove the condom broke. Just askin...

And, it takes two to tango.

I think the point that the association is making is that in the end, women decide if they are going to have the baby or not and men seldom have anything to do with the decision. Hence, the men involved are quite forced to accept whatever the woman decides they should do.

Therefore their perception is that women's rights are systematicaly made more important than thier own.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they are right or wrong, but I can see where their reasoning comes from.

Outlaw abortion, make it more difficult to obtain contraceptives (emergency or otherwise) AND be off the hook from any financial or emotional support for the offspring.

just like in the good ol' days.

Like the good ol' days. Of course they still *can* claim this, but with DNA testing they can't get away with it anymore.

maybe I was right

:eyes:

the case of medically supervised sperm donor -

for which this guy and his fleshy little turkey baster don't apply.

Is abortion rights really about a life threat to the mother?
No, it's about choice. It's just that hald the population wants to have while claiming that the other half should be happy with whatever they decide.

protecting it from anything I deem as a threat. Until you are pregnant and give birth, you don't get to decide that. Sorry.

fair" argument when they outlaw abortion.

"____ isn't fair" is a really really lousy principle on which to argue rights and law.

Nice thought process their.

is far more hilarious and bizarre:

So when a Man's sperm leaves his body he has perennial rights over it.

VERY interesting through processes there. That kimd of thinking could eqsily qualify you as a fundie or fundie wannabe, actually.

Doesn't say in the article.

There's something to be said about taking responsibility for a child, wanting to do it without being forced into it; I'd think regardless of the relationship with the mother, a man would want to provide for his child and make sure it had a good life.

Sounds to me as if this case is more about the man and the woman and whatever went on between them, not the child.

That's the thing that burns me up about men who complain about their ex-wives. Their complaints always seem to be about MONEY! They won't see their kids sometimes because if they do their ex will bug them about child support. My ex stopped calling his kids when he couldn't pay support (he was unemployeed a lot). They didn't know why, he just stopped calling. Broke their hearts!

That is not entirely true...they are focusing on the money in this case because that is the only avenue by which this can be addressed. They do say they are primarily doing this to stimulate a debate. Having said that I do not think being able top avoid supporting your child is the way to address this...but there are alot of inequities in the child support system, and it could use a healthy dose of reform!

:(

(No offense to the real men out there, but we have to wade through a lot of scum to find you great guys). Real easy to see why THAT relationship didn't work out. And now that Roe vs Wade is under attack these guys are going to feel a lot of pain. If the girl wises up and can't get an abortion, these scum are going to be stuck with child support. Takes two to tango so you have to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY. Yeh, my ex didn't pay support for five years (and it is always about the money with these jerks). I was such a bitch that I didn't request back support in the first round.

So what did that get me...I remarried, daughter got upset and wanted to go to be with party Dad instead of responsible Mom, he sued AND GOT custody...all while still marginally self employed and living with his mom. Almost half of my money goes to support and court ordered expenses. My Mom (Conservative)summed it up best. She said our crime was that my new hubby was not white (honestly, it never crossed my mind). Mercifully I have 2 years of support as of next month and daughter knows full well that she is on her own for college as court cost etc have come close to bankrupting me, but I am living proof that women get screwed figuratively and literally.

If men had the babies, what a diffrent tune would be sung.

YOU had to wade through YOUR choices of MEN. Plenty of women have wonderful relationships with great men.

good men are few and far between. If you were of the other gender (I am assuming you are a great guy), you would understand our dilema. Part of the dating process is winnowing out the undesirables (and sometimes that is not as easy as it sounds). If you start out with a kind and trusting nature, it is easy to be duped in a variety of ways.

Examples I have learned the hard way:

I have learned to look for a white mark around the ring finger. They will lie to you. If they say they are divorced, ask to see the papers. I was duped and as soon as I found out the truth, I called his wife and apologized.

I have learned not to state my profession, and I always ask if they are employed. I don't care about how much they make, but I have been used as a meal ticket.

I do not invite them over to my place, I have had them try and move in when they got kicked out of their place.

I have learned to kick their asses to the curb the first time they raise a hand to me, it doesn't get better. The same goes for drug and alcohol use.

I have learned to tell them pretty early that I had a child. It seperates the men from the boys. A classic example of this type of jerk is the guy that said he really loved me and thought we could have a great life togather but said I had to give up my daughter (yes, he said that). I had to choose between him or my daughter. My response was to the effect of "Don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split ya". He was actually surprised at my response.:eyes:

It took a while, in fact I stopped dating for years, it was just not worth it. I started casually going out with a friend. It was like "When Harry Met Sally" with out the salad;). It took a while for both of us to get on the same page, but once we were...we have had a very happy marriage so far. I would never have guessed that I would marry the love of my life at 48.

I have met some women in the distant past,whom I have dated who initially presented a heck of alot better than the reality.

I think you are correct and do have to be careful, no doubt there. I think it begs a larger question of taking our time throughout the dating process, but even then there are no guarantee's. It is always a risk, but we should be making educated risks at best.

People get into relationships for many reasons. For some it is a life raft they cling to. That is very dangerous as those type of folks often attract people who will take advantage of them.

Glad you found a good guy. Take care.

I'm really sorry to hear about your situation. I had a baby with a deadbeat woman beater. He was my first boyfriend so it took me too long to wise up. Before I knew it, I was pregnant at 19. I had a son and we soon broke up, but his dad gets paid cash at his job so I basically get whatever child support he deems necessary. This man has done unspeakable things to me while I was in college and working trying to provide for my son. Basically, he has put me through hell, but my son loves going with him because my ex is like a big kid and he lets my son do whatever he wants. I fear that my son will eventually decide, like your daughter did, to go live with his dad because he can do whatever he wants. Meanwhile, my new husband and I are the ones that take care of my son's needs and discipline him.

My fundy anti-choice mom can't believe that I have become pro-choice in my adult years. She thought that having a baby would firmly ground me against abortion. I just tell her that I love my son with all my heart and don't regret my decision, but I wouldn't wish the hell that I have to put up with on any woman.

I would have raised her myself and not made him spend time with her (I really didn't have the heart to deprive his parents of their only grandchild), I pretty much did it anyway. The good news is that she is beginning to figure things out. I can't wait till she turns 18, he no longer gets support and he kicks her out. If his Mom dies before then, it will get even more interesting. He has only lived and supported himself for 2 years out of his entire adult life, and he is 48 (I put myself through college and have been self sufficient since I was 19)! All of my friends and my attorney STILL can't believe he got custody. Two years and 1 month, 2 years and 1 month.

I feel for you, I really do. I would hate to have to hand over a dime to my low life ex. I never went to court with him because I watched too many of my friends get the screw job. I definitely don't trust the courts to do the right thing. I'm sorry for your ordeal. I hope in the next two years your daughter sees him for what he truly is!

is that sometimes thing happen in you life that are unfair and you can't understand the reason at the time.
Our time is not God's time and God's understanding is not our understanding, but given time we come to understand God's reason.

For years I sacrificed much to give my child what she needed. I placed my needs on the back burner. I bit my tongue when she came home telling me thing that her dad told her. I never told her that the reason I left her dad was because he said, in her presence (she was 8 mos old), that he didn't love her and never wanted her. No child of mine would ever feel unwanted or unloved or have such words spoken to them, whether they could understand or not.

It was very painful to lose custody to him. It was not about the money for me, it was about the child and what was best for the child (even if she didn't think so). I spent much (remember, this was my second time to do this, I won the first time and he never forgave that) fighting this.

I still do not understand, and I still pray for her safety, but this is what has happened in the 2 years since.

I see my 16yo daughter has HAD to become responsible for herself. She comes to me and asks advice (and listens). When she is in trouble, I know I will be the first phone call she makes. She knows I am the make it happen parent that won't steer her wrong.

And as I am no longer dealing with the day to day of raising her, I am gradually able to take care of myself, something I had not done in 16 years. My ex could take me back to court 1 more time for more support (I pay all told almost $900 for one child), so I have to be careful with my income and part time work. I am a School Nurse so I am paid like a teacher (now you see the pain). I am paying off debts and living cheaply but had to stop contributing to my 403B just to make ends meet. Once she turns 17, I will go to a higher paying job because it will not be worth it for him to take me to court for less than 1 yr of support. At that point I will be saving for retirement and a house.

I have had to let my daughter know that sadly, I will not be able to help her with college as I had hoped. Bless her little trusting heart, she said Dad had saved up money for her (on the stand, he told my lawyer that he had not save anything-which knowing him, I believe). I have no way of knowing what he is doing with that much support, but he lives free at home and is just out groceries and gas (he does not help his Mom to any great extent-big surprise hey). I know she has a large cell phone bill and soon she will be driving, so I am sure that will hit his personal pocketbook (I had her long enough to know how much it truly takes to raise a child).

And the rainbow at the end of all of this sad stormy tale my cher Lafayette......I will be able to retire, at 57, with full defined benefit pension check (with health benefits)from the State of Texas. I contributed the max number of quarters for SS years ago so I have some supplemental there. I have a 403b also. My new hubby, though making less, but still a hard worker, will retire with a similar full defined benefit pension check, SS, etc, etc, too.

Meanwhile, ex, who is 'self employed' (and from his wage statements-it is barely a paying hobby ;) ), will be drawing next to nothing IF he even qualifies. When his mother dies, the house will be forced into sale and be split 3 ways. He will get a bit of money, but he will not have a house. He will be over 50 and out on the street, unless he can find another woman he can sucker (don't think my daughter will be it though). I envision him being a 65 yr greeter at WalMart because from all I can extrapolate, he WON'T be able to retire...

I usually don't post something this personal, but I could not pm you. I really thought you could learn from my experiences as I think you may indeed be dealing with the same problem. I hope it goes better for you but document document and be prepared. I am always happy to share my little bit of life's wisdom gleaned from experience.

Your story brought tears to my eyes! I see a lot of similarities in our stories. I hope your daughter chooses the right path; sounds like she has a great mother to guide her. :)

I don't know why you couldn't PM me. I checked my preferences and I thought they were set, but of course I am a newbie and kind of an internet dummy!!

You're living proof that women get screwed?? Because child support taking half your income and court costs have come close to bankrupting you??? I can't figure out what you're bitching about. It's called financial responsibility, just like for men.

they're always so telling. The resentment. It's always the resentment.

This is anti-woman, whining when she has to take the same financial responsibilities for a child as a man does:

"Almost half of my money goes to support and court ordered expenses... Mercifully I have 2 years of support as of next month and daughter knows full well that she is on her own for college as court cost etc have come close to bankrupting me, but I am living proof that women get screwed figuratively and literally."

Disgusting, and hypocritical, and the side of women that most women refuse to acknowledge exists.

That coming from a woman who doesn't choose to base my life on blaming men for everything that goes wrong in the world.

the child resides with the father--anything else is a vicious and ridiculous double-standard.

Anyone, any parent, who shirks his/her responsibility for maintaining the well-being of his/her child is a worthless human being.

He wants nothing to do w/ our daughter, even though he wanted a child (things quickly changed when it was a girl). He hates having to pay child support since he didn't want a girl and stated that I should have had an abortion when we found it the sex.

This is the ultimate cop out. I hope it fails or there will be even more deadbeat dads out there.

Your daughter deserves so much more in a father. I just can't believe people like this still exist.

And he's hoping for a favorable ruling in this case, as are quite a few other men.

I'm sorry but if he helps make it he should help the support, whether he wanted it or not. If you run up a debt you have to pay it off, even if you don't want to. Financially, what is the difference? It's another bill.

The difference is emotional and social. If this passes, we are dooming an entire generation of children into poverty. Children born to single mothers are more likely to live in poverty. If the man can get away w/ claiming he didn't want the child and doesn't have to give financial support we are damning these children into further poverty and not demanding that men take responsibility for their actions.

They BOTH made their bed - they BOTH now have to "lie in it".

If the woman decides to have the baby - it's his daughter - it's not "fair" in the sense that only a woman CAN have a baby - but life is not always "fair".

He can "get his rocks off" - but it is "tad" more complicated for the woman - duh!

God, what a jerk to boot - that poor kid and what he/she will think if he/she ever finds out how his/her "father"/turkey baster felt about him/her at the time of his/her impending birth.

SEX is serious business folks - it's not to be entered into lightly - no matter what the composition of the partners is!

:hug:

I was hoping it was another excuse as to why he didn't want to see his daughter. Instead it was this link.

Fuck him. We're better off.

don't I.

I pity the woman he's married to now.

and that's "dads" who aren't really, who don't want to be and who basically refuse to be.

I know the money of child support can be really, really important. But my sentiment is: wash that man (who doesn't WANT to be involved) right out of your hair and never look back. You and your daughter will both bet better off without him. The money keeps you tied to him.

I have no health insurace options for my daughter so I have to use the state assisted insurance. If you accept the state insurance you have to allow them the opportunity to "go after" the natural father.

When she was a newborn I had decent insurance and didn't have anything to do w/ him. After my position was cut back and I had to get a different job(w/ extremely expensive insurance and none offered for dependents) I applied for state assistance for her insurance. Now the state gets to make decisions about his involvement, not me.

abortion.
I absolutely think that there is a double standard going on here. I don't think I have all the answers, and situations like this get real messy real fast. Perhaps this dilemma has more to do with the fact that there is just not enough education happening for all involved.

But I do still believe that the man has the obligation to help care for his child, whether it was a planned pregnancy or not.

Boyz, if you get a vasectomy before your first sexual encounter, you will never ever have to worry about that tearful phone call, that middle of the night move, that trip to someplace where abortion is still legal, becoming a parent against your will, DNA tests or support payments.

Now here's a question I really don't know the answer to: If a 15-year-old boy wants a vasectomy, can he get one?

If yes why aren't there lines around the block for young men signing up for a simple ten-minute procedure that will guarantee them years of (almost) worry-free sex?

If no, why isn't that a big part of the reproductive rights debate?

Now here's a question I really don't know the answer to: If a 15-year-old boy wants a vasectomy, can he get one?

I don't think so. Hell, it's actually quite difficult for an adult male to get a vasectomy, as doctors want to be absolutely sure you know what you want, since there is no going back once it's done. Usually, men with several children find it a lot easier to get a vasectomy than a younger, single man.

That being said, a vasectomy is really the equivalent of a hysterectomy rather than an abortion.

To be equivalent to a hysterectomy, castration would have to be involved. I think if more men were aware of the REAL biological equivalents of some of the procedures women go through, they might have a tad more compassion.

I had mine the day after my son was born in 1978. The only question the Dr asked was "Are you sure?" It's a quick procedure that I would equate with having my teeth cleaned as far as a discomfort level.

And I understand now there are methods that can make it reversible.

Quick procedure, that is. Usually done on an outpatient basis. And some vasectomies are reversible, as well.

A vasectomy is NOT equivalent to a hysterectomy.

I meant vasectomy. :D

I sometimes forget we don't always know gender in here.

And you're right; gender is often a mystery around here. ;-)

To reverse, you need to line up the itty bitty tubes just right and fuse them without blocking. It's microsurgery.

But Steve Dahl had his done while on-air. No problem.

vasectomy--but I love how so many men like to yet again throw all of the responsibility into the woman in this case as well...

Vasectomies are certainly unpleasant--most medical procedures are--and I would imagine a reversal is much more complicated than the original procedure--but nothing even close to "getting your tubes tied."

some women report lack of sexual enjoyment after a hysterectomy, but this is always glossed over when they do the possible side effects of surgery and women are embarassed to report this so some think this may be an under reported phenomenom. Now, tell a guy he won't have sexual pleasure after a vasectomy and how many do you think will have one. God forbid you damage the joy stick, but feel free to hack away on women. Women just have more complicated plumbing. Tubals are closer to vasectomies in nature.

That said,

I don't agree with getting a vasectomy for men. It's to extreme. What if they live passed 15 and want a kid. The idea of having a vasectomy at that age is ridiculous IMO.

Condoms, developing male BC, ect. is a far better answer.

Teaching boys that it isn't the girls responsibility to be on birth control, it is 100% his, if its he who doesn't want to get someone pregnant, is the way.

Too many guys think it's the womans responsibility. Nearly every guy I know had a kid he didn't plan on. Really, they should have been smarter. She' can take care of her own BC to meet her own demands. He needs to take care of his.

Teach boys they are at fault if they don't protect their end. After they dumbly impregnate her, it's too late to moan over it being her body and how she gets to choose what happens to her body.

:eyes:
Apparently you see women as helpless hapless victims incapable of taking responsibility for their own actions. No wonder you have such a tough time achieving equality; you don't seem to have any idea what it means.

If you impregnate someone it's 100 percent your fault for putting yourself there. You screwed yourself up. These men are blaming women for screwing them up. Only they could make the bad decisions that got them(the men) pregnant. You ARE 100 percent responsible for your actions. Not %50.

That doesn't mean I'm not saying she is 100 percent responsible for the situation she put herself in. Her responsibility does not cancel or subtract from yours though. And it's the men here, complaining and trying to get out of responsiblity.

In something as desperately important as avoiding pregnancy, having 2 people take responsibility for contraception is really important, but having one person absolutely assume full responsibility no matter what the other person is doing is ideal. If I were male, I'd never, never leave that to my partner alone. Never.

But then, I happen to have the advantage of knowing first-hand what it's like to carry and bear a child and be a parent for the rest of my life, the first 18 years of which is a bit too much like slavery for my taste (or, put another way, I can really see why the wealthy have nannies).

What effect does that particular kind of lack of smarts have on their Darwinian "fitness" level?

How many of them had lots and lots of kids who were very expensive to take care of and who died before themselves producing offspring?

i've heard that some guys in the US have to go to three or more doctors before they find one willing to do a vasectomy. i've heard of doctors who simply refuse 'on principle' of doing a vasectomy on a guy unless he already has children, some who won't do one unless the guy is over a certain age, doctors who demand a consultation with the guys wife...

the equivalent of a tubal ligation... though much less invasive, much less risk and much shorter recuperation.

They think they can shoot their cock off but get upset if the obvious happens -she gets pregnant. As if it's all her fault.

They get mad saying the women should have been on BC but where was theirs.

They scream because she can get an abortion, and then they scream if she refuses to get one.

These guys don't want to pay for a child either way.

But they still want to shoot their cock off without protection, and knock her up.

You bet it's her choice to have the kid, and they hate that.

They really hate that.

But those idiots should have figured out from the beginning that her body would be carrying the kid.

This artical states it nicely, no responsibility, financial or otherwise(mental responsibility)(culpability).

You have to almost laugh, they aren't smart enough NOT to knock up a woman. And they act like it would be the worst thing that could happen to them. But yet, they just aren't smart enough NOT to PUT THEMSELVES THERE.

Disclaimer, I know there are a lot of men NOT like this. I'm targeting this particularly section of the gene pool - the men in the article.

on his/her own with the exception of abortion in some states.

for the uninsured, i was quoted a fee of $900 (!)

I guess most people think that you should have a right to choose without ending your chances to ever be a natural parent.

And what its physical repercussions are for a woman? It's not even on the same PLANET as a vasectomy, so no, it's not comparable, and a woman should have the right to choose PERIOD.

You go get your dick and balls cut off, and then come talk to me about elective hysterectomies.

The child support system is broken in many places...

You have fathers who refuse to take responsibilty for their kids, and who avoid paying. In many places it is the mothers responsibility to track them down. nd often they will try to hide their income to avoid paying.

On the other side, fathers have no say whatsoever in the status of the child before it is born, in a divorce situation, or where there is no marriage, the mother is generally automatically considered to be the fitter parent, and in particularly bitter situations access to the child is used as a weapon. Also, in many states some fathers are practically forced into bankruptcy because of rigid rules regarding support amounts that take no notice of economic situation.

I have seen proposals for state run child support pools etc. It does need to be talked about because kids are the ones being harmed by this process.

a wonderful idea.

A kid is a kid and equally worthy of support as any other kid. It's not fair that one kid should get $ 4,000 a month and another $ 200 just because of who his mother slept with that night.

:rofl:

(She lied to him about being on the pill and the timing of her cycle, etc.)and a brother whose wife outright lied to get sole custody of kids who adore him, I'm a bit torn on this debate.

That being said,

There are a lot of assholes with no self control or sense of responsibility out there. That fact doesn't mean all men should be denied the right to a say in how their children are raised. There are also a lot of truly selfish and irresponsible women out there who don't deserve a say let alone a monthly check.

I don't see how you can be for having sex but not take responsibility for the outcome. Wear a condom or don't have sex! If that fails support your kid like a man should.

We all know that there is a chance that the woman's birth control will fail. Even if she tells the truth and has no intention of getting pregnant, it could happen if you have sex with her. There is no difference in the risk if she is honest or not. You take the risk you need to face the consequences.

when I saw the line that women didn't deserve the check I thought I was going to throw something at my computer screen.

Child support is for the kids. It's about a roof over their heads, food in their tummies, shoes on their feet and the occasional movie night--for the kids!

:grr:

But I agree with everything that you've said.

Both the man and the woman have the financial responsibility for the baby that potentially results from pregnancy. But biologically, the physical responsibility for pregnancy and childbirth is exclusive to the woman which is why (duh) it should be her choice to take the pregnancy to term. Whatever she decides, neither the man's nor the woman's financial responsibility disappears (barring some mutual arrangement, adoption, etc.).

I call it a stupidity tax. Women always see to birth control to meet their needs, not the guys. The guy needs to do the due dilligence on his end if he doesn't want to impregnate her. IT's 100 percent his fault that he fathered a kid he didn't want no matter WHAT she said to him.

Thats the biggest problem with guys getting women pregnant that they didn't want to. They claim no responsibility and blame her. Dumbasses.

Stupidity tax deserved.

So, if a woman lies about being on BC in order to get pregnant, the pregnancy is the guy's fault?

Isn't that like saying that if a woman in a bar leaves a drink unattended that it is her fault if she is slipped a pill and is raped?

(Note: I'm not saying anything about support here -- It isn't always fair or right, but both parents are responsible for the support of any child created).

that being said, no birth control is 100% effective. But I've known so many guys who've fell into this situation "well she said she was on birth control"... sorry. Too bad. Even birth control fails. Unless you are willing to deal with consequences, don't stick it anything but your own palm.

not just one or the other. Both at the same time every time. It's pretty simple. No men are being persecuted here.

If you play russian roulette often enough at some point you're going to have to bite a bullet.

Relying on somebody else's word for your half of the responsibility is russian roulette.

Relying on somebody else's word for your half of the responsibility is russian roulette.

:applause:

if I were going to have to pay, I'd rather raise the child away from that kind of scammery. Just one of those things - you're on your own when trusting someone's word.

It's much less of a problem now, but way back when in the gay community you didn't dare take your chances on someone claiming to be "clean". You just assume the worst (this works with all cooties by the way), take responsibility for yourself and put on your raincoat.

You suit up no matter what - always assume she's fertile and wants a baby and you'll probably be better off for taking the appropriate precautions on your own.

that's fucked up.

abortion is the equivelent of getting your teeth cleaned to these guys.

They haven't figured out there is an huge emotional burden and most women opt out of one.

They're for forced abortions if they can get it.

So sick.

And now we're seeing the pack mentality with them on this thread.

Few guys believe what these guys are saying. Most guys will take responsibility.

The kind of guy that does what these guys are saying is okay, is the type that prey on women, blame the victim, and have no conscience for their actions -sex offenders.

If a woman leaves her drink unattended at a bar and then comes back and drinks it, she's an idiot. And while no one except the rapist can be blamed for a rape, rape victims need to behave in a manner that will protect themselves. (Don't drink a beverage that has been unattended, don't get into a car with someone you don't know,....)

Now, if you're sleeping w/ someone, the conventional wisdom is that you will know that person and their character and that you'll be able to trust them, but this is often not the case. So the smart thing to do is to cover your ass.... er... penis.

from date rape drugs.

My daughter was drugged and raped by a "man" who first spent 6 months gaining her trust, by putting something in a coffee he made her when she was about to go to sleep alone. This was in a house she shared with a girl who she though was her friend, but she had never understood how jealous her flatmate was of her good reputation, and how eager she was to help this guy damage it.

A favourite trick in Melbourne night-clubs these days is for the guy to get a girl an unopened beer, as she has requested, but to take a tool with him to both remove and then replace the lid, so she cannot tell it's been tampered with. Another trick is, when the girl has opened a drink, to pop a straw into it for her, a preprepared drug-coated straw the guy has brought with him. And, of course, if the girl gets too tipsy to watch things carefully, she'd better hope she can trust the people she is with.

I completely agree with you, MissMillie, that a girl does need to be very careful about her behaviour to keep herself safe, but, if we don't recognize how difficult this can be, it's all too easy to harshly judge girls for falling into the traps that others have dug for them. Even wearing purdah and staying in ones own home will never completely keep one safe, and our societies acknowledge a girl's right to go out and have a bit of fun, and take part in society.

whoop whoop!

I have a neighbor who has two great kids, his wife abandoned them all for another man, and he has NO legal recourse for child support from HER. How is that to be resolved, who is the irresponsible one there?

How is it he has no legal recourse? She is irresponsible. Both parents get their clocks cleaned for child support, according to their resources - how is it that she is not? Does she have some waiver or legal agreement with him?

Did he remarry? Sometimes that plays into how much he's entitled to continue collecting.

He is a Union worker who makes good money(Child care is hard to find though), her, she lives off the guy she lives with now. In other words, no job, no reportable income. She's not married to the guy either.

This reminds me of a Widower I knew, he has three young kids, and all those programs for single parents that are low income in my state apparently only apply if you are a mother, not a father, not to mention he HATES Matt Blunt, one of the few programs he was on he was cut off from too.

visible means and all that.

If she's not poor as a church mouse, not working, and spending or driving a nice car and if she's evil enough he can report her to the IRS for not reporting more than 50% of her unmarried support as personal income, which will force her to file.

Those are broken things in the system. They need to be fixed - it's not right and it's not fair to him or his kids as you've noted, and with three kids he certainly has a case to challenge those programs to expand their criteria.

No battle is won without a fight - he's going to have find others in the same situation, then walk into a newsroom with his delegate or a state representative and ask to be interviewed. Heck, call Oprah.

or garnish her wages if she DOES get employment. It is really up to the custodial parent to keep after it. Find someone who will fight for you in the child support services and keep on them. You are right, it is a fight. So many people just let it go, but complain about the nonpaying parent and continually bring it up around the kids, while not being pro-active about it. It is easier to be a victim than a pain in the ass, sometimes.

Her boyfriend isn't rich, in fact he is a loser in many ways, in and out of jail, etc. Anyways, so he has an old clunker that she drives around, with no insurance in her name, at least, he buys the food, he has the bank accounts, etc. In other words, she is off the radar, so to speak, from anyone doing any sniffing around her financials. He tried pursuing her for child support, but considering that she doesn't work, and he can't garnish her BFs wages, he's in bind. Even last year, her boyfriend didn't even claim her as an dependent, so I don't really know what he can do.

This is called the First in Line, First in Right rule (This is the rule in Pennsylvania, other states may have other rules). The rule is who gets the first court order get the most. I.e. if he had filed against her and she had no other children at that time, then he would get the whole amount of child support. If she has subsequent children (Or if we talking about a male, he would have additional children) those children would get the difference between what the first child received and what she or he had to pay for the additional children.

The only time someone can not be force to pay child support is if their are disabled and can not work (and better either be receiving Social Security or in the process of applying for it).

You sound like you're saying dead beat dad rhetoric.

Show me the facts on where women don't pay child support in your state.

There is a difference there, I don't really give a flying fuck if you believe me, I'm talking about one case where sexism is a possibility. In fact, it probably has less to do with the fact she was a deadbeat mother and more with the fact that she dropped off the financial radar completely, thanks to her boyfriend.

oooooh. Now we all know that's 1000 times worse than the daily sexism doeses thrown on women by men. Ooooh. Bad woman.

Man upset by woman getting sexism on her side.

I can certianly feel for you. not.

BTW, do you hate women?

all kinds of situations are going to happen with all kinds of people. But you seem to have a hang up because it's a woman doing it. Men are just capable of screwing up and doing it as often, if not more.

But, lets go back to your topic, a woman is profiting from reverse sexism, I can tell you are very angry about this.

do you hate women?

Look, all women are angels that do no wrong, and men are assholes that can do no good. Are you happy now, I'm done, you are pathetic.

Have I called all men a-holes.

Nope. Because I don't believe either statement.

I do believe that men need to realize that they put themselves in the positions they are in. Women have to take responsibility, men often assume since they don't have to carry the kid for 9 months, they can walk away.

Look at this artical. They want off scot free. They actually blame the woman for getting pregnant and putting them in the position.

These men chose to put their sperm into women without condoms. They need to own up to the fact that they put them selves there and they now have responsibility over the kid.

When the kids out of the body in 9 months, the woman can no longer terminate so the guy should shut up and take responsiblity for his share.

this whole, men should have control over the womens bodies or no child support is ludicruis. It's patriachial and these men deep down hate women.

Given your WORDS on this issue, which, if you noticed, I didn't say anything for or against these guys on this lawsuit. Personally I think its BS myself, but my opinion doesn't matter to you at all, the fact that you come off as hostile towards all men, even ones who AGREE with you on this issue should tell you something. You are the one talking about forcing medical procedures on ALL men who speak out on any injustice, however, rare against them. Guess what, this isn't some zero-sum game on civil rights. Men can be victims too, I know you probably hate to think of it that way, men are told that to be strong when we are weak, we are told to hold in our emotions, and when we don't we are derided as freaks by this patriarchal society.

You are the one who assumes that men lie, period about any issue that is also percieved as a women's issue. I have yet to see you even speak about such injustices because of what they are, injustices, does it really matter what sex the person is when such things occur?

You must be so opressed. Not.

on sexism, congratulations!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

After all, our fathers and grand-fathers did it so we deserve it right? :sarcasm:

and other ideals, only because on those occasions it seems some who clamor for them don't really want those things. They just want some sort of collective revenge.

They piss me right off. I keep my commitment to quality by reminding myself that every group of people, be they in power or not has it's assholes. Euality also means the assholes have a louder voice.


Every time I hear a woman say something like that, I just put her in the same basket as the chauvenistic macho dingbats we all love to hate.

ran off with her boyfriend, got divorced and hit the guy up for child support.

Then she told him the kids weren't his anyway, which was proven by DNA testing, but the court still ordered him to pay the child support anyway -- to the real parents of the kids.

What a sucker, but he's a man so he deserves it.

She'll report you for calling her on her hypocrisy!

In every state that I am aware of, parentage during marriage is a *rebuttable* presumption that the father can overcome with DNA testing. If what you say is true, then the judge made a horrendous ruling- but it's wholly irrelevant to whether a parent should pay support for a child which is truly hers/his.

A lot of people have lost sight of the public policy principle involved in these kinds of decisions.

Here's the deal. The state has a legitimate interest in not spending its resources to support children who are SOMEBODY's. The state also has a legitimate interest in not spending a lot of time and effort digging through all sorts of recriminations about people's personal lives.

So, to the guy who slept with or married a duplicitous woman and now has to pay child support, the answer is "Dude, nobody else made you sleep with or marry that woman." But the bottom line remains - "here is a child, and both parents are obligated to support that child"

And the answer is pretty much the same to the man whose wife bore someone else's child during marriage - "She's YOUR wife, you married her, and we're going to find two people who are responsible for the support of this child. Looks like we have two people right here. Buh-bye."

Someone held a gun to that guy's head and made him marry her in the first place?

Adam didn't get to choose his wife. That guy did. So the "blame her for my bad judgment" excuse doesn't work as well.

How long was that guy supporting those kids and acting as their father in fact? After you've BEEN the "father" for years, the fact that it was someone else's sperm years ago doesn't really matter in terms of the state's interest in seeing to it that children are supported.

He needs to sue her for support.

and pays a large amount. So large in fact, he can't afford to get his only means of transportation to the job that pays it fixed. Meanwhile she lives with her parents and takes about a week a month vacation away from the kid~not to mention the two to four days a week my friend has him. Uh, but, uh she's blameless right? From where I'm sitting they're both 100% to "blame".

He is certainly the more responsible parent, but has no say over the child's life, where the money goes, or whether people like you brand him as a stupid dumb ass.

Nothing is ever going to improve for the children involved in these situations until people start seeing all the sides to the story and stop using inanities such as "Stupidity Tax".

Nice he's not a dead beat dad. But he obviously hasn't taken responsibility for his impregnating someone yet. Sounds like he's still blaming her.

Nope, wouldn't be surprised at all if he did it again.

I propose a double stupidity tax on this man your honor. He's paying out the ying yang but he still hasn't figured out it was his actions that got him there. I'm sure he'll blame the next woman in an (but she's suppose to have bc or, but she said... yadda yadda yadda).

Wonder how long till he learns. From what you're saying neither of you have yet.

Definitly double stupidity tax.

I'll just assume the state will hit him with it, and you, since you don't see how it's a mans responsibility what he does with his sperm.

Wonder how many times you two will be hit, with it.

I would go so far to say it was sexist. He takes responsiblity, financially at least, yet you still believe he should be punished for the rightfully held belief that he was conned into it. She is a con-woman, period, there is nothing in that that should even allow her to keep the child, much less get money for it.

Half of what I'm typing is getting fed to me from a guy sitting here.

Perhaps you have hostility you are projecting...

Your friend is who badly chose the woman to lay. He screwed up. He is 100 percent responsible for putting himself there. Until he figures that out, I'm sure he'll do it again.

procedure for the decision of WOMEN is somehow fair. Why not the reverse? Why can't women who are shown to be irresponsible, by getting pregnant accidently, be forced to get their tubes tied as well. At least be consistant in your blame game.

women know they are fully responsible for their actions. having sex can get them pregnant. they take responsiblity for it.

As we see here, men like yourself are defending an idea that men aren't responsible for where they put their sperm. Hand it to a flaky woman, get a flaky situation.

Obviously since these men are admant they don't want a woman pregnant, yet engage in acts to get them pregnant, not taking the burden of bc to protect themselves, they can't manage their penis'.

I neuter my cat's because they can't manage them. Why not force men to sterilization, when they can't. obviously these men are telling us they can't control their penis's themselves.

There are kids born with Fetal-Alcohol syndrom, drug addictions, etc. Are these women NOT responsible for the condition and health of the children they bore? If not, then why the double standard? I said be consistant, apparently, in you man hating, you are incapable of intellectual honesty, so in that case, you are a hypocrite.

personal attacks will get the alert button pushed. Go for it.

Can't take a little criticism, is that it? I mean, heaven forbid you actually debate any of my points, the cowards way is much braver after all.

it has nothing to do with critism.

you've sunk to personal attacks. You are still sunk to that level.

come on, give us more :)

Your the one who called me a whiner first, remember? You are the one who comes out with broad brushes first, remember that. You are the one who accused me of women hating, so turnabout is fair play. Besides which, you still haven't answered my questions that were put forward. Give answers, or just come up with BS excuses again. Really, given your rhetoric on this thread, I find your hypocrisy to be astounding. So prove me wrong, what about women who have shown themselves to be irresponsible to their own children, those that abandon them, drink alcohol or do drugs during pregnancy, shouldn't they be given the same treatment as men who also are irresponsible?

abortion rights or child support payments.

Tread lightly or get bashed. I have learned on the last couple of threads that there are many Man haters here at D/U. It appears D/U should start a new section and call it Man Haters.

financially and been the "stay at home parent" their entire lives. I cook, clean, change diapers(not anymore on that one thank the Gods), do maintenance, school projects, Girl Scouts, karate, baseball soccer, you name it. When I got my girlfriend pregnant I took "responsibility" and married her. My wife is an intelligent businesswoman who completely agrees with my assessment. Your assumptions are offensive. I'll put my sense of responsibility and assumed life duties up against anyone's, anytime.

My friend is engaged to a good, honest, caring woman who isn't pregnant or deceitful.
He's actually never blamed the mother himself. In fact the only thing I've ever heard from him on it regarding responsibility is: "I have no one to blame but myself". I saw it all happen up close. He was clearly taken advantage of. Gee--figured it out all by myself-amazing.

This isn't about taking care of the kid. Taking responsibility for one's behavior and not deserving to get screwed by a deceitful person who then proceeds to use a child to hurt you are two totally different things. If you can't agree on that then I must agree to disagree and respectfully end this discussion with you. Neither I, nor he deserve your derision...

Wonder how many times you're going to trip over yourself before you learn not to paint everyone with the same broad brush?

Well that settles the abortion debate then. No reason to abortions unless serious medical concerns.

If a woman forgot to use birth control? Well just call the baby a stupidity tax that she justly deserves to pay.

:-)

ttt

Remember we are talking about THREE people here. Two who, at least biologically, adults, and one that is not (i.e. the baby/infant/child).

The Courts main thrust is to protect the best interest of the CHILD not the Child's parents. Thus if we look at the CHILD's point of view what would do the CHILD the most good?

Before I go on lets look at some biological facts:

1. Women carry the fetus for nine months, the fetus can NOT survive outside the womb. She goes through various hormonal changes during this time period do to the pregnancy (and afterward).

2. When a child is born, a bond develops between the Child and the Child's mother. This is a very strong bond and many Psychologist believe reaches, in the child, to the level that the Child does NOT see him or herself independent of the child's mother till about three years of age (Through such independence in thought seems to start about age 2).

3. Young Children also tend to accept and know other people, but not to the degree as their mother. Till most states adopted a Equal Rights Amendment, this was the basis behind the "Tender Years Doctrine" i.e. young Children were better off with their Mothers then their fathers (With ever thing else is even). When most states adopted an ERA, this doctrine was dropped for it violates treating both sexes the same. While the Tender Year Doctrine is NO longer the law in most states, the reason behind the Doctrine stills exists, i.e. Child under two prefer to be with their mothers over the fathers (in most cases).

4. Only Women can breast feed a baby (Through there are pumps men can use they are NOT the same as breast feeding). Women also have a tendency to carry the child in their left arms (Men tend to carry a child in either arms). This may sound odd, but a child brain development for Language in on the right side of the Child's brain, thus when laying in the Child's mother's left arm the Child's right ear is next to the Child's Mother's month, thus the Child is exposed more sounds when in the arms of the Child's Mother (or any woman) than in a man's arms (This is one of the many little things women do instinctively around infants that we men just do not do).

5. Women are easier to seduce when their are ovulating (i.e. can become pregnant) AND men are attracted to women who are ovulating (Whether the man knows about it or not).

6. Other than do things for a woman (i.e. Dear get me this or that) men have very little impact on the fetus during its development in the womb.

7. It generally takes 18 months for a body to recover from any serious injury including giving birth. Thus a woman is not back to being "Normal" for almost two years after her last child is born).

8. Men earn more money than women (This is probably NOT a biologically difference, but in some ways it is).

Along with the above Biological facts, you have the legal fact that the Courts put the burden of proof on the parent who does NOT have custody to change custody. Given that baby are born to Women, Women tend to have "Custody" at least from that date and thus most men have to fight for custody. This is made more complex in that in most families it is left up to the Women to make all or most of the day to day decisions regarding the children. I know men like to say it is an equal decs ion between both parents, but in the vast majority of households the man's main decision is to support the decision of the mother of his children.

Given the above, how can a man claim he should have the option NOT to support his child? One of the reason he had sex with the mother of his child was because she was ovulating and his instinct detected that she was ovulating (Sorry, most couples do not agree to sex in the form of a "arms length" contract"). Given the sex is NOT a arms length contract (and even with prostitutes the contract is more one of adhesion i.e. they are forced by their pimps to sell their body for sex, then it is a true independent seller of her body for sex) how can the product of that sexual acts be restricted to demand support in the infants tender years from only one of its parents? The Child has no say in its creation, if anything the child is the innocent bystander to the knowing acts of the child's parents. In short the emphasis of the law has been to protect the child over the rights of either parents. As a general rule, women generally take on this burden at birth (See the above biological reasons) but given the less income of single women someone has to help them. That help is either from the Taxpayers or the father of the Child. The Courts will prefer the father over the taxpayers.

Remember Child support is never for the Mother (Except in indirect means for example the house for the Child is often the house for the Mother, thus child support can be used to pay the rent even if the Mother is living in the house with the Children). Child support is for the Innocent "victim" of the sexual act, the child.

South Dakota.

what unmarried man would do anything OTHER than "opt out" in that case? even if he wanted to do the right thing, pressure from his parents (if he was young) and pressure from his lawyers (if he was older and had assets) would be too much to resist

women already earn less, already have to carry the child for 9 months, allowing fathers to opt out financially means that women would have to do it all

i don't know why any woman has a child, frankly, while many men are decent, many other men -- and usually the same ones who spread their DNA around the most -- couldn't give one tiny damn about their own kids

this sick dude litigating to get out of supporting his OWN daughter is exhibit A, his daughter won't always be a baby, one day she will know her father hated her and didn't want to pay one tiny dime for one tiny piece of food in her mouth

think of the endless he said she said lawsuits where he claims he said he told her he didn't want a baby, talk is cheap, and anybody can say anything, bill clinton is the only man ever charged w. plagiarism for fibbing abt sex under oath

Looking at the realities of the situation- how dare you! :)

Is the message that is being presented.

IE - he is the one that will have to work for the next 18 years to pay the support or face jail, so he should have up until third trimester to 'abort' his share of things.

(At least that is how I have heard it and this story seems based around such)

One could continue on that as well in that he will be risking his life driving to and from work, increased stress levels, etc and so on all relating to having to be a father when he did not want to.

So maybe the message for both IS abstinence :)

Lets not forget the woman also has to raise the kid for 18 years.

Reminds me of all the years my mother paid child support... my dad got the kids in court and she was never an abusive parent, he just had more money.

Here's what I propose. All men who impregnate a woman accidentally(and claim against their will) should get a forced vasectomy, whether they want to support it or not. They aren't smart enough to not get women pregnant. They also should have to support the child they dumbly started, regardless of the fact they aren't able to comprehend how they got someone pregnant and how it's 100 percent their own responsibility to handle their sperm.

Women will continue to take responsiblity by providing birth control only when it suits their needs. Guys will provide it when it suits their needs (they don't want to get someone pregnant.) BUT, if the guy claims it's not his fault when he impregnants someone, instant state forced vascetomy. He's just shown he can't manage his penis.

Also if they whine after getting a woman pregnant, that the woman has rights over her body and whether or not she should abort/keep the kid, they should have their drivers license permanently revoked.

If they can't understand in advance that they put their sperm in someone elses body, they aren't smart enough to drive.

Shit happens, people want choices to deal with it.

If the woman does not choose to continue the pregnancy, fine, she has an out.

But that is only one half the equation. Both are facing life changing issue with a pregnancy, both were responsible for it occuring.

I could go on and on about my case, losing my 3 kids, over paying child support for almost 2 years because she refused to update child services (a crime), attempting to extort me for 5,000 or she would not hand over the needed paperwork, and on and on.

Sometimes people suck, but that happens on both ends of the gender spectrum. That does not make the issue one we can react to emotionally to solve based on our own personal occurences.

Sex can and does lead to pregnancy. What happens from that moment on can affect the lifes of both parties forever in many, many ways. Maybe the most responsible thing is - if you create a life deal with it and both people act responsibly. But when one or the other party cannot handle that, or desire not to, then both should have a choice. A woman's body, she chooses abortion and leads her life as she wishes, a man's, he chooses not to be the bank and goes and lives his life as he wishes.

Since when is choice bad?

Forced vasectomys. Easy answer. If men are so opposed to getting someone pregnant, and yet do not use birth control and do acts that get people pregnant, I don't think they can manage their penis.

Easy answer, halt them. They aren't responsible enough to have a free wheeling penis.

Hell, give it time ;)

Me, the government should stay out of the personal decisions people make. But as always, they want to get into our lives more and more because they fear choices and do not trust us. Funny thing is, I thought the constitution and such was to limit their powers, not our freedoms. Someday they may learn that....

You know, for those who can't manage their uterus. :-)

:rofl:

You are on the right track but vasectomies can be reversed. Forced castration, the physical kind, would really do the trick. Punishment not just prevention.

for welfare moms who make children then can't support?

right? Sorry, someone has to take the responsibility. I'd rather it be the biological parents who created the life, than the taxpayers.

So they could only opt out in first 2 trimesters.

Now all in all I am not saying it is a grand idea, what I am saying - and have been saying - is that this whole thing surrounds the value judgements of the entire issue. To quote my bro-in-law (yes, a baptist) on this 'if the mother can kill it why shouldn't the man have the right not support it, which is worse' and that is it in a nutshell - that is the reasoning behind the whole suit. To force that very debate.

Either it is a mass of tissues which no one should have to sacrifice years of their lives to support, or it isn't. Either way two lives can change forever, one has a choice (termination) and the other has no say in that choice and no other choice available.

I have to agree!

As long as any women who got an unwanted pregnacy should have her tubes tied. If she didn't know what was going to happen then she shouldn't have the right to have children....right? BTW...there have been cases of women either claiming infertility, claiming the use of birth control, or even in some cases using a spent condom to get herself pregnant. There have been even cases of a man's frozen sperm used as a way to force child support payments.

if the victim is a man. Men deserve that. :sarcasm:

getting a forced vascectomy and the women forcibly getting her tubes tied?

That's a little extreme don't you think?

That's what she said, only forced procedures for men only, we are at fault, always, but only if we complain, apparently.

Like I said earlier, our fathers, grand-fathers and so on were sexists and dominated women, so now our generations deserve to pay. It's only fair :sarcasm:

become pregnant and seek abortion or raise their child on welfare.

With Depo, you stop recieving the shot and your fertility returns in a few months to a year. A vasectomy, while sometimes reversible, is still generally considered irreversible in most cases.

The equivalent would be forcing women to have their tubes tied.

But if you want to argue for tubal ligation, it's your dime.

option I have ever read regarding the isssue.

forced vasectomies?

you can't be serious.

the root of choice is dominion over our own bodies, and government not being involved with medical procedures and decisions- privacy. I will NEVER support forced birth control, surgical or otherwise.

That said-

birth control is 100% the woman's responsibility
birth control is 100% the man's responsibility
each person is 100% responsible for their own actions and bodies.

the blame game of 'she said she was on bc' or 'he said he had a vasectomy' just doesn't fly with me. Take care of your own bodily fluids, folks!

Now, when two methods fail - there is a situation to be dealt with: the woman has a right to choose if she continues the pregnancy, and hopefully, she will be able to discuss it with the father and make the best decision for her, but sometimes- women make the decision without doing so. She takes responsibility for her own body.

Once a child is born- both parents are again, 100% responsible for that child.

I remember one of them that used to hit the talk show circuit whining about men's rights and how they are so trampled by evil women. He had a big beard and used to wear a skirt on the shows. Not a kilt, but an A-line skirt.

Who was given full custody of my daughter by the mother (my ex), I can testify to the inequalities of the system & how it is biased towards the mother. Just try to get support from the mother. Just try to get a judge to enforce a custody decree. Just try to get a judge to believe a man can rasie a child.
I wanted this child, and no women's rights group or judge was going to stand in the way, even though the mother felt like I could do a better job of raising my daughter, and she was happy to give me custody.
And i have seen women who purposely get pregnant, for any of a bunch of sick reasons, that have nothign to do with raising a child. there is one very thorny issue here: if a pregnancy results from sex, shouldn't both parties have a say so in the decision to terminate the pregnancy?

I think you should have your drivers license removed, and a vasectomy.

Sounds like you are whining as if you don't understand how you had total say and you chose to put your sperm in someone elses body, and that someone ill-chosen by YOU, and you can't handle that she has say over her body - keeping or terminating the pregnancy, drinking alcholol or taking crystal meth through it. Who knows what kind of a woman YOU CHOSE. You're blaming her and not taking responsibility for your BAD decisions and ACTIONS. Ie getting someone pregnant.

News flash, the sperm transfers bodies, the person carrying it does have say over what she does with her body.

Since you don't understand how you are 100 percent responsible for your actions, and you are blaming "sinister" women, I don't think you are able to actually handle your sperm. And you definitely shouldn't be making decisions for someone else. Especially women, and especially over things like how they handle their bodies.

You can't handle your own.

Her body, her choice. Biology isn't equal, the choice isn't equal. His choices end after his sperm reach her egg. Life isn't fair. If it were, Cancer wouldn't exist.

some people look at the world as it is and say Why. Others look at the way it should be and say Why Not.

Hard to see people today looking at unfair situations and just saying "too bad." Used to be people looked at unfair situations and tried to change them.

My bio dad never got to pay one penny to my Mom. Oh, maybe for a few months then went to Alberta and the payments stopped.

How are courts biased towards the mother?

She's never seen a penny of child support. She's tried.

Her own father never gave my sister 1 penny for her.

yeah, but when a woman decides to end a pregnancy, doesn't that leave this guys off the hook?

I don't know. I'm tired. :(

Other than that they need to except their responsibilities.

that the woman doesn't use the condom to get herself pregnant though.

... I think you can spend 5 minutes making sure that can't happen. And I'm sure that this is a very rare occurrence.

but it didn't work for me. I guess my kid's glad it didn't.

Personally I know several fathers who are forced to pay child support for children whith whom they have no contact due entirely to the machinations of the mother. Either through the deliberate alienation of the child, or by moving to a remote location. I have heard one woman proudly proclaim she "got the bastard out of her life" by threatening to report him for molestation. And another who tells how she had each of her five kids by separate fathers in order to maximise the child support payments paid to her.

I am not denying that there are plenty of deadbeat dads out there, I've known a few myself.

What I am saying, is that in many cases the wrongdoing is primarily on the mother's part and yet her ex-partner (and any family he might have subsequently) end up being punished for her actions. Yes the child is deserving of support, but not I believe at the expense of essentially (or entirely) innocent parties.

Looking at the specific case in the OP. He is told that a medical complaint prevents her from having children. He takes her at her word and she subsequently falls pregnant. If the complaint is real then O.K. he should bear some responsibility for the "miracle" child. However, he acted in good faith, so unless he wishes to take up an active parenting role, his financial burden should be significantly reduced.

Now, if the medical complaint did not exist at all, then he acted in good faith whilst she operated under false pretenses (possibly with a deliberate intent to deceive) and yet according to most he should be effectively punished for falling for her con, whilst she gets rewarded for her wrongdoing.

The best that anyone seems to offer is that "He should have taken an active role in preventing the pregnancy." So he has exactly three choices. 1) Forego sexual intercourse altogether. 2) Take a highly significant risk of foregoing all future reproductive rights on his part. (Sterilsation for men might be a simple outpatient procedure. However, reversal is not. It's expensive microsurgery with no guarantee of success) or 3) He wears a condom, which if done in the face of his partner's assurances, is likely to be interpreted as a gesture of mistrust, which will do nothing good for the relationship.

Reproductively, men today are little (if any) better off than women were fifty years ago. In that period there have been huge adances both medical and social that have benefited women enormously. The same can not be said for men. Fair enough that they should (and did) lose "rights" which they should never have possessed in the first place, but it is not fair that their right to be an active parent is now in a large part dependent on the goodwill of their ex-partners.

pregnant. You obviously found they have no choice.

I suppose we should just tax them the minute they're born. Apparently they can't control their inseminating people so it comes down to the problem is men.

I actually did think the woman had her share in there, but from what you are saying, the guy just can't control these things.

Slap them with the fee. We women can tell them, sorry we can't control it, we must bill you. Out of our control.

are as limited as a woman's was half a century ago. Nor did I say he can't control these things. I said his ability to exercise control is very limited.

The realities of endocrinology (and advances in medicine over the past half century), mean that women have a far greater and more effective range of choices when it comes to preventing pregnancy. And yet if she choses to forego them, (or is simply careless) the man is automatically assigned "his share of the blame" regardless of any good faith efforts on his part, and even worse, sometimes in the face of deliberate bad faith on hers.

A person who acts in genuine good faith is not normally held responsible when something goes wrong at a later date even if his actions were contributory. And a person who deliberately acts irresonsibly, is generally considered accountable for any untoward results. So why, when it comes to pregnancy, are things suddenly turned on their heads?


It's your body, and your choice whether to let that baby baster anywhere near it, let alone inside it without the appropriate protection(s). If you do so and catch a bloated belly as a result, then you are responsible. You can say "no", or "stop", or "put on a condom". Why didn't you. Unless you are screaming rape, you are implicitly sending the message, "It's all right, I've got it under control" if you told him not to bother, then the message is explicit.

This argument isn't about men absolving themselves of all resposibility. It's asking why a bloke should be held accountable when he acted in good faith and in some cases when there is actual bad faith on the part of the woman. Why he should be forced to meet his "obligations" when what rights he might have regarding the child are partly or entirely removed.


BTW something resembling coherent English would be nice.

on DU for three years at least now.

My proposal.

Once a woman finds out she is pregnant, she has a certain period of time to make a good faith attempt to inform the potential father.

At that point, the potential father has a short period of time to file a legal document either accepting all legal rights and responsibilities of fatherhood, or declining them.

The potential mother gets this document and then makes her decision on whether to continue or terminate the pregnancy.

The reason I like this plan is that the woman has complete control over whether she becomes a mother or not, as sher must. The man also has control over whether he becomes a parent or not.

It is the fairest system I've been able to think of.

I think eventually something like it will be put into place as the current system of "My Body, My Choice, Our Responsibility," really doesn't pass the fairness test.