How many children of unmarried males is too many? By how many women?

There's a guy who has three women claiming to have children by him. He's fought paying child support for all of them.

The moms are raising the kids.

I consider this guy a bit of a sociopath, actually.

I don't claim to know "this guy," but I'm pretty sure he exists.

and where they belong is in jail for non payment of child support.

the State's Attorney convinced my mother to bring my father up on charges of non-support. They used me as bait. I was 8 years old, and remember my father coming in the room to listen to me play music. The next thing I knew, we were surrounded by state troopers, guns drawn. My father was handcuffed and led away cursing. He made bail, skipped town, and never even came before a judge-the SA decided it wasn't worth tracking him down. And what difference did it make that it traumatized a child who is still spooked by cops?

It is too bad that in your case it turned out so badly. I honestly would doubt the sanity, much less the wisdom, of police officers who used an 8 year old as bait. But since the time that happened (I am presuming you to be at least in your 20's) this issue has been taken much more seriously (if for no other reason than to cut back welfare spending). I know of quite a few people who got jail time for lack of support of their children.

I should have qualified things. This happened in the late 50s, you know, when everything was so perfect and wonderful and nice. When women couldn't get credit, but their husbands could take out loans without their knowledge, not pay on them, and the woman could lose all her household furnishings. This was back in the good old days when a single mother could be told with a straight face that she didn't deserve to earn as much money as a man for the same work because "a man has to support his family-women work so they can buy frills." You know, the wonderful 50s when if you were black you couldn't buy houses in certain neighborhoods, couldn't even get certain jobs-and this was in the "enlightened" North.

Remember that when the Repukes talk about a "return of family values" this is the kind of society they want to bring back.

those days and all the way into the 70s. Yeah, women and men employment ads were separated in the newspaper columns, women really were not treated equally at all....

My family was not a Leave It To Beaver family. We were dirt poor back then. Mom was virtually a slave in the house. Dad did his best to keep food on the table and clothes on our backs, but we frequently had to rely on govenment commodities.

I can only imagine how hard it must have been for you. I was lucky enough to live in a home where love trumped poverty. I remember the contempt people had for any one who was divorced. It didn't matter who was at fault. The woman was supposed to "put up with it." Minorities were treated worse than divorced people. My love goes out to you.

that good to me. I am actually amazed they even bothered to arrest him back then. Fortunately things have gotten way better, not great, but better since then.

if they attempt to take us back there, there will be quite a fight, guaranteed.

The strong arm tactics are way over the top.

I'm sorry that anyone had to go through that.

I'm sure that it traumatized him almost as much as it did you.
It wasn't your fault of course... and I imagine he knows this.
I gather it's been well over a decade... if you haven't heard from him, I would still not give up if that is your wish.

If more of our public officials could put themselves in the place of those they might affect, such blunders would not be so common.

if a fellow fathers a child and refuses to support said child, I would think twice before having a relationship with him that could result in children.

Of course, in moments of passion those questions are never the ones asked.

but if a fellow isn't even trying to support a child he knows is his, I would question his character and attitudes towards other things as well. In fact, when I first met the gentleman who became my husband, I asked about his former marriage and child support. Don't know that I would have gone one more step in the relationship if he'd said he didn't support them.

Think of many professional athletes.

They constantly fight any responsibility, financial or otherwise.

would not be inclined to be honest about his failings with his new lover.

That's true. I've lived in small towns for so much of my life I forget that in a city people's business aren't known to the community at large....

keep their past, including children hidden for as long as possible. One lady in a shop I worked at 6 or 7 years ago had been dating a guy for over a year when she found out she was preggers. They were already engaged so they just bumped up the date. Sent out the invitations, got the dress, had the hall booked and food & festivities paid for when he decided it was time to let her in on his "past life". Bastard had a son in another state he apparently didn't see, didn't call, didn't have photos of around the house............... I couldn't believe it when she married the snake anyway. I got the feeling it was because she didn't want to be embarrassed and everything was already booked and paid. Sometimes people really do just ask for trouble. I would have either aborted and kicked him to the curb or had the baby and kicked him to the curb. I quit shortly after the wedding, she never seemed like a happy person after she found out what he was, a stinking slimy liar.

As for child support, unless you've had a vasectomy that you are SURE has not failed you damn well better pay it and I don't give a DAMN if you have 12 kids by 15 different women you never married. PAY.

support payment. the guy told the cops he couldn't pay because he had a new family to support. cop told him you should have thought about that before you got married again.

either

A: Make more money
B: Get yourself fixed


Good for the cop. :thumbsup: You know they see kids in conditions they don't have to be in and mothers pushed to the very edge by deadbeats. It has to get old.

Why the hell is that some (an unfortunate number) men have the idea if they are not getting laid by the woman he shouldn't have to contribute to the upbringing of his own children? Just because she's not his bought and paid for vagina in waiting service?

Like you, I'm waiting for the answers.

pay for their children, how many DU'ers would say he weren't so bad?

:sarcasm:

Love the amount of anti-men vitriol that exists on DU.

That was only vitriol against men who do not pay their child support. That's not quite the same thing.

Why don't you generalize. I know more than a few shitty moms.

My ex was just such a person.

I raised our son until he was over 5 years old... she 'visited' on the weekends.

When she completed her law degree, she 'took' custody.

He is older now. But for years he spent his time in before and after school programs which took the place of parental care.
Her psychological issues were severe enough that his hair fell from his head in patches for several consecutive years during his early schooling. People treated him as though he had leukemia. (they were 'over-nice')
No one could figure out what the issue was.
I told them (after a year of the hair falling out) that it was probably a result of some environmental stress influencing him.('Stress-related Auto-immunological somatic disorder')

Unfortunately, I had restricted my schedule around his needs during those early years and was ultimately unable to summon the resources necessary to combat her virtually free cotillion of professional lawyers.

As a man who is dedicated to raising and caring for his children, I have been abused by a system which is engineered to treat all single fathers as miscreants.

For this reason, I am very personally affected by the disdainful actions of so many underdeveloped males. They have carved out such a negative predisposition, such a vindictive attitude towards unmarried fathers, that a dad is fighting an uphill battle for his kids from the very start. And the system in most states generally reflects that.

I realize that this is not necessarily the fault of the 'system' or the policy makers... but as much a symptom of our socio-cultural condition. And make no mistake... The gov. bears the lionshare of screw-ups in creating that condition.

And that's why were here and doing what we're doing.

when it's pro forced birth is not anti-men. I've been at DU long enough to see myriad threads started by men about WOMEN'S RIGHTS.

Some guys here interpret anything that doesn't appear to be worshipful of them as "male bashing".

Nor have they figured out that the OP is a copycat of another thread.

that the OP is a copy.

'They' need someone to point stuff like that out.
('They' being 'the men')

And of course every single female here knew that this was a copy.

Or does someone have to point that out to them as well?



So How's your day been? Mine's pissy but interesting. You?

I was fairly productive. Did laundry and stuff. I notice your profile says you're a Republican. And your hobby is winning. That's interesting. What made you come to DU?

It was late 2003 when I first found this site because of a reference to a list of "Things to do at Wal-Mart" that was posted here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?%20az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=334576

Because of some inflicted individual with no sense of humor;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/mail/hatemail_22.html
(Hate Mailbag, 'Frivolous Lawsuits')

I had known for some time that this administration was not quite right. My first indication of this was in the 2000 Campaign, I was watching the debate that night... Gore had just finished describing his matching funds savings program in terms of relative dollars vs. other programs.

I thought it was fairly clear and, from what I knew, not unreasonable.
Then Bush, with the realization that most Americans didn't understand a word Gore had said, took hold of the ignorance of an entire nation when he said,

"Look, this is a man who has great numbers. He talks about numbers. I'm beginning to think not only did he invent the Internet, but he invented the calculator. It's fuzzy math. It's a scaring -- he's trying to scare people in the voting booth."
http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a_p.html

He knew most Americans didn't understand because he didn't understand. I recognized that instantly, and, at that moment, knew I couldn't support the person who toppled a man far better than he... John McCain.

As I have watched this administration pull the wool over American eyes, I have also become disappointed in McCain.

The reason I stay here is because I find more reality here. The facts people use here are very solid once they have been verified.
I have used the same fact to debate self-proclaimed 'conservatives' on the efficacy of this administration... much to their chagrin. (I've never lost a debate in my life... that would be the 'winning' part, I guess.)

I like being on the side which is less hypocritical, more factual, and has more vision for dealing with contingencies. Thus I am here.

This administration has tunnel-vision and is poorly equipped to handle the PNAC.

I've got an adult female Sheltie who has developed a bizarre emotional problem which she has recently taken to manifesting on my living room rug. Not the tile, which covers far more of my house and would be easily cleaned. Noooo...Damn doggies!

Anyway, I read the transcripts of that debate and was struck by what you observed. I hadn't even noticed that! I vaguely remember watching it back when it was on and I was more interested in the differences in their approach to energy policy. Gore: Let's develop alternatives. Bush: Oil, Oil, drill more oil...Saddam Hussein! Saddam Hussein!

And you're right about the tunnel vision with respect to foreign policy. Although I didn't support the Iraq invasion because I knew their justification was bullshit, I was hoping they'd at least be competent enough to carry it out the way they said it would unfold. Of course, I was soon shown that wasn't the case. Among other things, they've got 21 year old Americans writing the goddamned Iraqi constitution. Jesus Christ!
We're in a world of shit and they still want to invade other countries. WTF?! Get those insane fuckers out of there!

I'm glad to see a conservative talking to other conservatives about this and getting the message across. The minute they find out you're a liberal they don't want to hear anything you have to say. Guess I can't blame them for that. So you keep it up.

What are you doing up this late, anyway?

I tell people the truth; that I am indeed a registered Republican. My parents were real conservatives, not the "Let's bankrupt the country while we piss away money, lives and our international status" 'conservatives'. No, they are the sort of conservatives who 'conserve'. (What a quaint concept!)

They track their gas mileage, clip coupons, do all their own car and home repairs, grow their own vegetables... and they're sitting on a seven-figure retirement. Bet you can guess how they got there.

These self-proclaimed 'conservatives' make me sick. They have distorted the conservative precept of self-sufficiency into something more like 'selfish-inefficiency'.

So the moment I disagree with a 'conservative', they call me a liar. "You're no more a Republican than I'm the tooth fairy..." and so on.

I've found that whenever I make a solid case for why this administration is just awful, they just call me a 'Liberal' and ignore me. It's far easier to stick a label on someone as a device to dismiss them out-of-hand than it is to listen, comprehend, consider, find facts, and construct an argument.
These people are LAZY. And they facilitate their mental torpor by taking peel and press labels, imprinted for them by the like of Rush Limbaugh, and sticking them on anyone or anything that might pose a challenge... problem solved.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the majority of ignorance... willful ignorance, is on the 'right' lately. The preponderance of facts supporting the Democratic positions is overwhelming.
It seems to have turned out that I was absolutely correct back in 2000. Bush and his cadre work by harnessing ignorance... therefore their followers are united in ignorance. This is a remarkable system for keeping a populace divided against it's own self-interest. The mass of ignorant people will fight tooth and nail to simply ignore the cries of warning by those who pay attention.

It's like pointing to the 12 foot tall voracious, drooling, man-eating monster standing behind some dumb guy and screaming "LOOK!" and the dumb guy just says, "You think you're so smart... I'm not gonna fall for that one."

And then we all get eaten.

Unfortunately most people think politics is 'boring' and doesn't affect them... that's the hardest fight.

As for being up late... ehn... it happens.

:rofl:

Those are reversible. Unlike castration, a pregnancy taken to term, in the vast majority of cases, does not make you disabled for life.

One trouble that I have heard men complain about child support is that they pay $200 to $400 a month, about $100 of that goes to their child and the rest goes to a woman who is usually not very nice to them. The father's feeling is that raising a child does not cost as much as child support. I got this from a father who was happy that he was getting the kid and "no longer had to pay". He had other kids, so I assume he knew what he was talking about in regard to the costs of child rearing. Anyway, many men would not mind child support, but who wants to be forced to give your hard earned money to one of your worst enemies?

Also, I know a father who works at wal-mart and lives in a trailer and is paying back child support for the next seven years or so. According to him, he was never allowed any visitation, against court orders. His kids are in their twenties, but he is still forced to pay out of his meager income. Well, at least that is his side of the story.

but thankfully, most of the time it doesn't.

to his worst enemy. :sarcasm:

She probably wasn't his worst enemy when he was pleasing himself with her body.

Your friend does realize that his crappy $200-400/month goes to the total upkeep of the child, not just toys and clothes specifically for the child?

Things like rent, car, gasoline, heat, lights, water, cable, phone, etc. are all included in the upkeep of the child? Rent alone can cost say $400, which is probably low for a national average. If the child and his mother are the only two people living in the house, the child's "share" of the rent alone is $200. So your friend's precious support money is nearly used up, just to pay for a place for his kid to FUCKING LIVE!

I hate whiny men who bitch about paying their child support. If you don't want child support payments, get a goddamned vasectomy. :nopity:

many men would be happy to take their child and pay for all those things. Which are not really added costs - most people have housing and cars for themselves. So the child's share of the rent is not half, it is the difference between the cost of a one bedroom and an efficiency. He would much rather have the kids living with him and let his worst enemy get her own food, automobile and shelter.

When the situation is reversed, for example with Terry McMillan, I have sympathy for her as well. Compassion and empathy are positive values aren't they? Or is it better to hate with God on your side?

All household expenses can be divided by the number of people in the house, and there is no requirement that you factor in the number of bedrooms and deduct accordingly.

PS - who hates?

figures it, not the practicalities of the matter. Since 1992, I have had enough housing space for myself so that I could add a child or two with no extra cost. I would be losing space, perhaps, but not adding a dime to housing expenses. Also given the way utilities bill (about 40% of my electric and gas bills are base costs, independent of usage so adding another person is not going to double them, and I am heating or cooling most of the house anyway no matter how many people are here.) you cannot logically split utility bills in two either.

Who hates? We all hate, but maybe we hate different things and are not so passionate about our hate - "too fu$%ing bad" and "a$$hole friend" sound like hate to me, as does the "no pity" icon. It seemed like my "friend" was being demonized, although you had very few facts of the case. Maybe I should have said that his ex-wife is a "fundy". I just wonder, is my "friend" an a$$hole because of his association with a known a$$hole such as, say, myself?

I don't hate your friend, I don't even know him. But I know plenty of assholes, and sorry, but he sounds like one. It's a shame you projected hate into that, that is your own issue to deal with.

I call them as I see them, and all I have to go on is what you posted. Anyone who resents paying for his own child is an asshole, and I'll play the world's smallest violin when I hear them whining. Furthermore, the mother of that child will pay FAR IN EXCESS of his crappy monthly support payment to bring that child to adulthood.

It's too bad he picked someone that he now considers his worst enemy to have a child with. Perhaps she now considers him HER worst enemy.

^5!

who's paying child support to his ex for two kids that his ex had with a guy she was having an affair with so they're not his kids.

To make it worse, his ex is now living with the guy she had the affair with, the real father of the kids.

This guy who was in all the local papers and even national TV is now under threat of arrest if he doesn't pay child support to a mother, father and two kids, none of whom are related to him.

Why?

Because he was married to the woman when she had the two kids with the other guy.

What about the fact that DNA tests proved they weren't his kids?

Doesn't matter. He was married so he pays.

And what about the mother who was the cheater?

Oh she gets the checks each month.

against his divorce attorney. Texas has a *rebuttable* presumption of parentage which can most certainly be overcome with DNA testing. Once parentage is disproven, the child is no longer his responsibility, legally or otherwise.

This guy either had an incredibly bad divorce attorney or is full of shit and feeding you and others a sob story. Hmm, wonder which one it is. :eyes:

You have got to be uninformed, ignorant or willfully totally F-ing obtuse to believe that raising a child could cost less than one c-note a month. I suppose if you keep the child in rags and feed them ramen noodles for every supper you might, MIGHT, get it down to the $100 mark.

Know what? Your "good guy" who works for Wal-Mart and lives in a trailer park is paying child support on his 20 something kids because he DIDN'T pay the support he owed while they were children.............. when his kids really NEEDED it.

Do you propose a statute of limitations for scumbags (male or female) who skip out on their obligations? Hey! Your kids are in their 20s now, don't worry about it! That's a great message to divorced fathers, just skip the state and wait till they turn 20.

Here's another thing............. your "good guy" had the right to bring a complaint in the county where the dissolution was granted and be heard. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess he didn't. He just bitched. I TOTALLY support parents who are being screwed visitation wise. They should do the right thing and persist until they can gain satisfaction legally. They should NOT use it as a LAME ASS EXCUSE for not paying their support but........ that happens alot.

My mind spins in a million directions when you question why a parent must contribute to the support of their own child by sharing that responsibility with - as you put it - "giving hard earned money to one of your worst enemies". DAMN that is shallow. Death Valley ain't that low.

It's really simple. If a man believes that any woman he has sex with should carry any resulting impregnation to term, he should get that idea out in the open BEFORE he lets his zipper down.

If a person never wants to have kids, they should get fixed.......... and then tested to make sure it took.

If a person thinks they shouldn't have to support the children of anyone they are not currently fucking this week whether they are their own kids or not, they should let potential and current partners know about that little nugget of their personality.


Just WHY THE HELL do you believe that kids should have to pay for the irresponsibility of deadbeat parents?

ANY cs that a mother gets is HERS to spend as she sees fit, imo. after all, she's the one raising the child 24/7. most cs barely covers what the mother puts out herself. as long as her child is fed, clothed and cared for, there should be no question.

What are you proposing as a fix? I've heard of several suggestions, but NONE of then are acceptable in a civilized society.

How amny athletes fit this mold?

precautions.

I feel pretty strongly about this. Kids need fathers. Not to say that some single mothers don't do a great job. But ideally, kids need dads (especially boys).

And it doesn't sound like this twit is involved in his kids' lives. grrrrr

I hate admitting it, but there it is. He has two children with my duaghter and they've been together for over three years now.

He has two other children by different women. When I found out I went crazy. He went for quite some time before he finally got down to paying child support. He's a better person now than when I first met him so I suppose that's something.

They are aquaintances, friends of friends and such who fit the description. One never stays employed at any one job for more than a couple of weeks for that reason. I also know a few of the like who do pay support for all of their children and complain about being broke, blaming the mothers.
Yes, personally I consider them irrespeonsible and would not date them if I were single. I would probably advise a friend not to date such a man either.
It seems that their male friends are supportive of such men. I don't know how men feel in general about men like that though.

and I have seen it by other women, which is really fascinating. A woman I used to work with always blamed her sister-in-law for staying pregnant and not "letting" her brother get divorced. As she put it he wouldn't let his young children have a divorced mother and mostly absent father. Well who was forcing this guy to have sex with his wife. I think they had 5 or more kids. The husband really (oh yeah) hated his wife's guts, having all those kids

What I do know is that I have a friend in trouble and I am on his side." from the movie "Gotcha"

Friends generally support friends. That is how they stay friends. As far as blame the mother. It is one of two things - either she dumped him, which is not pleasant even if it is sometimes justified. Or he dumped her, in which case, he thinks he had some justification. Most of the time they treat each other poorly and spend their time trying to get revenge "for the last three things he/she did to me." At least that is what I see is that they make a special effort to push each other's buttons. Even a nice guy is probably going to blame someone who makes a concerted effort to aggravate him.

...mostly immature 'men' who see their 'fatherhood' as evidence of their manhood. It's precisely the opposite.

I worked with a guy like that once. He couldn't have been older than 22, and already had four kids with three different women, and boy was he proud of that. Ugh.

that's what I don't get. These men must have amazing sex appeal or something to be able to snooker women into being used and abused this way.

Women are conditioned into believing in fairy tales and MEN LIE FOR SEX. I cannot tell you how many times I've heard, "But as soon as that ring was on my finger..."

"It was only after I was deeply invested in the relationship that I discovered..."

"When I got pregnant, it started..."

Low life a-hole.

Ditched his first girlfriend when the child was a toddler. Then got married & had one or two more & ditched them when they were toddlers. Had another with a third woman - by then I didn't associate with that side of the family, so I don't know if they were married or not, but I heard that that didn't work out either. That was YEARS ago, so who knows what number the a-hole is on now.

Oh, and no child support for any of them. Or any contact with any of them once he left. Although, I suspect the women were probably happy to simply get this loser out of their lives.

the poor guy probably got duped by those women who probably got pregnant just to suck him dry :sarcasm: of course.

Spread his seed all over the country as far a we can tell, we know of 5. Said that there was probably more. Never a dime to any of them. He died at 47 last year from alcoholism. Interesting enough, HIS father was a Merchant marine, who spread children all over the world. He didn't pay child support either. That guy died around 15 years ago So there you go, two generation's worth. It's a uglier, longer story as well.

and not have sex with him, not go out with him, etc.

But in my experience this is usually not the case - these guys tend to get MORE sex than the average guy. I guess the ladies who go for them think, "well if he can impregnate so many women, there must be SOMETHING about this guy." I don't know.

Re child support: I don't think men should be forced to pay child support, i.e. forced into legal fatherhood just because they had sex or birth control failed. Independent women making independent choices should not expect men to be responsible for those choices. If the guy chooses to be a father - great. If not - that's his choice as well. Either way - nobody - man or woman - should be forced into parenthood. Women should have the right to an abortion, and men should have the right to forefeit paternity. This is why we probably need some type of contract when conception is known. This issue won't come to the fore anytime soon, though, not as long as the issue of abortion is still being debated. Until then, the woman will have far greater ability to determine when she becomes a parent, and when the man becomes a parent also.. whether he wants to or not. And 'keep it in your pants' is what people want to tell guys - imagine if they said that to the girls it wouldn't be politically correct but it's quite ok to tell us to be celibate... not to mention we have NO birth control pill.. only stupid condoms which is technology from the like the 1800's already .. sheesh /rant over

I think a man should be able to relinquish all parental rights if he so chooses. He should have to do it immediately when the child is born and it should be irreversible - no coming after the kid later to get back at the woman. Some people don't agree with that but I think fair is fair. Conversely, no man should ever have any say in a woman's decision to abort or carry to term.

the American values of liberty when ALL people - women AND men - have control over whether or not they become a PARENT. Seems to me like a basic element of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'. No way around it. And having casual sex or birth control failure should not be a factor into whether one becomes a parent or not. It should be a decision, made by each individual man and woman, irrespective of the decision of the other.

As soon as an unmaried woman finds out she's pregnant, she has so many days to tell the father or attempt to.

Then the father has so many days to legally either agree to take responsibility for his kid, or decline it.

Then the woman has total control over whether the kid is born or not, but she makes that decision armed with the knowledge of whether the father is willing to help her or not.

This system gives the woman complete control over her body. It also allows both the man and woman to decide whether they want to be parents or not.

Also it shows that simply having sex does not mean you are willing to be a parent.

It has nothing to do with rights or responsibilities of men OR women, at least not legally. It's about a child's right to support from both parents. You can't "forfeit paternity." A father's DNA is there regardless of what a father wants to forfeit. It wasn't an immaculate conception. You put it there, so don't bitch about paying for it later.

The man has just as much choice as a woman in regards to parenthood. That's what spemicidal condoms are for, that's what abstinence is for. Every man knows the risks, and knows that you can't take it back.

"well, missy, if you don't want to get pregnant, just don't have sex" ?

What's good for the gander is good for the goose, IMO, and women should have the right to have sex and have birth control fail and STILL CHOOSE not to be a PARENT. And men should have this right also.

If Thomas Jefferson et al were so concerned about what was 'good for the children' there would be no America.. there would be no liberty. Because freedom is often UGLY. The very concept of liberty is incompatible with the traditional view of marriage, family and childrearing.

That why it's a WOMAN'S right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. Men still have a choice, though, as to whehter or not to have a child: whether or not to have sex.

And it's not about what we be good for the children. It's about two people's legal and moral responsibilities to the person they've engendered. In this case, the rights of a child outweighs the rights of its parents. Jefferson would be good with that, as he understood that one person's rights often outweigh another's.

is what the conservatives would say.

Yes, it is a woman's right to choose an abortion. And it should be a man's right to choose to abort his paternity. In this way, both men and women will be able to determine when they become a parent, irrespective of the decision of the other. There is no way around this if we as Americans truly believe in equality and freedom.


You wrote: "Men still have a choice, though, as to whehter or not to have a child: whether or not to have sex."

Just replace "men" with "women" and you have the pro-life argument against women, except you are making it here against men.


edit to add: pro-lifers also argue from the position of the "child" - that the fetus is child and because of this the right of the "child" supercedes the rights of the mother. You are arguing that the rights of the child (which can only exists due to the decision of the mother to carry the fetus to term) supercede the rights of the father.

for more research in male contraception. that's basically what you are arguing for, and i support you 100% in your efforts.

you still don't "own" your voluntarily deposited sperm in a woman's body. if someone takes your sperm from your against your will and deposits into a woman's body...your argument would make sense.
but i absolutely agree that any woman foolish enough to expect child support from a man who doesn't want to have a child is a fool, but then again: i didn't create child support laws.
a solution of sorts: the man can relinquish all parental rights, since he doesn't want any parental responsibilities.

"A man can relinquish all parental rights since he doesn't want any parental responsibilities."

unless you are sterile (or otherwise unable to conceive).
that's because babies aren't brought by the stork, they are created by the joining of a man's sperm with a woman's eggs.
so...if a man decides to have sex, and if he understands basic biology, he should know that pregnancy, and fatherhood just might be a consequence of HIS actions. that has nothing to do with the laws of society, and everything to do with the laws of biology.
the is no such thing as sex without consequences...not even for men.

your argument is that men should be free to fuck without being responsible for the consequences of sex (pregnancy).
that's an argument one can find all along the political continuum.

fuck or 'be fucked' by birthcontrol failure without being forced into parenthood.

Your position on this issue seems to be that women have rights, and men have responsibilities.

My position is that men and women are individuals and Americans who both should have equal (if not the same) rights and responsibilities, especially on the issue of whether one becomes a parent or not.

there is no such thing as that "right" you are talking about...unless you are abstinent, or if you aren't having hetero intercourse...since there is no 100% effective birth control method.

which is why the woman should have the right to decide whether or not she carries the fetus to term, and the man should have the right to decide whether or not he accepts legal fatherhood. In this way, both will be determining whether or not the want to become parents, which is what this issue is really about - liberty.

if you decide to have hetero intercourse...
and if, as we know, hetero intercourse may cause pregnancy
then...
you should know that the effect of hetero intercourse may be pregnancy.
if you and/or your partner decides to terminate the pregnancy...fine.
if not...you knew the deal before you went in, so to speak.
it's not like you don't have any control over what you decide to do with your body, or the potential consequences of what you do with it...biological and societal.
as to whether or not that's fair...well, when there are as many birth control options for men as there are for women:
i'd be the FIRST to agree with your position.

No, I don't have any say whether or not she has an abortion, nor do I want any say.

"if not...you knew the deal before you went in, so to speak."

No, the whole point of the pro-choice movement was that casual sex or birth control failure should not equal parenthood. It should be a decision a rational individual makes. I agree and add that men should have this right as well.

and contrary to your strange take on the matter, the whole point of the pro-choice movement is: to keep abortion legal, which tends to save women's lives.
the point is control of one's body, not excuses for men to be resentful about supporting children they VOLUNTARILY conceive. if a couple agrees not to have children, and the woman purposely gets pregnant or tries to...then, i would agree that the man should not be forced to pay. he can instead, allow his child to be raised without him, or his money. but the fact remains...sex can lead to pregnancy, whether you want it to or not. and until men can get pregnant, women will still be the final arbiters of what happens to their bodies. if you are concerned about what might happen to your wallet because of the possible consequences of sex...then you have the right to do whatever you need to do to protect your wallet.

i hope there will be more contraceptive choices for men...soon, so they can have more control over conception.
but...as long as women have the bulk of the responsibility for contraception, pregnancy, and for raising children...well, let's say that's not fair either.

and...let's not pretend that isn't the case right now.
let's also not pretend that some men who agree to have children still don't support them.

child support if the woman tricked him into it. Support is the right of the child as you acknowledge up thread.

right, or not. from what i've witnessed, i think some women would be better off putting their energies into improving their job skills vs. trying to collect from someone intent on not paying...if they have that opportunity. i watched my sister do that (try to collect from someone intent on not paying) for ten years.
in that time, she could gotten a master's degree and a Phd, which would have brought her more income the big fat ZERO she got from pursuing her deadbeat ex-husband.

but I admit I think the deadbeats should be persued.

the only thig she got from pursuing he ex was that he finally relenquished parental rights. during all those years of frustration and anger, i kept telling her: you give him way to much power in your life.
that's why i don't think it's worth it in some cases.
but of course, i see tyour point as well.

I would disagree with the man having an equal say in terminating a pregnancy. It's the woman's body. It must be her decision.

I think in general when people use lines like "a decision between her and her pastor," or between "her and her family," or even "her and her doctor," those lines aren't what the people really mean.

They mean it's the Woman's choice. Period. And I agree with them.

I think maybe people think it sunds not so harsh to say "between a woman and ...". But it's really disengenuous because in this case the reality is stark and should be. Whether a pregnancy is carried to term or not is and should be the woman's decision only. With a harsh period.

To the man's right to choose, that should also be codified into law but should not interfere with the woman's decision of whether to give birth or not.

But no cigar.

that is usually called marriage.

If the guys want to have a contract - that is what it is.

Otherwise - I think it's perfectly reasonable that it is the woman's decision. Guys can always get vasectomies if they are serious about birth control. I don't think it's reasonable for guys to figure they can be irresponsible with no consequences.

Or you better find women who don't mind having abortions. Since birth control does fail. That is just the way it is.

Nine kids by four women, with a fifth woman currently pregnant with twins (should I mention that he's still married to woman #4, who just had kid #9 five months ago?)

What's truly disgusting about it is that the guy hasn't had a steady job in nearly a decade, but he's so good looking that women just swoon over him and have no problem paying his way (seriously, he'd have a job in a heartbeat if he went to Hollywood...he's better looking than Brad Pitt, and he has the lying, acting schmuck part down pat).

But to answer the original question: If a guy has children by more than two women, there's a good likelyhood that soemthing is very wrong.

because people were actually discussing it, even recommending it. :LOL:

Some men ranting that women shouldn't have more than X number of abortions - other men ranting that men shouldn't have to pay child support.

I guess it's only women that are supposed to be the responsible ones, eh?

And he probably bombs abortion clinics too.

he should be rounded up and given a vasectomy. After all, if he is behaving immorally and irresponsibly, he needs to pay the price. Right?

abortions.

child support. She ran off to Canada for two years and I couldnt locate her. Thgen she came back to CA and had no job or money. No support money there. Then she found a minimum wage job and couldnt pay me support because she wouldnt be able to make her rent. Judge said she wont have to pay. Nine years later, I put my oldest through college, he's 23. I still have all 3 boys at my house.

Let me ask you this. If I did what she she did, do you think I, as a male, would be in jail of have my wages garnished?

my brother-in-law...no jail time, and he hasn't paid a dime of child support in 20 years. my sister finally told him she wouldn't pursue any further (and fruitless) legal action if he agreed to give up parental rights...no rights to visitation, or anything else.
i've watched my sister struggle over the years, but she managed to raise three great kids...two are now in college, the youngest still in high school. a deadbeat is a deadbeat.
my bil would rather live in poverty than to support himself...or his kids.

in Divorce and Child Custody.

Your have my empathy.

is that the courts were pretty fair to our situation. She was ordered to pay child support, but actually quit her job in order to avoid it. Now I could choose to go after her assets, but it's already cost me over $3000 in lawyer's fees to get the court judgment. Some people are just lame. I'm cutting my losses at this point.

I'm probably being sexist here, but if a woman was in the same situation I was in, I'd tell her to go the legal route in a heartbeat. But as a guy, I'd just feel funny trying to stick a judgment on an unemployed woman. My situation is exceptional. The overall social problem is one of men who don't pay child support to their kids' mothers when they're perfectly able to.

I think it's a shame we pitch it into gender issues. It should be gender neutral, but I guess we don't live in a perfectly fair world. I'm sure most people didn't know that until I just now said it. Aren't you glad I'm around the DU to state the obvious?

He had two kids, different moms, and his sole purpose in being at school was to - ahem - make more.

and became pregnant to rope a husband?

I know of this woman. I'm sure she exists.

She is a sociopath.

There are Bad Fathers and Mothers.

Save the Man bashing....

It's been locked, but it was a full of anti-woamn vitriol.

How, exactly, is my OP anti-male?

I'm happily married for 9 years, btw.

btw. Good for you. Honestly.

he claimed he never wanted children, and that she lied when she said she was on the pill ... they had child number 1.

he stayed married to her, kept fucking her, and they had child number 2. he claimed again that she had lied.

If he was certain he never wanted children, he should have gotten a vasectomy. I know several men who, although they were young and had no children had NO problems getting a vasectomy. There would have been no child number 1 or two if he'd taken responsibility to be sure he never created the children he never wanted.

Alternatively, let's say that once he knew he was married to a liar and already had a child he didn't want, why didn't he divorce her? Why didn't he get a vasectomy if was going to keep fucking a known liar? Because either a) he's lying about her or b) he's an immature asshole who refuses to take responsibility for himself and blames everyone else for his bad decisions.

They separated sometime after child 2 ... then got back together and both purposely created child number 3 to "save their marriage."

They got divorced anyway, and he never paid child support until she had his wages garnished. When she refused visitation, he took it up with friend of the court, who withheld her payments until she complied. This was even dealing with two states Friend of the Court systems--Michigan and Pennsylvania.

(I didn't learn all of this info until after we were married. Thank goddess I never wanted children and actually took responsbility to be sure I didn't create any with him. I finally woke up to the fact that he was an immature asshole and divorced him.)

I'm so sick of whiny little males who blame women for everything. For how long has the pill been around? For how long have men known that women could/might lie about being on it to "trap them" into marriage and fatherhood? You'd think the poor little boys would wise up and learn that there are these lying, scheming, slutty bitches everywhere just dying to lie to them and steal their precious seed, all in order to squeeze out a brat and trap them into paying $200 a month to her forever for manicures and facials and bon bons!!!! Oh, the poor males, they are so deceived, so put upon, so innocent.
:sarcasm:

There are victims in every broken relationship. Women and Men.

Play nice , play safe and don't be a victim.

I'm saying in broken families everyone pays a price. Not just the mother.
Children become pawns too often, and Fathers are often abused by the courts.
Amicable situations between parents seem to work out best for the children.
Parents should see that as resolve in their divorce.

I'm sorry but I couldn't help but crack up from your post. It isn't a funny story but you sound so much like me during the last paragraph, I felt like I wrote it.

IMO, if the guy doesn't want kids but wants to have sex -- buy some condoms. Even if she says she is on the pill. Use condoms.

We're actually willing to try to 'trap' guys who make a whopping 30K a year. Ooowee! I'll be living high off the hog on the $150 a month I'll squeeze out of him! :rofl:

the same ugly tone directed at a particular woman, but the misogyny crept out from under our polite little veneers.

This occurs every day, and yet we laugh it off. A woman maked a few mistakes of like kind, and she's labeled a sociopath and far worse.

Never assume, DU, never assume. :eyes:

How many children born to parent/s who can't or won't provide them with loving attention and a safe, stable, healthy childhood is too many?

My answer? One.

Deadbeat parents come in all genders and many different circumstances, in my experience.

There is the guy who abandons women after impregnating them; then there is this woman: She has 3 children, by 3 different men, currently with a new man and not yet pregnant again. Although we are expecting an announcement any day now. She's a meth addict. She doesn't actually like any of the men she's been with; they are tools. They, in return for her body, are supposed to support her, the kids, and her habit. When they get tired of her abuse (and she is physically abusive to the kids and the men), she moves on to someone new, and continues to collect child support from 3 different fathers. The kids live with her in a series of other people's living rooms. The fathers can't find her or the kids; she leaves no forwarding address or number, but the state continues to garnish wages for child support that is substandard, to say the least. How many more kids does she get to have, and damage, before it's too many?

I don't think it's a gender issue; it's a human issue.

Even though there are women who have kids with men they know are deadbeats - and I know of one who had three (but she is the one taking care of the kids with no help from the father who wouldn't hold a job and is now in jail) - the difference is that there are men who have 9-10+ kids that they don't take care of. (And I could get you a name...).

I don't think you could find very many women who have 9-10 kids that they are not taking care of these days. Maybe you could find one somewhere - but it stands to reason that a women would do something about it by that time. Seeing as how women go through a lot more in having those kids than men do.

And while there are women who run away from responsibilities as well as men - there are far more men who have kids and want to pretend that they had nothing to do with it - or not enough for anyone to bother them about - than there are women who would make that claim.

but it doen't change the fact that mothers as well as fathers abandon their children. It's not a gender specific crime. We could digress this post even futher and say it's an even bigger problem for the African American Community.

It's not about race or gender, children simply need financial and emotional support from Mothers and Fathers.

to pretend that women have children with no consequence "just like men". It's not true.

It is far more common than it should be for men to act clueless about the role they played.

but there are women who abandon children also. What I'm trying illustrate is neither party should detach themselves from the situation and point fingers. Every couple has shared responsibility for failiure
and success. In marriage or child rearing.

I'm one of those kids. My father had 7 kids that I know of for sure, 4 different women, and I saw him a handful of times before he died when I was 21. I'm well aquainted with that side of things. I'm also well aquainted with women who keep having kids that they can't provide for and don't really want; as long as they find a room to turn them loose in and pass them some finger foods a few times a day, they are supposedly "taking care of them." The difference seems to be that some men walk away entirely, while women keep kids around that they don't want and don't provide well for. If there were a way to count, I think you'd find just as many kids who are neglected and "ignored" by the mother they live with as by the father who abandoned them.

I have a lot of personal experience on all sides of this fence; I was raised by a single mom. I was abandoned by my dad. I was married to someone who couldn't be bothered to participate in keeping a family together, and I raised our two kids by myself with no child support. I have taught other people's kids for 22 years, and see the best, and worst, that parents provide for kids on a daily basis. And now I'm helping to raise a grandchild with my single-parent son, because the mother is an abusive drug addict whose neglect and abuse led to conviction on a number of counts. It took us 4 years to get the boy out of there, and we have 4 years of neglect, abuse, and over-exposure to things no child should have to be part of to heal. And we only got to take one of the kids; ours. She got the rest back, and life is business as usual for those poor kids.

Being responsible for using birth control and preventing conception is a two-way responsibility; neither party gets a free pass from me. Responsible parenting as well; neither the deadbeat absent parent or the parent whose body is present but who doesn't actually "parent" get a free pass, either. It's not a gender issue for me.

and that is a sad picture that you paint.


I suppose to some extent - I am responding to the general society meme that men are encouraged and rewarded for being sexually irresponsible - through language and a multitude of ways. While woman have been (and are still to some extent) shamed through language and a multitude of ways for the same behavior.

Some people in society seem to want to encourage everyone to be irresponsible. As if women should have the same right to be as irresponsible as men. As if defying the shame of irresponsibility requires women to irresponsible also.

I expect women to be responsible for their sexuality and any choices they make in bearing a child - including the full emotional and intellectual and financial participation in any resulting child's life. I expect the same for men - even if they are not the ones who make the decision to bear the child.

I think the fault lies in the attitudes of society at large that is saying to men and women that they can and should have irresponsible sex. And that living an irresponsible life is a desirable thing - a la' beer commercials.

There seems to be no small amount of resentment among some men that they are not allowed to make the decision to bear the child. (Though for some women - there is no "choice" - if they are pregnant, they are pregnant).

And I will also admit - that in today's culture - where women can choose a partner (casually or otherwise) and can also (later, if necessary) choose whether to carry a child to term - while the man cannot - in a way it puts more of an onus on the man to think about whether he can live with the consequences of his actions. He gets to choose once. (The woman may or may not get two chances - depending on if she were raped - not having the chance in the first place - or depending on her philosophy. Although - it seems to me - part of her philosophy about keeping a child should be a realistic appraisal of whether she and/or the father is up for the job).

The other thing I am responding to - is I don't hear women trying to make the argument that they shouldn't have to be responsible for their children. While there are certainly women who are not - as you have described - I don't hear any women saying they should be able to have children and abandon them because the father isn't paying his share or trying to make arguments that they should not have to pay their share or to give them time and attention. Maybe women are just more likely to know how stupid (and irresponsible) that sounds. :shrug:

It's true that there are a lot more men who walk away than women. It's also true that women have more choice than men. Men get one choice before conception occurs; have unprotected sex, or do something to prevent the conception. What happens after conception is out of their hands, but still follows them for the rest of their lives. Women have that choice, plus 3 more: abort, keep, or adopt out.

When my son made his one bad choice, I was livid. It's not like he didn't know any better. He tried a few half-hearted excuses, ("she said she was on birth control," etc.), but he knew better. He told the mother that he didn't think either of them were ready for parenthood, straight out of high school, and that the baby ought to be given up for adoption. She said, "Screw you; it's my baby, I'm keeping it." She did, but he is raising the boy. After she was charged with several counts of abuse and endangerment, and convicted, she finally lost her right to "choose" as far as the boy is concerned.

For a society so saturated in "family values" rhetoric, why can't all our kids count on their parents to actively and lovingly parent them?

Good Post.

pays less than a hundred bucks a month to help support them, total. All have different mothers. He makes me sick.

I think more than 2 is disgusting. A kid, when I was in 7th grade, 1971?, had 4 and our town made the Carson show for such a high teenage pregnancy rate. I was so embarrassed.

especially for kids without active Dads in their lives. I'm certain that there is a plethora of "single" moms here and kids of such that will say that their lives were just perfect without a father figure of some sort. But statistics tell the tale of boys raised without a strong father figure in their life, and it's not pretty. The facts are out there for anyone who cares to research it for even a few minutes. A man that is proud of fathering kids by a variety of women, then leaving her to raise them, is a lout and a pig. It's nothing to be proud of.

Unless I knew that income and parental involvement were exclusive controls for those 'statistics'.

(Yes... I've known kids raised by rich single parents who were 'troubled' as well as succesful people raised by poor married couples... and vice versa. So what's the basis of these statistics?)

different women and loved them and provided for them, it wouldn't be my business to say. :hi:

Nice to meet you.

O8)

Are the Mothers married?

What are the specific circumstances behind these claims?

Are they Mormon?

(Not trying to be a smart-arse, but let's face it... No matter what the Family Research Council says, there's no broad brush for these circumstances.)

If these women were 'taken advantage of' (seduced by promises) by this fellow, Willingly carried these children to term under his assurances of committment, were left without the requisite and appropriate resources to care for these children (no husband or other exclusive assistance of their own), then yes... dude is a scum-of-the-earth-throwback to the Australopithecines.

But seldom are things so cut and dried for both the sake of 'objective morality' and the 'real' world.

(Just watch Jerry Springer sometime.)

with funny disparities in the replies.

Deadbeat dad anecdote = mainly "why just blame the men, women do it too," "the women enable this behavior" and "men get screwed in this system"

Unwanted pregnancy anecdote = mainly "none of your business" plus "come on, you have to admit the woman was irresponsible, someone should have sat her down and had a talk with her."

With some variations, of course.

I think it's really funny that everyone thinks to sit the woman down and explain things to her, because she obviously isn't smart enough to know how to use birth control, but nobody wants to sit the guy down and give him "the talk." I don't think that part was the point of the thread, but isn't it odd how paternalistic (condescending?) we are toward women, just naturally?

I'm not going to get into the arguement about mens and womens "rights". If a man has children it is his responsibilty to not only support them but to be a father to them. Anyone who doesn't is an asshole. On the other hand, I have to say there are a lot of honest, nice, responsible, hardworking men, out there, they just don't stand out because they are not assholes. When I was younger I knew a few women who could have chosen the right guy, but blew off the honest, hardworking, nice guy, for the cooler, better looking, less boring "bad boy" and ended up getting screwed over. Not that any women here have done that, I'm just sayin...

What if he just wanted to get laid?

Just having sex should not mean you are agreeing to be a parent.

If it did we wouldn't need legal abortion.

99.9% effective... stops STD's too. It's a small price to pay..

as long as the same rules apply to women.

Don't want to get pregnant?

Then use a condom.

it's odd that so many men don't seem to understand that.

will now abstain from sex, as to be 100% sure to not get pregnant. Thank you for your wisdom. You all need to do what's right for the child/fetus/whatever, and for society.

:sarcasm:

try studying it...it will help you get over resentment towards women.

In another (locked) thread the OP was asking how many abortions a woman could have before she could be 'judged'. It was either that poster or another who suggested that a woman who had more than one abortion was a psychopath.

As for the type of men women choose...Well OK, but I don't think a lot of guys use very good judgement in their mate selection either. "She's HOT!!" is not exactly a good reason to pick someone as a life partner but that's what a lot of men go on isn't it? Neither gender has cornered the market on stupidity from what I can tell.

You let your sarcasm get in the way of your effort to copy/reverse the theme of my thread.

And don't reword my statments to suit your purposes.

1 - I was refering to a specific woman in that comment - not all women.

2 - I used the phrase "I thought her nearly a sociopath". Nearly i.e...not quite, almost...as in "almost pregnant" - and never said "psycopath."

But she was also referring to a specific, albeit ficticious, male. Several subsequent posters volunteered that they knew a man that fit the description.

And calling someone "nearly" a sociopath is so much better than just calling her a sociopatch. Particularly when you have no qualifications to render such an assessment. Right.

First wife - 3 kids. She has complete custody of them, have not seen them in 7 years. Wanted to be a dad to them, and she let me until she got remarried then threatened to tell the courts I and my parents molested them if I fought rights to see them. She wanted the 'good daddy' out who had fun with them. She saw me as a threat to her control.

2nd woman - I wanted to marry her, but she wanted to wait and her parents were controlling her life. After 3 years I decided to leave and found the woman of my dreams, and left but still cared deeply for her. After I decided to leave she let me know she was several months pregnant and wanted to marry me. This after I moved 2200 miles away. My daughter has no idea who I am.

My wife (and fellow DU'er) - we have a wonderful daughter we love and enjoy.

So Here I am 39 with 5 kids, one that lives with me and 4 I will never hardly see (the daughter in CA I see, the three kids here in Ohio I want to see I have no idea where they are).

I would love to be daddy to them all. Was for my 3 boys for 10 years. I still cry on holidays, still miss them, and pray my oldest (now 19) will find me so I can explain it all to him.

All three women told me they were not able to have kids. All three were wrong :) But I don't regret it. They all have come into this world and have life, and I am glad for it. While I miss my boys, and my daughter in CA, I have seen and heard from them all over these last years and know that they have life and joy.

My heart is broken, but I am happy in knowing that they are alive and well and making a life of their own. Someday my boys will seek me out and know the real story (and not the one they have been fed for years) and my X-girlfriend and I have talked about my daughter and telling her all about it later.

Things are working for now, albeit sad for me and hard. But such is the price one pays for their conduct I suppose. I tried, did the best I could, but alas it seems to come up short for them.

The fact is, we have a whole generation of kids growing up now who will learn the TRUTH - that their dad wasn't some horrible monster - and that their mom wasn't the angel she paints herself to be.

Look, women and men will both manipulate and do anything they can to WIN.. this is what the politician's don't like to talk about - the UGLY side of human nature. Instead the laws are mostly there for perfect scenarios - marriage, 2.5 kids, picket fence .. scenarios which DON'T exist anymore.

I've got news for you - you my friend are the new normal American family.

But the laws don't reflect our lives, especially men's lives. Women's laws have been updated - they have abortion and all types of laws enabling them to have greater choice and be protected from abuse - WE DON'T.

I strongly believe that just as the man has no say in a woman's right to choose an abortion, a woman has NO SAY in a man's right to choose legal fatherhood - it should be completely up to him. If he wants to be involved in his kid's lives - who the hell is she to stand in his way ? And if he does NOT want legal fatherhood/forced economic servitude, who the hell is she to make him ? No, sorry - things MUST CHANGE. This is not the America I wish to live in - where men have no right to choose if they become a PARENT or not.

Trust me - this generation (Generation Y) - seeing how the system screwed them and their dads (late Baby Boomers and Generation X) - are going to think very differently about this issue, and hopefully make things right.. make America live up to it's libertarian values.

and his three children figured that out all by themselves. it might have had something to do with the fact that he never made any attempt to see them or support them...until they were teenagers. he was an abusive loser when he was younger, and now he's old and sick, he wants to bond with his children...but his ass is still broke. they aren't interested because he's a stranger to them, and they know how hard their mother worked to support them...without his help. if he didn't want to be a father, you think he would have figured out after the first child he had with his first wife. my sister is far from perfect, but she did house, feed and clothe three kids, which is no small feat.

But if they don't want to be a father and/or pay child support, they have the responsibilty to take steps to insure they don't. It is solely their burden. Don't want kids - get a vasectomy. It is the only thing that is both in your complete control, and 100% reliable. So, if your desire to avoid "forced economic servitude" is that strong, you have the means to do so.Anything less than that: :nopity:

What you are basically telling me is to not have sex, be responsible, yada yada yada - just as the pro-lifers like to preach to women: "Don't want to wind up pregnant, don't be a slut there honey, save it for marriage.."

And my other option is to alter my body ? Why ? That's worse than the pro-lifers - at least they don't tell women to go get their tubes tied !

I think you know deep down that there is something very un-American about The State FORCING a man into legal fatherhood/economic servitude just because he had sex or because birth control failed. Sex is not an agreement to parenthood.

It won't happen for this generation, but my position - a man's right to choose - will win out in the long run because we Americans, in the end, value liberty and independence above all, despite all of the authoritarian bullshit we all have to deal with from each other along the way. Forcing a woman to bear a child or forcing a man to become a legal father/economic slave AS PUNISHMENT for casual sex - goes against ALL notions of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'

Eventually the law will be made more fair, but we're a generation from that happening at least.

The biggest problem is the group that fought so hard against the pro-life position that a woman having casual sex has already agreed to be a parent, will then turn right around and use the same argument if you're a man.

It's very weird, but you'll see it on these boards every single day.

"Tough luck Bobby but if you didn't want to be a dad you should have kept it in your pants." That's right you go girl.

"Tough luck Brittany. If you didn't want to be a mom, you should have kept your legs together." What a horrible misogynist thing to say.

I think the most that will happen for a while is to at least address the most ridiculous injustices like having to pay child support for kids that are not even your own. At least that would be a start.

I was purposely using hyperbole, because this is a copycat thread.

However, I would stand by my assertion that the only certain way to insure that you do not enter into a life of "economic servitude" is to take complete charge of your reproduction, and do the one thing that will guarantee you the results you want.

This completely eliminates being "tricked" into fatherhood, because she "lied" to you, or whatever things men claim (no doubt truthfully at times). It also eliminates the chance of broken condoms and other failures.

I think men rely way too much on the woman to make the contraceptive choices - a vasectomy puts the ball right in your court. For men who are certain that they never want children, or those who have fathered enough children, why would you NOT get a vasectomy? Why would you risk 18 years of "economic servitude" when you don't need to? For the record, I would advise a woman in the same situation to have a tubal ligation as well.

Frankly, I do not see the laws changing for men. This is because the state is not going to let one (or both) parents off the hook for support for the child. A father cannot abdicate his responsibility to support his child(ren), and then leave it up to the state to meet the costs of raising said child(ren). For the record, a woman can't do that either. I am pretty sure this is the law in PA: a man can't give up his obligation to support his child(ren) unless his ex-wife/SO is remarrying, and her new husband is legally adopting the child(ren). At that point, his legal rights and obligations to the child(ren) would end.

I don't see that changing - the taxpayer doesn't want to support kids whose fathers have abandoned them.

vasectomy IS a choice a man can make...if he doesn't want to be a father. the resentful ones keeps claiming that telling men they have contraceptive choices (vasectomy, condoms) is the same as saying "don't have sex." it is not. that's not hyperbole...it's the truth. and i don't see that outrage from women regarding their contraceptive choices, and taking responsibility using birth control if one doesn't want to be a parent.
it seems some actually resent thh fact that women can have abortions...yet these same folks also seem to resent being responsible for birth control.

:shrug:

I mean, it just makes me MAD, and what makes me mad should be the LAW! :mad:

J/K ;) Nice copycat with a point! :hi:

Monogamous married men can be shitty fathers too.

the common theme I see on these threads from the misogynists is "why on earth is this woman still fucking?"

It has nothing to do with the sanctity of the fetus or being financially responsible for your choices. Clearly the bone of major contention is that single women are being unapologetically sexual.

you're right. he's a sociopath