Choice for Men FAQ

[Delete the D]

Q: What is "Choice for Men"?

A: Choice for Men is a proposal to improve the law so it protects men's
right to plan their families.


Q: Would Choice for Men force women to have abortions?

A: No.


Q: What exactly is Choice for Men?

A: Choice for Men would give men a recourse, remedy or relief from being
tricked or trapped into parenthood, perhaps by allowing them to relinquish
their parental rights and responsibilities, like in an adoption, via
financial compensation or by forcing an actual adoption. Some proposals
would limit the time during which the choice can be made, make the choice
irrevocable, only apply when men are lied to about birth control or when
boys are statutorially raped. One proposal even allows women to relinquish
their parental rights and responsibilities. Choice for Men isn't a medical
procedure.


Q: How many men are tricked or trapped into parenthood?

A: No one knows the exact number, but we can estimate from the following
statistics:

* Preliminary data indicates that 33% of U.S. births may be unintended
according to fathers[0].

* Paternities are established in U.S. courts at the rate of one or two
per minute.


Q: Isn't Choice for Men simply a way for men to get out of paying child
support?

A: No, it's more. Choice for Men is about fairness and family planning.


Q: Can't men avoid paying child support by just using condoms?

A: Proponents of legalizing choice for men generally support
contraception, but keep in mind that condoms are unreliable. They have a
16% annual failure rate [1]. After just four years you can bet on having
an accidental pregnancy and after 20 years of using condoms, the chances
are that a man will most likely experience not one, not two, but three
accidental pregnancies!


Q: Can't men avoid paying child support by not consenting to sex?

A: Many people are surprised to learn that men can't legally avoid
parenthood by not consenting to sex. It's true! Here's a quote from a court
case in Kansas:

"The issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal
statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine paternity
and for support of a minor child born of such activity." [3]

Similar cases have happened in other states.


Q: Aren't all children entitled to support from both parents?

A: No. A common exception is single parent adoptions, which are fully legal
and looked upon favorably by the various social service agencies.


Q: Wouldn't Choice for Men impoverish children?

A: It's not yet clear whether legalizing choice for men would affect how
many fathers choose to be absent. The simple reason is that the current
paternity laws reward women with child support for forcing men into
fatherhood and may well result in more absent fathers. Even if legalizing
choice for men did result in more single parent families, adoption and
sperm donorship are already legal for single parents and looked upon
favorably by various social service agencies. One can also show that the
economic benefits of a second parent's income don't rise to the level of a
"compelling state interest" which justifies the state forcing men into
legal parenthood. [4]


Q: Where can I find out more about Choice for Men?

A: 1. Email list servers dedicated to legalizing Choice for Men
(www.choiceformen.com/list_servers.html)
2. www.choiceformen.com
3. National Center for Men. Call (503) 224-9477
4. Men's Rights Inc. Call (916) 484-7333


References

0 - Abma, Joyce and Linda Piccinino, 1994 "Unintended Births: Women's
Attitudes vis-a-vis their Male Partners' Attitudes: 1982-1990", paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association,
August 3, 1994, Los Angeles, CA. NCHS, 6525 Belcrest Road, Hyattsville, MD
20782, (301) 436-8731

1 - Facts in Brief, Contraceptive Use, Alan Guttmacher Institute, New York
City, New York, (212) 248-1111.

2 - Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965)

3 - State of Kansas, ex rel., Colleen Hermesmann, Appellee, v. Shane Seyer,
a minor, and Dan and Mary Seyer, his parents, Appellants. No. 67,978.
Supreme Court of Kansas. March 5, 1993.

4 - See generally Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 265-6, 90 S.Ct. 1011,
1019, 25 L.Ed.2d 287, 1970.
--
Kingsley G. Morse Jr.

[Fighting For Kids]

Choice for men is something that would have disasterous results.
Dont want to support what you did in bed last night?

Simple dont have sex.

Dont want to support a child from a marriage?

Simple, just use this stupid agenda and you dont have to

Want to be a deadbeat?

Simple, use this plan.

Grow up. Everyone has to take responsibility for their actions.
Including a man who cant keep his fly zipped and woman who cant keep
her legs closed.

This is a unworthy cause that will never make it.


On 16 Nov 2003 02:55:07 -0800, (Delete the "D") wrote:

>
>
>Q: What is "Choice for Men"?
>
>A: Choice for Men is a proposal to improve the law so it protects men's
>right to plan their families.
>
>
>Q: Would Choice for Men force women to have abortions?
>
>A: No.
>
>
>Q: What exactly is Choice for Men?
>
>A: Choice for Men would give men a recourse, remedy or relief from being
>tricked or trapped into parenthood, perhaps by allowing them to relinquish
>their parental rights and responsibilities, like in an adoption, via
>financial compensation or by forcing an actual adoption. Some proposals
>would limit the time during which the choice can be made, make the choice
>irrevocable, only apply when men are lied to about birth control or when
>boys are statutorially raped. One proposal even allows women to relinquish
>their parental rights and responsibilities. Choice for Men isn't a medical
>procedure.
>
>
>Q: How many men are tricked or trapped into parenthood?
>
>A: No one knows the exact number, but we can estimate from the following
>statistics:
>
> * Preliminary data indicates that 33% of U.S. births may be unintended
> according to fathers[0].
>
> * Paternities are established in U.S. courts at the rate of one or two
> per minute.
>
>
>Q: Isn't Choice for Men simply a way for men to get out of paying child
>support?
>
>A: No, it's more. Choice for Men is about fairness and family planning.
>
>
>Q: Can't men avoid paying child support by just using condoms?
>
>A: Proponents of legalizing choice for men generally support
>contraception, but keep in mind that condoms are unreliable. They have a
>16% annual failure rate [1]. After just four years you can bet on having
>an accidental pregnancy and after 20 years of using condoms, the chances
>are that a man will most likely experience not one, not two, but three
>accidental pregnancies!
>
>
>Q: Can't men avoid paying child support by not consenting to sex?
>
>A: Many people are surprised to learn that men can't legally avoid
>parenthood by not consenting to sex. It's true! Here's a quote from a court
>case in Kansas:
>
> "The issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal
> statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine paternity
> and for support of a minor child born of such activity." [3]
>
>Similar cases have happened in other states.
>
>
>Q: Aren't all children entitled to support from both parents?
>
>A: No. A common exception is single parent adoptions, which are fully legal
>and looked upon favorably by the various social service agencies.
>
>
>Q: Wouldn't Choice for Men impoverish children?
>
>A: It's not yet clear whether legalizing choice for men would affect how
>many fathers choose to be absent. The simple reason is that the current
>paternity laws reward women with child support for forcing men into
>fatherhood and may well result in more absent fathers. Even if legalizing
>choice for men did result in more single parent families, adoption and
>sperm donorship are already legal for single parents and looked upon
>favorably by various social service agencies. One can also show that the
>economic benefits of a second parent's income don't rise to the level of a
>"compelling state interest" which justifies the state forcing men into
>legal parenthood. [4]
>
>
>Q: Where can I find out more about Choice for Men?
>
>A: 1. Email list servers dedicated to legalizing Choice for Men
> (www.choiceformen.com/list_servers.html)
> 2. www.choiceformen.com
> 3. National Center for Men. Call (503) 224-9477
> 4. Men's Rights Inc. Call (916) 484-7333
>
>
> References
>
>0 - Abma, Joyce and Linda Piccinino, 1994 "Unintended Births: Women's
>Attitudes vis-a-vis their Male Partners' Attitudes: 1982-1990", paper
>presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association,
>August 3, 1994, Los Angeles, CA. NCHS, 6525 Belcrest Road, Hyattsville, MD
>20782, (301) 436-8731
>
>1 - Facts in Brief, Contraceptive Use, Alan Guttmacher Institute, New York
>City, New York, (212) 248-1111.
>
>2 - Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
>
>3 - State of Kansas, ex rel., Colleen Hermesmann, Appellee, v. Shane Seyer,
>a minor, and Dan and Mary Seyer, his parents, Appellants. No. 67,978.
>Supreme Court of Kansas. March 5, 1993.
>
>4 - See generally Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 265-6, 90 S.Ct. 1011,
>1019, 25 L.Ed.2d 287, 1970.

[Fighting For Kids]

Choice for men is something that would have disasterous results.
Dont want to support what you did in bed last night?

Simple dont have sex.

Dont want to support a child from a marriage?

Simple, just use this stupid agenda and you dont have to

Want to be a deadbeat?

Simple, use this plan.

Grow up. Everyone has to take responsibility for their actions.
Including a man who cant keep his fly zipped and woman who cant keep
her legs closed.

This is a unworthy cause that will never make it.


On 16 Nov 2003 02:55:07 -0800, (Delete the "D") wrote:

>
>
>Q: What is "Choice for Men"?
>
>A: Choice for Men is a proposal to improve the law so it protects men's
>right to plan their families.
>
>
>Q: Would Choice for Men force women to have abortions?
>
>A: No.
>
>
>Q: What exactly is Choice for Men?
>
>A: Choice for Men would give men a recourse, remedy or relief from being
>tricked or trapped into parenthood, perhaps by allowing them to relinquish
>their parental rights and responsibilities, like in an adoption, via
>financial compensation or by forcing an actual adoption. Some proposals
>would limit the time during which the choice can be made, make the choice
>irrevocable, only apply when men are lied to about birth control or when
>boys are statutorially raped. One proposal even allows women to relinquish
>their parental rights and responsibilities. Choice for Men isn't a medical
>procedure.
>
>
>Q: How many men are tricked or trapped into parenthood?
>
>A: No one knows the exact number, but we can estimate from the following
>statistics:
>
> * Preliminary data indicates that 33% of U.S. births may be unintended
> according to fathers[0].
>
> * Paternities are established in U.S. courts at the rate of one or two
> per minute.
>
>
>Q: Isn't Choice for Men simply a way for men to get out of paying child
>support?
>
>A: No, it's more. Choice for Men is about fairness and family planning.
>
>
>Q: Can't men avoid paying child support by just using condoms?
>
>A: Proponents of legalizing choice for men generally support
>contraception, but keep in mind that condoms are unreliable. They have a
>16% annual failure rate [1]. After just four years you can bet on having
>an accidental pregnancy and after 20 years of using condoms, the chances
>are that a man will most likely experience not one, not two, but three
>accidental pregnancies!
>
>
>Q: Can't men avoid paying child support by not consenting to sex?
>
>A: Many people are surprised to learn that men can't legally avoid
>parenthood by not consenting to sex. It's true! Here's a quote from a court
>case in Kansas:
>
> "The issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal
> statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine paternity
> and for support of a minor child born of such activity." [3]
>
>Similar cases have happened in other states.
>
>
>Q: Aren't all children entitled to support from both parents?
>
>A: No. A common exception is single parent adoptions, which are fully legal
>and looked upon favorably by the various social service agencies.
>
>
>Q: Wouldn't Choice for Men impoverish children?
>
>A: It's not yet clear whether legalizing choice for men would affect how
>many fathers choose to be absent. The simple reason is that the current
>paternity laws reward women with child support for forcing men into
>fatherhood and may well result in more absent fathers. Even if legalizing
>choice for men did result in more single parent families, adoption and
>sperm donorship are already legal for single parents and looked upon
>favorably by various social service agencies. One can also show that the
>economic benefits of a second parent's income don't rise to the level of a
>"compelling state interest" which justifies the state forcing men into
>legal parenthood. [4]
>
>
>Q: Where can I find out more about Choice for Men?
>
>A: 1. Email list servers dedicated to legalizing Choice for Men
> (www.choiceformen.com/list_servers.html)
> 2. www.choiceformen.com
> 3. National Center for Men. Call (503) 224-9477
> 4. Men's Rights Inc. Call (916) 484-7333
>
>
> References
>
>0 - Abma, Joyce and Linda Piccinino, 1994 "Unintended Births: Women's
>Attitudes vis-a-vis their Male Partners' Attitudes: 1982-1990", paper
>presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association,
>August 3, 1994, Los Angeles, CA. NCHS, 6525 Belcrest Road, Hyattsville, MD
>20782, (301) 436-8731
>
>1 - Facts in Brief, Contraceptive Use, Alan Guttmacher Institute, New York
>City, New York, (212) 248-1111.
>
>2 - Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
>
>3 - State of Kansas, ex rel., Colleen Hermesmann, Appellee, v. Shane Seyer,
>a minor, and Dan and Mary Seyer, his parents, Appellants. No. 67,978.
>Supreme Court of Kansas. March 5, 1993.
>
>4 - See generally Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 265-6, 90 S.Ct. 1011,
>1019, 25 L.Ed.2d 287, 1970.

[Dusty]

Oh, brother... Who let you out of your cage?

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> Choice for men is something that would have disasterous results.
> Dont want to support what you did in bed last night?
>
> Simple dont have sex.
>
> Dont want to support a child from a marriage?
>
> Simple, just use this stupid agenda and you dont have to
>
> Want to be a deadbeat?
>
> Simple, use this plan.
>
> Grow up. Everyone has to take responsibility for their actions.
> Including a man who cant keep his fly zipped and woman who cant keep
> her legs closed.
>
> This is a unworthy cause that will never make it.
>
>
> On 16 Nov 2003 02:55:07 -0800, (Delete the "D") wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Q: What is "Choice for Men"?
> >
> >A: Choice for Men is a proposal to improve the law so it protects men's
> >right to plan their families.
> >
> >
> >Q: Would Choice for Men force women to have abortions?
> >
> >A: No.
> >
> >
> >Q: What exactly is Choice for Men?
> >
> >A: Choice for Men would give men a recourse, remedy or relief from being
> >tricked or trapped into parenthood, perhaps by allowing them to
relinquish
> >their parental rights and responsibilities, like in an adoption, via
> >financial compensation or by forcing an actual adoption. Some proposals
> >would limit the time during which the choice can be made, make the choice
> >irrevocable, only apply when men are lied to about birth control or when
> >boys are statutorially raped. One proposal even allows women to
relinquish
> >their parental rights and responsibilities. Choice for Men isn't a
medical
> >procedure.
> >
> >
> >Q: How many men are tricked or trapped into parenthood?
> >
> >A: No one knows the exact number, but we can estimate from the following
> >statistics:
> >
> > * Preliminary data indicates that 33% of U.S. births may be unintended
> > according to fathers[0].
> >
> > * Paternities are established in U.S. courts at the rate of one or two
> > per minute.
> >
> >
> >Q: Isn't Choice for Men simply a way for men to get out of paying child
> >support?
> >
> >A: No, it's more. Choice for Men is about fairness and family planning.
> >
> >
> >Q: Can't men avoid paying child support by just using condoms?
> >
> >A: Proponents of legalizing choice for men generally support
> >contraception, but keep in mind that condoms are unreliable. They have a
> >16% annual failure rate [1]. After just four years you can bet on having
> >an accidental pregnancy and after 20 years of using condoms, the chances
> >are that a man will most likely experience not one, not two, but three
> >accidental pregnancies!
> >
> >
> >Q: Can't men avoid paying child support by not consenting to sex?
> >
> >A: Many people are surprised to learn that men can't legally avoid
> >parenthood by not consenting to sex. It's true! Here's a quote from a
court
> >case in Kansas:
> >
> > "The issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal
> > statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine paternity
> > and for support of a minor child born of such activity." [3]
> >
> >Similar cases have happened in other states.
> >
> >
> >Q: Aren't all children entitled to support from both parents?
> >
> >A: No. A common exception is single parent adoptions, which are fully
legal
> >and looked upon favorably by the various social service agencies.
> >
> >
> >Q: Wouldn't Choice for Men impoverish children?
> >
> >A: It's not yet clear whether legalizing choice for men would affect how
> >many fathers choose to be absent. The simple reason is that the current
> >paternity laws reward women with child support for forcing men into
> >fatherhood and may well result in more absent fathers. Even if legalizing
> >choice for men did result in more single parent families, adoption and
> >sperm donorship are already legal for single parents and looked upon
> >favorably by various social service agencies. One can also show that the
> >economic benefits of a second parent's income don't rise to the level of
a
> >"compelling state interest" which justifies the state forcing men into
> >legal parenthood. [4]
> >
> >
> >Q: Where can I find out more about Choice for Men?
> >
> >A: 1. Email list servers dedicated to legalizing Choice for Men
> > (www.choiceformen.com/list_servers.html)
> > 2. www.choiceformen.com
> > 3. National Center for Men. Call (503) 224-9477
> > 4. Men's Rights Inc. Call (916) 484-7333
> >
> >
> > References
> >
> >0 - Abma, Joyce and Linda Piccinino, 1994 "Unintended Births: Women's
> >Attitudes vis-a-vis their Male Partners' Attitudes: 1982-1990", paper
> >presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association,
> >August 3, 1994, Los Angeles, CA. NCHS, 6525 Belcrest Road, Hyattsville,
MD
> >20782, (301) 436-8731
> >
> >1 - Facts in Brief, Contraceptive Use, Alan Guttmacher Institute, New
York
> >City, New York, (212) 248-1111.
> >
> >2 - Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
> >
> >3 - State of Kansas, ex rel., Colleen Hermesmann, Appellee, v. Shane
Seyer,
> >a minor, and Dan and Mary Seyer, his parents, Appellants. No. 67,978.
> >Supreme Court of Kansas. March 5, 1993.
> >
> >4 - See generally Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 265-6, 90 S.Ct. 1011,
> >1019, 25 L.Ed.2d 287, 1970.
>

[Dusty]

Oh, brother... Who let you out of your cage?

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> Choice for men is something that would have disasterous results.
> Dont want to support what you did in bed last night?
>
> Simple dont have sex.
>
> Dont want to support a child from a marriage?
>
> Simple, just use this stupid agenda and you dont have to
>
> Want to be a deadbeat?
>
> Simple, use this plan.
>
> Grow up. Everyone has to take responsibility for their actions.
> Including a man who cant keep his fly zipped and woman who cant keep
> her legs closed.
>
> This is a unworthy cause that will never make it.
>
>
> On 16 Nov 2003 02:55:07 -0800, (Delete the "D") wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Q: What is "Choice for Men"?
> >
> >A: Choice for Men is a proposal to improve the law so it protects men's
> >right to plan their families.
> >
> >
> >Q: Would Choice for Men force women to have abortions?
> >
> >A: No.
> >
> >
> >Q: What exactly is Choice for Men?
> >
> >A: Choice for Men would give men a recourse, remedy or relief from being
> >tricked or trapped into parenthood, perhaps by allowing them to
relinquish
> >their parental rights and responsibilities, like in an adoption, via
> >financial compensation or by forcing an actual adoption. Some proposals
> >would limit the time during which the choice can be made, make the choice
> >irrevocable, only apply when men are lied to about birth control or when
> >boys are statutorially raped. One proposal even allows women to
relinquish
> >their parental rights and responsibilities. Choice for Men isn't a
medical
> >procedure.
> >
> >
> >Q: How many men are tricked or trapped into parenthood?
> >
> >A: No one knows the exact number, but we can estimate from the following
> >statistics:
> >
> > * Preliminary data indicates that 33% of U.S. births may be unintended
> > according to fathers[0].
> >
> > * Paternities are established in U.S. courts at the rate of one or two
> > per minute.
> >
> >
> >Q: Isn't Choice for Men simply a way for men to get out of paying child
> >support?
> >
> >A: No, it's more. Choice for Men is about fairness and family planning.
> >
> >
> >Q: Can't men avoid paying child support by just using condoms?
> >
> >A: Proponents of legalizing choice for men generally support
> >contraception, but keep in mind that condoms are unreliable. They have a
> >16% annual failure rate [1]. After just four years you can bet on having
> >an accidental pregnancy and after 20 years of using condoms, the chances
> >are that a man will most likely experience not one, not two, but three
> >accidental pregnancies!
> >
> >
> >Q: Can't men avoid paying child support by not consenting to sex?
> >
> >A: Many people are surprised to learn that men can't legally avoid
> >parenthood by not consenting to sex. It's true! Here's a quote from a
court
> >case in Kansas:
> >
> > "The issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal
> > statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine paternity
> > and for support of a minor child born of such activity." [3]
> >
> >Similar cases have happened in other states.
> >
> >
> >Q: Aren't all children entitled to support from both parents?
> >
> >A: No. A common exception is single parent adoptions, which are fully
legal
> >and looked upon favorably by the various social service agencies.
> >
> >
> >Q: Wouldn't Choice for Men impoverish children?
> >
> >A: It's not yet clear whether legalizing choice for men would affect how
> >many fathers choose to be absent. The simple reason is that the current
> >paternity laws reward women with child support for forcing men into
> >fatherhood and may well result in more absent fathers. Even if legalizing
> >choice for men did result in more single parent families, adoption and
> >sperm donorship are already legal for single parents and looked upon
> >favorably by various social service agencies. One can also show that the
> >economic benefits of a second parent's income don't rise to the level of
a
> >"compelling state interest" which justifies the state forcing men into
> >legal parenthood. [4]
> >
> >
> >Q: Where can I find out more about Choice for Men?
> >
> >A: 1. Email list servers dedicated to legalizing Choice for Men
> > (www.choiceformen.com/list_servers.html)
> > 2. www.choiceformen.com
> > 3. National Center for Men. Call (503) 224-9477
> > 4. Men's Rights Inc. Call (916) 484-7333
> >
> >
> > References
> >
> >0 - Abma, Joyce and Linda Piccinino, 1994 "Unintended Births: Women's
> >Attitudes vis-a-vis their Male Partners' Attitudes: 1982-1990", paper
> >presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association,
> >August 3, 1994, Los Angeles, CA. NCHS, 6525 Belcrest Road, Hyattsville,
MD
> >20782, (301) 436-8731
> >
> >1 - Facts in Brief, Contraceptive Use, Alan Guttmacher Institute, New
York
> >City, New York, (212) 248-1111.
> >
> >2 - Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
> >
> >3 - State of Kansas, ex rel., Colleen Hermesmann, Appellee, v. Shane
Seyer,
> >a minor, and Dan and Mary Seyer, his parents, Appellants. No. 67,978.
> >Supreme Court of Kansas. March 5, 1993.
> >
> >4 - See generally Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 265-6, 90 S.Ct. 1011,
> >1019, 25 L.Ed.2d 287, 1970.
>

[Fighting For Kids]

Who let you out of yours?

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:19:30 -0500, "Dusty" > wrote:

>Oh, brother... Who let you out of your cage?
>
>"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
>> Choice for men is something that would have disasterous results.
>> Dont want to support what you did in bed last night?
>>
>> Simple dont have sex.
>>
>> Dont want to support a child from a marriage?
>>
>> Simple, just use this stupid agenda and you dont have to
>>
>> Want to be a deadbeat?
>>
>> Simple, use this plan.
>>
>> Grow up. Everyone has to take responsibility for their actions.
>> Including a man who cant keep his fly zipped and woman who cant keep
>> her legs closed.
>>
>> This is a unworthy cause that will never make it.
>>
>>
>> On 16 Nov 2003 02:55:07 -0800, (Delete the "D") wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Q: What is "Choice for Men"?
>> >
>> >A: Choice for Men is a proposal to improve the law so it protects men's
>> >right to plan their families.
>> >
>> >
>> >Q: Would Choice for Men force women to have abortions?
>> >
>> >A: No.
>> >
>> >
>> >Q: What exactly is Choice for Men?
>> >
>> >A: Choice for Men would give men a recourse, remedy or relief from being
>> >tricked or trapped into parenthood, perhaps by allowing them to
>relinquish
>> >their parental rights and responsibilities, like in an adoption, via
>> >financial compensation or by forcing an actual adoption. Some proposals
>> >would limit the time during which the choice can be made, make the choice
>> >irrevocable, only apply when men are lied to about birth control or when
>> >boys are statutorially raped. One proposal even allows women to
>relinquish
>> >their parental rights and responsibilities. Choice for Men isn't a
>medical
>> >procedure.
>> >
>> >
>> >Q: How many men are tricked or trapped into parenthood?
>> >
>> >A: No one knows the exact number, but we can estimate from the following
>> >statistics:
>> >
>> > * Preliminary data indicates that 33% of U.S. births may be unintended
>> > according to fathers[0].
>> >
>> > * Paternities are established in U.S. courts at the rate of one or two
>> > per minute.
>> >
>> >
>> >Q: Isn't Choice for Men simply a way for men to get out of paying child
>> >support?
>> >
>> >A: No, it's more. Choice for Men is about fairness and family planning.
>> >
>> >
>> >Q: Can't men avoid paying child support by just using condoms?
>> >
>> >A: Proponents of legalizing choice for men generally support
>> >contraception, but keep in mind that condoms are unreliable. They have a
>> >16% annual failure rate [1]. After just four years you can bet on having
>> >an accidental pregnancy and after 20 years of using condoms, the chances
>> >are that a man will most likely experience not one, not two, but three
>> >accidental pregnancies!
>> >
>> >
>> >Q: Can't men avoid paying child support by not consenting to sex?
>> >
>> >A: Many people are surprised to learn that men can't legally avoid
>> >parenthood by not consenting to sex. It's true! Here's a quote from a
>court
>> >case in Kansas:
>> >
>> > "The issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal
>> > statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine paternity
>> > and for support of a minor child born of such activity." [3]
>> >
>> >Similar cases have happened in other states.
>> >
>> >
>> >Q: Aren't all children entitled to support from both parents?
>> >
>> >A: No. A common exception is single parent adoptions, which are fully
>legal
>> >and looked upon favorably by the various social service agencies.
>> >
>> >
>> >Q: Wouldn't Choice for Men impoverish children?
>> >
>> >A: It's not yet clear whether legalizing choice for men would affect how
>> >many fathers choose to be absent. The simple reason is that the current
>> >paternity laws reward women with child support for forcing men into
>> >fatherhood and may well result in more absent fathers. Even if legalizing
>> >choice for men did result in more single parent families, adoption and
>> >sperm donorship are already legal for single parents and looked upon
>> >favorably by various social service agencies. One can also show that the
>> >economic benefits of a second parent's income don't rise to the level of
>a
>> >"compelling state interest" which justifies the state forcing men into
>> >legal parenthood. [4]
>> >
>> >
>> >Q: Where can I find out more about Choice for Men?
>> >
>> >A: 1. Email list servers dedicated to legalizing Choice for Men
>> > (www.choiceformen.com/list_servers.html)
>> > 2. www.choiceformen.com
>> > 3. National Center for Men. Call (503) 224-9477
>> > 4. Men's Rights Inc. Call (916) 484-7333
>> >
>> >
>> > References
>> >
>> >0 - Abma, Joyce and Linda Piccinino, 1994 "Unintended Births: Women's
>> >Attitudes vis-a-vis their Male Partners' Attitudes: 1982-1990", paper
>> >presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association,
>> >August 3, 1994, Los Angeles, CA. NCHS, 6525 Belcrest Road, Hyattsville,
>MD
>> >20782, (301) 436-8731
>> >
>> >1 - Facts in Brief, Contraceptive Use, Alan Guttmacher Institute, New
>York
>> >City, New York, (212) 248-1111.
>> >
>> >2 - Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
>> >
>> >3 - State of Kansas, ex rel., Colleen Hermesmann, Appellee, v. Shane
>Seyer,
>> >a minor, and Dan and Mary Seyer, his parents, Appellants. No. 67,978.
>> >Supreme Court of Kansas. March 5, 1993.
>> >
>> >4 - See generally Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 265-6, 90 S.Ct. 1011,
>> >1019, 25 L.Ed.2d 287, 1970.
>>
>

[Fighting For Kids]

Who let you out of yours?

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:19:30 -0500, "Dusty" > wrote:

>Oh, brother... Who let you out of your cage?
>
>"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
>> Choice for men is something that would have disasterous results.
>> Dont want to support what you did in bed last night?
>>
>> Simple dont have sex.
>>
>> Dont want to support a child from a marriage?
>>
>> Simple, just use this stupid agenda and you dont have to
>>
>> Want to be a deadbeat?
>>
>> Simple, use this plan.
>>
>> Grow up. Everyone has to take responsibility for their actions.
>> Including a man who cant keep his fly zipped and woman who cant keep
>> her legs closed.
>>
>> This is a unworthy cause that will never make it.
>>
>>
>> On 16 Nov 2003 02:55:07 -0800, (Delete the "D") wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Q: What is "Choice for Men"?
>> >
>> >A: Choice for Men is a proposal to improve the law so it protects men's
>> >right to plan their families.
>> >
>> >
>> >Q: Would Choice for Men force women to have abortions?
>> >
>> >A: No.
>> >
>> >
>> >Q: What exactly is Choice for Men?
>> >
>> >A: Choice for Men would give men a recourse, remedy or relief from being
>> >tricked or trapped into parenthood, perhaps by allowing them to
>relinquish
>> >their parental rights and responsibilities, like in an adoption, via
>> >financial compensation or by forcing an actual adoption. Some proposals
>> >would limit the time during which the choice can be made, make the choice
>> >irrevocable, only apply when men are lied to about birth control or when
>> >boys are statutorially raped. One proposal even allows women to
>relinquish
>> >their parental rights and responsibilities. Choice for Men isn't a
>medical
>> >procedure.
>> >
>> >
>> >Q: How many men are tricked or trapped into parenthood?
>> >
>> >A: No one knows the exact number, but we can estimate from the following
>> >statistics:
>> >
>> > * Preliminary data indicates that 33% of U.S. births may be unintended
>> > according to fathers[0].
>> >
>> > * Paternities are established in U.S. courts at the rate of one or two
>> > per minute.
>> >
>> >
>> >Q: Isn't Choice for Men simply a way for men to get out of paying child
>> >support?
>> >
>> >A: No, it's more. Choice for Men is about fairness and family planning.
>> >
>> >
>> >Q: Can't men avoid paying child support by just using condoms?
>> >
>> >A: Proponents of legalizing choice for men generally support
>> >contraception, but keep in mind that condoms are unreliable. They have a
>> >16% annual failure rate [1]. After just four years you can bet on having
>> >an accidental pregnancy and after 20 years of using condoms, the chances
>> >are that a man will most likely experience not one, not two, but three
>> >accidental pregnancies!
>> >
>> >
>> >Q: Can't men avoid paying child support by not consenting to sex?
>> >
>> >A: Many people are surprised to learn that men can't legally avoid
>> >parenthood by not consenting to sex. It's true! Here's a quote from a
>court
>> >case in Kansas:
>> >
>> > "The issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal
>> > statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine paternity
>> > and for support of a minor child born of such activity." [3]
>> >
>> >Similar cases have happened in other states.
>> >
>> >
>> >Q: Aren't all children entitled to support from both parents?
>> >
>> >A: No. A common exception is single parent adoptions, which are fully
>legal
>> >and looked upon favorably by the various social service agencies.
>> >
>> >
>> >Q: Wouldn't Choice for Men impoverish children?
>> >
>> >A: It's not yet clear whether legalizing choice for men would affect how
>> >many fathers choose to be absent. The simple reason is that the current
>> >paternity laws reward women with child support for forcing men into
>> >fatherhood and may well result in more absent fathers. Even if legalizing
>> >choice for men did result in more single parent families, adoption and
>> >sperm donorship are already legal for single parents and looked upon
>> >favorably by various social service agencies. One can also show that the
>> >economic benefits of a second parent's income don't rise to the level of
>a
>> >"compelling state interest" which justifies the state forcing men into
>> >legal parenthood. [4]
>> >
>> >
>> >Q: Where can I find out more about Choice for Men?
>> >
>> >A: 1. Email list servers dedicated to legalizing Choice for Men
>> > (www.choiceformen.com/list_servers.html)
>> > 2. www.choiceformen.com
>> > 3. National Center for Men. Call (503) 224-9477
>> > 4. Men's Rights Inc. Call (916) 484-7333
>> >
>> >
>> > References
>> >
>> >0 - Abma, Joyce and Linda Piccinino, 1994 "Unintended Births: Women's
>> >Attitudes vis-a-vis their Male Partners' Attitudes: 1982-1990", paper
>> >presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association,
>> >August 3, 1994, Los Angeles, CA. NCHS, 6525 Belcrest Road, Hyattsville,
>MD
>> >20782, (301) 436-8731
>> >
>> >1 - Facts in Brief, Contraceptive Use, Alan Guttmacher Institute, New
>York
>> >City, New York, (212) 248-1111.
>> >
>> >2 - Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
>> >
>> >3 - State of Kansas, ex rel., Colleen Hermesmann, Appellee, v. Shane
>Seyer,
>> >a minor, and Dan and Mary Seyer, his parents, Appellants. No. 67,978.
>> >Supreme Court of Kansas. March 5, 1993.
>> >
>> >4 - See generally Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 265-6, 90 S.Ct. 1011,
>> >1019, 25 L.Ed.2d 287, 1970.
>>
>

[Dusty]

I'm not touching you, is this bugging you?

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> Who let you out of yours?
>
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:19:30 -0500, "Dusty" > wrote:
>
> >Oh, brother... Who let you out of your cage?
> >
> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Choice for men is something that would have disasterous results.
> >> Dont want to support what you did in bed last night?
> >>
> >> Simple dont have sex.
> >>
> >> Dont want to support a child from a marriage?
> >>
> >> Simple, just use this stupid agenda and you dont have to
> >>
> >> Want to be a deadbeat?
> >>
> >> Simple, use this plan.
> >>
> >> Grow up. Everyone has to take responsibility for their actions.
> >> Including a man who cant keep his fly zipped and woman who cant keep
> >> her legs closed.
> >>
> >> This is a unworthy cause that will never make it.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 16 Nov 2003 02:55:07 -0800, (Delete the "D") wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Q: What is "Choice for Men"?
> >> >
> >> >A: Choice for Men is a proposal to improve the law so it protects
men's
> >> >right to plan their families.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Q: Would Choice for Men force women to have abortions?
> >> >
> >> >A: No.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Q: What exactly is Choice for Men?
> >> >
> >> >A: Choice for Men would give men a recourse, remedy or relief from
being
> >> >tricked or trapped into parenthood, perhaps by allowing them to
> >relinquish
> >> >their parental rights and responsibilities, like in an adoption, via
> >> >financial compensation or by forcing an actual adoption. Some
proposals
> >> >would limit the time during which the choice can be made, make the
choice
> >> >irrevocable, only apply when men are lied to about birth control or
when
> >> >boys are statutorially raped. One proposal even allows women to
> >relinquish
> >> >their parental rights and responsibilities. Choice for Men isn't a
> >medical
> >> >procedure.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Q: How many men are tricked or trapped into parenthood?
> >> >
> >> >A: No one knows the exact number, but we can estimate from the
following
> >> >statistics:
> >> >
> >> > * Preliminary data indicates that 33% of U.S. births may be
unintended
> >> > according to fathers[0].
> >> >
> >> > * Paternities are established in U.S. courts at the rate of one or
two
> >> > per minute.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Q: Isn't Choice for Men simply a way for men to get out of paying
child
> >> >support?
> >> >
> >> >A: No, it's more. Choice for Men is about fairness and family
planning.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Q: Can't men avoid paying child support by just using condoms?
> >> >
> >> >A: Proponents of legalizing choice for men generally support
> >> >contraception, but keep in mind that condoms are unreliable. They have
a
> >> >16% annual failure rate [1]. After just four years you can bet on
having
> >> >an accidental pregnancy and after 20 years of using condoms, the
chances
> >> >are that a man will most likely experience not one, not two, but three
> >> >accidental pregnancies!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Q: Can't men avoid paying child support by not consenting to sex?
> >> >
> >> >A: Many people are surprised to learn that men can't legally avoid
> >> >parenthood by not consenting to sex. It's true! Here's a quote from a
> >court
> >> >case in Kansas:
> >> >
> >> > "The issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal
> >> > statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine
paternity
> >> > and for support of a minor child born of such activity." [3]
> >> >
> >> >Similar cases have happened in other states.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Q: Aren't all children entitled to support from both parents?
> >> >
> >> >A: No. A common exception is single parent adoptions, which are fully
> >legal
> >> >and looked upon favorably by the various social service agencies.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Q: Wouldn't Choice for Men impoverish children?
> >> >
> >> >A: It's not yet clear whether legalizing choice for men would affect
how
> >> >many fathers choose to be absent. The simple reason is that the
current
> >> >paternity laws reward women with child support for forcing men into
> >> >fatherhood and may well result in more absent fathers. Even if
legalizing
> >> >choice for men did result in more single parent families, adoption and
> >> >sperm donorship are already legal for single parents and looked upon
> >> >favorably by various social service agencies. One can also show that
the
> >> >economic benefits of a second parent's income don't rise to the level
of
> >a
> >> >"compelling state interest" which justifies the state forcing men into
> >> >legal parenthood. [4]
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Q: Where can I find out more about Choice for Men?
> >> >
> >> >A: 1. Email list servers dedicated to legalizing Choice for Men
> >> > (www.choiceformen.com/list_servers.html)
> >> > 2. www.choiceformen.com
> >> > 3. National Center for Men. Call (503) 224-9477
> >> > 4. Men's Rights Inc. Call (916) 484-7333
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > References
> >> >
> >> >0 - Abma, Joyce and Linda Piccinino, 1994 "Unintended Births: Women's
> >> >Attitudes vis-a-vis their Male Partners' Attitudes: 1982-1990", paper
> >> >presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological
Association,
> >> >August 3, 1994, Los Angeles, CA. NCHS, 6525 Belcrest Road,
Hyattsville,
> >MD
> >> >20782, (301) 436-8731
> >> >
> >> >1 - Facts in Brief, Contraceptive Use, Alan Guttmacher Institute, New
> >York
> >> >City, New York, (212) 248-1111.
> >> >
> >> >2 - Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
> >> >
> >> >3 - State of Kansas, ex rel., Colleen Hermesmann, Appellee, v. Shane
> >Seyer,
> >> >a minor, and Dan and Mary Seyer, his parents, Appellants. No. 67,978.
> >> >Supreme Court of Kansas. March 5, 1993.
> >> >
> >> >4 - See generally Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 265-6, 90 S.Ct.
1011,
> >> >1019, 25 L.Ed.2d 287, 1970.
> >>
> >
>

[Dusty]

I'm not touching you, is this bugging you?

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> Who let you out of yours?
>
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:19:30 -0500, "Dusty" > wrote:
>
> >Oh, brother... Who let you out of your cage?
> >
> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Choice for men is something that would have disasterous results.
> >> Dont want to support what you did in bed last night?
> >>
> >> Simple dont have sex.
> >>
> >> Dont want to support a child from a marriage?
> >>
> >> Simple, just use this stupid agenda and you dont have to
> >>
> >> Want to be a deadbeat?
> >>
> >> Simple, use this plan.
> >>
> >> Grow up. Everyone has to take responsibility for their actions.
> >> Including a man who cant keep his fly zipped and woman who cant keep
> >> her legs closed.
> >>
> >> This is a unworthy cause that will never make it.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 16 Nov 2003 02:55:07 -0800, (Delete the "D") wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Q: What is "Choice for Men"?
> >> >
> >> >A: Choice for Men is a proposal to improve the law so it protects
men's
> >> >right to plan their families.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Q: Would Choice for Men force women to have abortions?
> >> >
> >> >A: No.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Q: What exactly is Choice for Men?
> >> >
> >> >A: Choice for Men would give men a recourse, remedy or relief from
being
> >> >tricked or trapped into parenthood, perhaps by allowing them to
> >relinquish
> >> >their parental rights and responsibilities, like in an adoption, via
> >> >financial compensation or by forcing an actual adoption. Some
proposals
> >> >would limit the time during which the choice can be made, make the
choice
> >> >irrevocable, only apply when men are lied to about birth control or
when
> >> >boys are statutorially raped. One proposal even allows women to
> >relinquish
> >> >their parental rights and responsibilities. Choice for Men isn't a
> >medical
> >> >procedure.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Q: How many men are tricked or trapped into parenthood?
> >> >
> >> >A: No one knows the exact number, but we can estimate from the
following
> >> >statistics:
> >> >
> >> > * Preliminary data indicates that 33% of U.S. births may be
unintended
> >> > according to fathers[0].
> >> >
> >> > * Paternities are established in U.S. courts at the rate of one or
two
> >> > per minute.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Q: Isn't Choice for Men simply a way for men to get out of paying
child
> >> >support?
> >> >
> >> >A: No, it's more. Choice for Men is about fairness and family
planning.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Q: Can't men avoid paying child support by just using condoms?
> >> >
> >> >A: Proponents of legalizing choice for men generally support
> >> >contraception, but keep in mind that condoms are unreliable. They have
a
> >> >16% annual failure rate [1]. After just four years you can bet on
having
> >> >an accidental pregnancy and after 20 years of using condoms, the
chances
> >> >are that a man will most likely experience not one, not two, but three
> >> >accidental pregnancies!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Q: Can't men avoid paying child support by not consenting to sex?
> >> >
> >> >A: Many people are surprised to learn that men can't legally avoid
> >> >parenthood by not consenting to sex. It's true! Here's a quote from a
> >court
> >> >case in Kansas:
> >> >
> >> > "The issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal
> >> > statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine
paternity
> >> > and for support of a minor child born of such activity." [3]
> >> >
> >> >Similar cases have happened in other states.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Q: Aren't all children entitled to support from both parents?
> >> >
> >> >A: No. A common exception is single parent adoptions, which are fully
> >legal
> >> >and looked upon favorably by the various social service agencies.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Q: Wouldn't Choice for Men impoverish children?
> >> >
> >> >A: It's not yet clear whether legalizing choice for men would affect
how
> >> >many fathers choose to be absent. The simple reason is that the
current
> >> >paternity laws reward women with child support for forcing men into
> >> >fatherhood and may well result in more absent fathers. Even if
legalizing
> >> >choice for men did result in more single parent families, adoption and
> >> >sperm donorship are already legal for single parents and looked upon
> >> >favorably by various social service agencies. One can also show that
the
> >> >economic benefits of a second parent's income don't rise to the level
of
> >a
> >> >"compelling state interest" which justifies the state forcing men into
> >> >legal parenthood. [4]
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Q: Where can I find out more about Choice for Men?
> >> >
> >> >A: 1. Email list servers dedicated to legalizing Choice for Men
> >> > (www.choiceformen.com/list_servers.html)
> >> > 2. www.choiceformen.com
> >> > 3. National Center for Men. Call (503) 224-9477
> >> > 4. Men's Rights Inc. Call (916) 484-7333
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > References
> >> >
> >> >0 - Abma, Joyce and Linda Piccinino, 1994 "Unintended Births: Women's
> >> >Attitudes vis-a-vis their Male Partners' Attitudes: 1982-1990", paper
> >> >presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological
Association,
> >> >August 3, 1994, Los Angeles, CA. NCHS, 6525 Belcrest Road,
Hyattsville,
> >MD
> >> >20782, (301) 436-8731
> >> >
> >> >1 - Facts in Brief, Contraceptive Use, Alan Guttmacher Institute, New
> >York
> >> >City, New York, (212) 248-1111.
> >> >
> >> >2 - Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
> >> >
> >> >3 - State of Kansas, ex rel., Colleen Hermesmann, Appellee, v. Shane
> >Seyer,
> >> >a minor, and Dan and Mary Seyer, his parents, Appellants. No. 67,978.
> >> >Supreme Court of Kansas. March 5, 1993.
> >> >
> >> >4 - See generally Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 265-6, 90 S.Ct.
1011,
> >> >1019, 25 L.Ed.2d 287, 1970.
> >>
> >
>

[Fighting For Kids]

Hardly..
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 21:21:51 -0500, "Dusty" > wrote:

>I'm not touching you, is this bugging you?
>
>"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
>> Who let you out of yours?
>>
>> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:19:30 -0500, "Dusty" > wrote:
>>
>> >Oh, brother... Who let you out of your cage?
>> >
>> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> Choice for men is something that would have disasterous results.
>> >> Dont want to support what you did in bed last night?
>> >>
>> >> Simple dont have sex.
>> >>
>> >> Dont want to support a child from a marriage?
>> >>
>> >> Simple, just use this stupid agenda and you dont have to
>> >>
>> >> Want to be a deadbeat?
>> >>
>> >> Simple, use this plan.
>> >>
>> >> Grow up. Everyone has to take responsibility for their actions.
>> >> Including a man who cant keep his fly zipped and woman who cant keep
>> >> her legs closed.
>> >>
>> >> This is a unworthy cause that will never make it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 16 Nov 2003 02:55:07 -0800, (Delete the "D") wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Q: What is "Choice for Men"?
>> >> >
>> >> >A: Choice for Men is a proposal to improve the law so it protects
>men's
>> >> >right to plan their families.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Q: Would Choice for Men force women to have abortions?
>> >> >
>> >> >A: No.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Q: What exactly is Choice for Men?
>> >> >
>> >> >A: Choice for Men would give men a recourse, remedy or relief from
>being
>> >> >tricked or trapped into parenthood, perhaps by allowing them to
>> >relinquish
>> >> >their parental rights and responsibilities, like in an adoption, via
>> >> >financial compensation or by forcing an actual adoption. Some
>proposals
>> >> >would limit the time during which the choice can be made, make the
>choice
>> >> >irrevocable, only apply when men are lied to about birth control or
>when
>> >> >boys are statutorially raped. One proposal even allows women to
>> >relinquish
>> >> >their parental rights and responsibilities. Choice for Men isn't a
>> >medical
>> >> >procedure.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Q: How many men are tricked or trapped into parenthood?
>> >> >
>> >> >A: No one knows the exact number, but we can estimate from the
>following
>> >> >statistics:
>> >> >
>> >> > * Preliminary data indicates that 33% of U.S. births may be
>unintended
>> >> > according to fathers[0].
>> >> >
>> >> > * Paternities are established in U.S. courts at the rate of one or
>two
>> >> > per minute.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Q: Isn't Choice for Men simply a way for men to get out of paying
>child
>> >> >support?
>> >> >
>> >> >A: No, it's more. Choice for Men is about fairness and family
>planning.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Q: Can't men avoid paying child support by just using condoms?
>> >> >
>> >> >A: Proponents of legalizing choice for men generally support
>> >> >contraception, but keep in mind that condoms are unreliable. They have
>a
>> >> >16% annual failure rate [1]. After just four years you can bet on
>having
>> >> >an accidental pregnancy and after 20 years of using condoms, the
>chances
>> >> >are that a man will most likely experience not one, not two, but three
>> >> >accidental pregnancies!
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Q: Can't men avoid paying child support by not consenting to sex?
>> >> >
>> >> >A: Many people are surprised to learn that men can't legally avoid
>> >> >parenthood by not consenting to sex. It's true! Here's a quote from a
>> >court
>> >> >case in Kansas:
>> >> >
>> >> > "The issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal
>> >> > statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine
>paternity
>> >> > and for support of a minor child born of such activity." [3]
>> >> >
>> >> >Similar cases have happened in other states.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Q: Aren't all children entitled to support from both parents?
>> >> >
>> >> >A: No. A common exception is single parent adoptions, which are fully
>> >legal
>> >> >and looked upon favorably by the various social service agencies.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Q: Wouldn't Choice for Men impoverish children?
>> >> >
>> >> >A: It's not yet clear whether legalizing choice for men would affect
>how
>> >> >many fathers choose to be absent. The simple reason is that the
>current
>> >> >paternity laws reward women with child support for forcing men into
>> >> >fatherhood and may well result in more absent fathers. Even if
>legalizing
>> >> >choice for men did result in more single parent families, adoption and
>> >> >sperm donorship are already legal for single parents and looked upon
>> >> >favorably by various social service agencies. One can also show that
>the
>> >> >economic benefits of a second parent's income don't rise to the level
>of
>> >a
>> >> >"compelling state interest" which justifies the state forcing men into
>> >> >legal parenthood. [4]
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Q: Where can I find out more about Choice for Men?
>> >> >
>> >> >A: 1. Email list servers dedicated to legalizing Choice for Men
>> >> > (www.choiceformen.com/list_servers.html)
>> >> > 2. www.choiceformen.com
>> >> > 3. National Center for Men. Call (503) 224-9477
>> >> > 4. Men's Rights Inc. Call (916) 484-7333
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > References
>> >> >
>> >> >0 - Abma, Joyce and Linda Piccinino, 1994 "Unintended Births: Women's
>> >> >Attitudes vis-a-vis their Male Partners' Attitudes: 1982-1990", paper
>> >> >presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological
>Association,
>> >> >August 3, 1994, Los Angeles, CA. NCHS, 6525 Belcrest Road,
>Hyattsville,
>> >MD
>> >> >20782, (301) 436-8731
>> >> >
>> >> >1 - Facts in Brief, Contraceptive Use, Alan Guttmacher Institute, New
>> >York
>> >> >City, New York, (212) 248-1111.
>> >> >
>> >> >2 - Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
>> >> >
>> >> >3 - State of Kansas, ex rel., Colleen Hermesmann, Appellee, v. Shane
>> >Seyer,
>> >> >a minor, and Dan and Mary Seyer, his parents, Appellants. No. 67,978.
>> >> >Supreme Court of Kansas. March 5, 1993.
>> >> >
>> >> >4 - See generally Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 265-6, 90 S.Ct.
>1011,
>> >> >1019, 25 L.Ed.2d 287, 1970.
>> >>
>> >
>>
>

[Fighting For Kids]

Hardly..
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 21:21:51 -0500, "Dusty" > wrote:

>I'm not touching you, is this bugging you?
>
>"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
>> Who let you out of yours?
>>
>> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:19:30 -0500, "Dusty" > wrote:
>>
>> >Oh, brother... Who let you out of your cage?
>> >
>> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> Choice for men is something that would have disasterous results.
>> >> Dont want to support what you did in bed last night?
>> >>
>> >> Simple dont have sex.
>> >>
>> >> Dont want to support a child from a marriage?
>> >>
>> >> Simple, just use this stupid agenda and you dont have to
>> >>
>> >> Want to be a deadbeat?
>> >>
>> >> Simple, use this plan.
>> >>
>> >> Grow up. Everyone has to take responsibility for their actions.
>> >> Including a man who cant keep his fly zipped and woman who cant keep
>> >> her legs closed.
>> >>
>> >> This is a unworthy cause that will never make it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 16 Nov 2003 02:55:07 -0800, (Delete the "D") wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Q: What is "Choice for Men"?
>> >> >
>> >> >A: Choice for Men is a proposal to improve the law so it protects
>men's
>> >> >right to plan their families.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Q: Would Choice for Men force women to have abortions?
>> >> >
>> >> >A: No.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Q: What exactly is Choice for Men?
>> >> >
>> >> >A: Choice for Men would give men a recourse, remedy or relief from
>being
>> >> >tricked or trapped into parenthood, perhaps by allowing them to
>> >relinquish
>> >> >their parental rights and responsibilities, like in an adoption, via
>> >> >financial compensation or by forcing an actual adoption. Some
>proposals
>> >> >would limit the time during which the choice can be made, make the
>choice
>> >> >irrevocable, only apply when men are lied to about birth control or
>when
>> >> >boys are statutorially raped. One proposal even allows women to
>> >relinquish
>> >> >their parental rights and responsibilities. Choice for Men isn't a
>> >medical
>> >> >procedure.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Q: How many men are tricked or trapped into parenthood?
>> >> >
>> >> >A: No one knows the exact number, but we can estimate from the
>following
>> >> >statistics:
>> >> >
>> >> > * Preliminary data indicates that 33% of U.S. births may be
>unintended
>> >> > according to fathers[0].
>> >> >
>> >> > * Paternities are established in U.S. courts at the rate of one or
>two
>> >> > per minute.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Q: Isn't Choice for Men simply a way for men to get out of paying
>child
>> >> >support?
>> >> >
>> >> >A: No, it's more. Choice for Men is about fairness and family
>planning.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Q: Can't men avoid paying child support by just using condoms?
>> >> >
>> >> >A: Proponents of legalizing choice for men generally support
>> >> >contraception, but keep in mind that condoms are unreliable. They have
>a
>> >> >16% annual failure rate [1]. After just four years you can bet on
>having
>> >> >an accidental pregnancy and after 20 years of using condoms, the
>chances
>> >> >are that a man will most likely experience not one, not two, but three
>> >> >accidental pregnancies!
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Q: Can't men avoid paying child support by not consenting to sex?
>> >> >
>> >> >A: Many people are surprised to learn that men can't legally avoid
>> >> >parenthood by not consenting to sex. It's true! Here's a quote from a
>> >court
>> >> >case in Kansas:
>> >> >
>> >> > "The issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal
>> >> > statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine
>paternity
>> >> > and for support of a minor child born of such activity." [3]
>> >> >
>> >> >Similar cases have happened in other states.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Q: Aren't all children entitled to support from both parents?
>> >> >
>> >> >A: No. A common exception is single parent adoptions, which are fully
>> >legal
>> >> >and looked upon favorably by the various social service agencies.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Q: Wouldn't Choice for Men impoverish children?
>> >> >
>> >> >A: It's not yet clear whether legalizing choice for men would affect
>how
>> >> >many fathers choose to be absent. The simple reason is that the
>current
>> >> >paternity laws reward women with child support for forcing men into
>> >> >fatherhood and may well result in more absent fathers. Even if
>legalizing
>> >> >choice for men did result in more single parent families, adoption and
>> >> >sperm donorship are already legal for single parents and looked upon
>> >> >favorably by various social service agencies. One can also show that
>the
>> >> >economic benefits of a second parent's income don't rise to the level
>of
>> >a
>> >> >"compelling state interest" which justifies the state forcing men into
>> >> >legal parenthood. [4]
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Q: Where can I find out more about Choice for Men?
>> >> >
>> >> >A: 1. Email list servers dedicated to legalizing Choice for Men
>> >> > (www.choiceformen.com/list_servers.html)
>> >> > 2. www.choiceformen.com
>> >> > 3. National Center for Men. Call (503) 224-9477
>> >> > 4. Men's Rights Inc. Call (916) 484-7333
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > References
>> >> >
>> >> >0 - Abma, Joyce and Linda Piccinino, 1994 "Unintended Births: Women's
>> >> >Attitudes vis-a-vis their Male Partners' Attitudes: 1982-1990", paper
>> >> >presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological
>Association,
>> >> >August 3, 1994, Los Angeles, CA. NCHS, 6525 Belcrest Road,
>Hyattsville,
>> >MD
>> >> >20782, (301) 436-8731
>> >> >
>> >> >1 - Facts in Brief, Contraceptive Use, Alan Guttmacher Institute, New
>> >York
>> >> >City, New York, (212) 248-1111.
>> >> >
>> >> >2 - Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
>> >> >
>> >> >3 - State of Kansas, ex rel., Colleen Hermesmann, Appellee, v. Shane
>> >Seyer,
>> >> >a minor, and Dan and Mary Seyer, his parents, Appellants. No. 67,978.
>> >> >Supreme Court of Kansas. March 5, 1993.
>> >> >
>> >> >4 - See generally Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 265-6, 90 S.Ct.
>1011,
>> >> >1019, 25 L.Ed.2d 287, 1970.
>> >>
>> >
>>
>

[Dusty]

Whoosh! Right over your head!! Just like F-16's at tree-top level!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! :)

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hardly..
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 21:21:51 -0500, "Dusty" > wrote:
>
> >I'm not touching you, is this bugging you?
> >
> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Who let you out of yours?
> >>
> >> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:19:30 -0500, "Dusty" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Oh, brother... Who let you out of your cage?
> >> >
> >> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> Choice for men is something that would have disasterous results.
> >> >> Dont want to support what you did in bed last night?
> >> >>
> >> >> Simple dont have sex.
> >> >>
> >> >> Dont want to support a child from a marriage?
> >> >>
> >> >> Simple, just use this stupid agenda and you dont have to
> >> >>
> >> >> Want to be a deadbeat?
> >> >>
> >> >> Simple, use this plan.
> >> >>
> >> >> Grow up. Everyone has to take responsibility for their actions.
> >> >> Including a man who cant keep his fly zipped and woman who cant keep
> >> >> her legs closed.
> >> >>
> >> >> This is a unworthy cause that will never make it.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On 16 Nov 2003 02:55:07 -0800, (Delete the "D")
wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Q: What is "Choice for Men"?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >A: Choice for Men is a proposal to improve the law so it protects
> >men's
> >> >> >right to plan their families.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Q: Would Choice for Men force women to have abortions?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >A: No.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Q: What exactly is Choice for Men?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >A: Choice for Men would give men a recourse, remedy or relief from
> >being
> >> >> >tricked or trapped into parenthood, perhaps by allowing them to
> >> >relinquish
> >> >> >their parental rights and responsibilities, like in an adoption,
via
> >> >> >financial compensation or by forcing an actual adoption. Some
> >proposals
> >> >> >would limit the time during which the choice can be made, make the
> >choice
> >> >> >irrevocable, only apply when men are lied to about birth control or
> >when
> >> >> >boys are statutorially raped. One proposal even allows women to
> >> >relinquish
> >> >> >their parental rights and responsibilities. Choice for Men isn't a
> >> >medical
> >> >> >procedure.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Q: How many men are tricked or trapped into parenthood?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >A: No one knows the exact number, but we can estimate from the
> >following
> >> >> >statistics:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > * Preliminary data indicates that 33% of U.S. births may be
> >unintended
> >> >> > according to fathers[0].
> >> >> >
> >> >> > * Paternities are established in U.S. courts at the rate of one
or
> >two
> >> >> > per minute.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Q: Isn't Choice for Men simply a way for men to get out of paying
> >child
> >> >> >support?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >A: No, it's more. Choice for Men is about fairness and family
> >planning.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Q: Can't men avoid paying child support by just using condoms?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >A: Proponents of legalizing choice for men generally support
> >> >> >contraception, but keep in mind that condoms are unreliable. They
have
> >a
> >> >> >16% annual failure rate [1]. After just four years you can bet on
> >having
> >> >> >an accidental pregnancy and after 20 years of using condoms, the
> >chances
> >> >> >are that a man will most likely experience not one, not two, but
three
> >> >> >accidental pregnancies!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Q: Can't men avoid paying child support by not consenting to sex?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >A: Many people are surprised to learn that men can't legally avoid
> >> >> >parenthood by not consenting to sex. It's true! Here's a quote from
a
> >> >court
> >> >> >case in Kansas:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "The issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal
> >> >> > statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine
> >paternity
> >> >> > and for support of a minor child born of such activity."
[3]
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Similar cases have happened in other states.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Q: Aren't all children entitled to support from both parents?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >A: No. A common exception is single parent adoptions, which are
fully
> >> >legal
> >> >> >and looked upon favorably by the various social service agencies.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Q: Wouldn't Choice for Men impoverish children?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >A: It's not yet clear whether legalizing choice for men would
affect
> >how
> >> >> >many fathers choose to be absent. The simple reason is that the
> >current
> >> >> >paternity laws reward women with child support for forcing men into
> >> >> >fatherhood and may well result in more absent fathers. Even if
> >legalizing
> >> >> >choice for men did result in more single parent families, adoption
and
> >> >> >sperm donorship are already legal for single parents and looked
upon
> >> >> >favorably by various social service agencies. One can also show
that
> >the
> >> >> >economic benefits of a second parent's income don't rise to the
level
> >of
> >> >a
> >> >> >"compelling state interest" which justifies the state forcing men
into
> >> >> >legal parenthood. [4]
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Q: Where can I find out more about Choice for Men?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >A: 1. Email list servers dedicated to legalizing Choice for Men
> >> >> > (www.choiceformen.com/list_servers.html)
> >> >> > 2. www.choiceformen.com
> >> >> > 3. National Center for Men. Call (503) 224-9477
> >> >> > 4. Men's Rights Inc. Call (916) 484-7333
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > References
> >> >> >
> >> >> >0 - Abma, Joyce and Linda Piccinino, 1994 "Unintended Births:
Women's
> >> >> >Attitudes vis-a-vis their Male Partners' Attitudes: 1982-1990",
paper
> >> >> >presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological
> >Association,
> >> >> >August 3, 1994, Los Angeles, CA. NCHS, 6525 Belcrest Road,
> >Hyattsville,
> >> >MD
> >> >> >20782, (301) 436-8731
> >> >> >
> >> >> >1 - Facts in Brief, Contraceptive Use, Alan Guttmacher Institute,
New
> >> >York
> >> >> >City, New York, (212) 248-1111.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >2 - Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
> >> >> >
> >> >> >3 - State of Kansas, ex rel., Colleen Hermesmann, Appellee, v.
Shane
> >> >Seyer,
> >> >> >a minor, and Dan and Mary Seyer, his parents, Appellants. No.
67,978.
> >> >> >Supreme Court of Kansas. March 5, 1993.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >4 - See generally Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 265-6, 90 S.Ct.
> >1011,
> >> >> >1019, 25 L.Ed.2d 287, 1970.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

[Dusty]

Whoosh! Right over your head!! Just like F-16's at tree-top level!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! :)

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hardly..
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 21:21:51 -0500, "Dusty" > wrote:
>
> >I'm not touching you, is this bugging you?
> >
> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Who let you out of yours?
> >>
> >> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:19:30 -0500, "Dusty" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Oh, brother... Who let you out of your cage?
> >> >
> >> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> Choice for men is something that would have disasterous results.
> >> >> Dont want to support what you did in bed last night?
> >> >>
> >> >> Simple dont have sex.
> >> >>
> >> >> Dont want to support a child from a marriage?
> >> >>
> >> >> Simple, just use this stupid agenda and you dont have to
> >> >>
> >> >> Want to be a deadbeat?
> >> >>
> >> >> Simple, use this plan.
> >> >>
> >> >> Grow up. Everyone has to take responsibility for their actions.
> >> >> Including a man who cant keep his fly zipped and woman who cant keep
> >> >> her legs closed.
> >> >>
> >> >> This is a unworthy cause that will never make it.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On 16 Nov 2003 02:55:07 -0800, (Delete the "D")
wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Q: What is "Choice for Men"?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >A: Choice for Men is a proposal to improve the law so it protects
> >men's
> >> >> >right to plan their families.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Q: Would Choice for Men force women to have abortions?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >A: No.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Q: What exactly is Choice for Men?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >A: Choice for Men would give men a recourse, remedy or relief from
> >being
> >> >> >tricked or trapped into parenthood, perhaps by allowing them to
> >> >relinquish
> >> >> >their parental rights and responsibilities, like in an adoption,
via
> >> >> >financial compensation or by forcing an actual adoption. Some
> >proposals
> >> >> >would limit the time during which the choice can be made, make the
> >choice
> >> >> >irrevocable, only apply when men are lied to about birth control or
> >when
> >> >> >boys are statutorially raped. One proposal even allows women to
> >> >relinquish
> >> >> >their parental rights and responsibilities. Choice for Men isn't a
> >> >medical
> >> >> >procedure.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Q: How many men are tricked or trapped into parenthood?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >A: No one knows the exact number, but we can estimate from the
> >following
> >> >> >statistics:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > * Preliminary data indicates that 33% of U.S. births may be
> >unintended
> >> >> > according to fathers[0].
> >> >> >
> >> >> > * Paternities are established in U.S. courts at the rate of one
or
> >two
> >> >> > per minute.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Q: Isn't Choice for Men simply a way for men to get out of paying
> >child
> >> >> >support?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >A: No, it's more. Choice for Men is about fairness and family
> >planning.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Q: Can't men avoid paying child support by just using condoms?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >A: Proponents of legalizing choice for men generally support
> >> >> >contraception, but keep in mind that condoms are unreliable. They
have
> >a
> >> >> >16% annual failure rate [1]. After just four years you can bet on
> >having
> >> >> >an accidental pregnancy and after 20 years of using condoms, the
> >chances
> >> >> >are that a man will most likely experience not one, not two, but
three
> >> >> >accidental pregnancies!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Q: Can't men avoid paying child support by not consenting to sex?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >A: Many people are surprised to learn that men can't legally avoid
> >> >> >parenthood by not consenting to sex. It's true! Here's a quote from
a
> >> >court
> >> >> >case in Kansas:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "The issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal
> >> >> > statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine
> >paternity
> >> >> > and for support of a minor child born of such activity."
[3]
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Similar cases have happened in other states.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Q: Aren't all children entitled to support from both parents?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >A: No. A common exception is single parent adoptions, which are
fully
> >> >legal
> >> >> >and looked upon favorably by the various social service agencies.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Q: Wouldn't Choice for Men impoverish children?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >A: It's not yet clear whether legalizing choice for men would
affect
> >how
> >> >> >many fathers choose to be absent. The simple reason is that the
> >current
> >> >> >paternity laws reward women with child support for forcing men into
> >> >> >fatherhood and may well result in more absent fathers. Even if
> >legalizing
> >> >> >choice for men did result in more single parent families, adoption
and
> >> >> >sperm donorship are already legal for single parents and looked
upon
> >> >> >favorably by various social service agencies. One can also show
that
> >the
> >> >> >economic benefits of a second parent's income don't rise to the
level
> >of
> >> >a
> >> >> >"compelling state interest" which justifies the state forcing men
into
> >> >> >legal parenthood. [4]
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Q: Where can I find out more about Choice for Men?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >A: 1. Email list servers dedicated to legalizing Choice for Men
> >> >> > (www.choiceformen.com/list_servers.html)
> >> >> > 2. www.choiceformen.com
> >> >> > 3. National Center for Men. Call (503) 224-9477
> >> >> > 4. Men's Rights Inc. Call (916) 484-7333
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > References
> >> >> >
> >> >> >0 - Abma, Joyce and Linda Piccinino, 1994 "Unintended Births:
Women's
> >> >> >Attitudes vis-a-vis their Male Partners' Attitudes: 1982-1990",
paper
> >> >> >presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological
> >Association,
> >> >> >August 3, 1994, Los Angeles, CA. NCHS, 6525 Belcrest Road,
> >Hyattsville,
> >> >MD
> >> >> >20782, (301) 436-8731
> >> >> >
> >> >> >1 - Facts in Brief, Contraceptive Use, Alan Guttmacher Institute,
New
> >> >York
> >> >> >City, New York, (212) 248-1111.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >2 - Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
> >> >> >
> >> >> >3 - State of Kansas, ex rel., Colleen Hermesmann, Appellee, v.
Shane
> >> >Seyer,
> >> >> >a minor, and Dan and Mary Seyer, his parents, Appellants. No.
67,978.
> >> >> >Supreme Court of Kansas. March 5, 1993.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >4 - See generally Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 265-6, 90 S.Ct.
> >1011,
> >> >> >1019, 25 L.Ed.2d 287, 1970.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

[Fighting For Kids]

Not right over my head..



On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:50:57 -0500, "Dusty" > wrote:

>Whoosh! Right over your head!! Just like F-16's at tree-top level!!!!
>
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! :)
>
>"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Hardly..
>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 21:21:51 -0500, "Dusty" > wrote:
>>
>> >I'm not touching you, is this bugging you?
>> >
>> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> Who let you out of yours?
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:19:30 -0500, "Dusty" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Oh, brother... Who let you out of your cage?
>> >> >
>> >> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >> Choice for men is something that would have disasterous results.
>> >> >> Dont want to support what you did in bed last night?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Simple dont have sex.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Dont want to support a child from a marriage?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Simple, just use this stupid agenda and you dont have to
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Want to be a deadbeat?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Simple, use this plan.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Grow up. Everyone has to take responsibility for their actions.
>> >> >> Including a man who cant keep his fly zipped and woman who cant keep
>> >> >> her legs closed.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This is a unworthy cause that will never make it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 16 Nov 2003 02:55:07 -0800, (Delete the "D")
>wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Q: What is "Choice for Men"?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >A: Choice for Men is a proposal to improve the law so it protects
>> >men's
>> >> >> >right to plan their families.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Q: Would Choice for Men force women to have abortions?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >A: No.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Q: What exactly is Choice for Men?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >A: Choice for Men would give men a recourse, remedy or relief from
>> >being
>> >> >> >tricked or trapped into parenthood, perhaps by allowing them to
>> >> >relinquish
>> >> >> >their parental rights and responsibilities, like in an adoption,
>via
>> >> >> >financial compensation or by forcing an actual adoption. Some
>> >proposals
>> >> >> >would limit the time during which the choice can be made, make the
>> >choice
>> >> >> >irrevocable, only apply when men are lied to about birth control or
>> >when
>> >> >> >boys are statutorially raped. One proposal even allows women to
>> >> >relinquish
>> >> >> >their parental rights and responsibilities. Choice for Men isn't a
>> >> >medical
>> >> >> >procedure.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Q: How many men are tricked or trapped into parenthood?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >A: No one knows the exact number, but we can estimate from the
>> >following
>> >> >> >statistics:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > * Preliminary data indicates that 33% of U.S. births may be
>> >unintended
>> >> >> > according to fathers[0].
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > * Paternities are established in U.S. courts at the rate of one
>or
>> >two
>> >> >> > per minute.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Q: Isn't Choice for Men simply a way for men to get out of paying
>> >child
>> >> >> >support?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >A: No, it's more. Choice for Men is about fairness and family
>> >planning.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Q: Can't men avoid paying child support by just using condoms?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >A: Proponents of legalizing choice for men generally support
>> >> >> >contraception, but keep in mind that condoms are unreliable. They
>have
>> >a
>> >> >> >16% annual failure rate [1]. After just four years you can bet on
>> >having
>> >> >> >an accidental pregnancy and after 20 years of using condoms, the
>> >chances
>> >> >> >are that a man will most likely experience not one, not two, but
>three
>> >> >> >accidental pregnancies!
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Q: Can't men avoid paying child support by not consenting to sex?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >A: Many people are surprised to learn that men can't legally avoid
>> >> >> >parenthood by not consenting to sex. It's true! Here's a quote from
>a
>> >> >court
>> >> >> >case in Kansas:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "The issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal
>> >> >> > statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine
>> >paternity
>> >> >> > and for support of a minor child born of such activity."
>[3]
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Similar cases have happened in other states.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Q: Aren't all children entitled to support from both parents?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >A: No. A common exception is single parent adoptions, which are
>fully
>> >> >legal
>> >> >> >and looked upon favorably by the various social service agencies.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Q: Wouldn't Choice for Men impoverish children?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >A: It's not yet clear whether legalizing choice for men would
>affect
>> >how
>> >> >> >many fathers choose to be absent. The simple reason is that the
>> >current
>> >> >> >paternity laws reward women with child support for forcing men into
>> >> >> >fatherhood and may well result in more absent fathers. Even if
>> >legalizing
>> >> >> >choice for men did result in more single parent families, adoption
>and
>> >> >> >sperm donorship are already legal for single parents and looked
>upon
>> >> >> >favorably by various social service agencies. One can also show
>that
>> >the
>> >> >> >economic benefits of a second parent's income don't rise to the
>level
>> >of
>> >> >a
>> >> >> >"compelling state interest" which justifies the state forcing men
>into
>> >> >> >legal parenthood. [4]
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Q: Where can I find out more about Choice for Men?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >A: 1. Email list servers dedicated to legalizing Choice for Men
>> >> >> > (www.choiceformen.com/list_servers.html)
>> >> >> > 2. www.choiceformen.com
>> >> >> > 3. National Center for Men. Call (503) 224-9477
>> >> >> > 4. Men's Rights Inc. Call (916) 484-7333
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > References
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >0 - Abma, Joyce and Linda Piccinino, 1994 "Unintended Births:
>Women's
>> >> >> >Attitudes vis-a-vis their Male Partners' Attitudes: 1982-1990",
>paper
>> >> >> >presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological
>> >Association,
>> >> >> >August 3, 1994, Los Angeles, CA. NCHS, 6525 Belcrest Road,
>> >Hyattsville,
>> >> >MD
>> >> >> >20782, (301) 436-8731
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >1 - Facts in Brief, Contraceptive Use, Alan Guttmacher Institute,
>New
>> >> >York
>> >> >> >City, New York, (212) 248-1111.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >2 - Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >3 - State of Kansas, ex rel., Colleen Hermesmann, Appellee, v.
>Shane
>> >> >Seyer,
>> >> >> >a minor, and Dan and Mary Seyer, his parents, Appellants. No.
>67,978.
>> >> >> >Supreme Court of Kansas. March 5, 1993.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >4 - See generally Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 265-6, 90 S.Ct.
>> >1011,
>> >> >> >1019, 25 L.Ed.2d 287, 1970.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>

[Fighting For Kids]

Not right over my head..



On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:50:57 -0500, "Dusty" > wrote:

>Whoosh! Right over your head!! Just like F-16's at tree-top level!!!!
>
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! :)
>
>"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Hardly..
>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 21:21:51 -0500, "Dusty" > wrote:
>>
>> >I'm not touching you, is this bugging you?
>> >
>> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> Who let you out of yours?
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:19:30 -0500, "Dusty" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Oh, brother... Who let you out of your cage?
>> >> >
>> >> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >> Choice for men is something that would have disasterous results.
>> >> >> Dont want to support what you did in bed last night?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Simple dont have sex.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Dont want to support a child from a marriage?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Simple, just use this stupid agenda and you dont have to
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Want to be a deadbeat?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Simple, use this plan.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Grow up. Everyone has to take responsibility for their actions.
>> >> >> Including a man who cant keep his fly zipped and woman who cant keep
>> >> >> her legs closed.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This is a unworthy cause that will never make it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 16 Nov 2003 02:55:07 -0800, (Delete the "D")
>wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Q: What is "Choice for Men"?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >A: Choice for Men is a proposal to improve the law so it protects
>> >men's
>> >> >> >right to plan their families.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Q: Would Choice for Men force women to have abortions?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >A: No.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Q: What exactly is Choice for Men?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >A: Choice for Men would give men a recourse, remedy or relief from
>> >being
>> >> >> >tricked or trapped into parenthood, perhaps by allowing them to
>> >> >relinquish
>> >> >> >their parental rights and responsibilities, like in an adoption,
>via
>> >> >> >financial compensation or by forcing an actual adoption. Some
>> >proposals
>> >> >> >would limit the time during which the choice can be made, make the
>> >choice
>> >> >> >irrevocable, only apply when men are lied to about birth control or
>> >when
>> >> >> >boys are statutorially raped. One proposal even allows women to
>> >> >relinquish
>> >> >> >their parental rights and responsibilities. Choice for Men isn't a
>> >> >medical
>> >> >> >procedure.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Q: How many men are tricked or trapped into parenthood?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >A: No one knows the exact number, but we can estimate from the
>> >following
>> >> >> >statistics:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > * Preliminary data indicates that 33% of U.S. births may be
>> >unintended
>> >> >> > according to fathers[0].
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > * Paternities are established in U.S. courts at the rate of one
>or
>> >two
>> >> >> > per minute.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Q: Isn't Choice for Men simply a way for men to get out of paying
>> >child
>> >> >> >support?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >A: No, it's more. Choice for Men is about fairness and family
>> >planning.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Q: Can't men avoid paying child support by just using condoms?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >A: Proponents of legalizing choice for men generally support
>> >> >> >contraception, but keep in mind that condoms are unreliable. They
>have
>> >a
>> >> >> >16% annual failure rate [1]. After just four years you can bet on
>> >having
>> >> >> >an accidental pregnancy and after 20 years of using condoms, the
>> >chances
>> >> >> >are that a man will most likely experience not one, not two, but
>three
>> >> >> >accidental pregnancies!
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Q: Can't men avoid paying child support by not consenting to sex?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >A: Many people are surprised to learn that men can't legally avoid
>> >> >> >parenthood by not consenting to sex. It's true! Here's a quote from
>a
>> >> >court
>> >> >> >case in Kansas:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "The issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal
>> >> >> > statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine
>> >paternity
>> >> >> > and for support of a minor child born of such activity."
>[3]
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Similar cases have happened in other states.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Q: Aren't all children entitled to support from both parents?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >A: No. A common exception is single parent adoptions, which are
>fully
>> >> >legal
>> >> >> >and looked upon favorably by the various social service agencies.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Q: Wouldn't Choice for Men impoverish children?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >A: It's not yet clear whether legalizing choice for men would
>affect
>> >how
>> >> >> >many fathers choose to be absent. The simple reason is that the
>> >current
>> >> >> >paternity laws reward women with child support for forcing men into
>> >> >> >fatherhood and may well result in more absent fathers. Even if
>> >legalizing
>> >> >> >choice for men did result in more single parent families, adoption
>and
>> >> >> >sperm donorship are already legal for single parents and looked
>upon
>> >> >> >favorably by various social service agencies. One can also show
>that
>> >the
>> >> >> >economic benefits of a second parent's income don't rise to the
>level
>> >of
>> >> >a
>> >> >> >"compelling state interest" which justifies the state forcing men
>into
>> >> >> >legal parenthood. [4]
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Q: Where can I find out more about Choice for Men?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >A: 1. Email list servers dedicated to legalizing Choice for Men
>> >> >> > (www.choiceformen.com/list_servers.html)
>> >> >> > 2. www.choiceformen.com
>> >> >> > 3. National Center for Men. Call (503) 224-9477
>> >> >> > 4. Men's Rights Inc. Call (916) 484-7333
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > References
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >0 - Abma, Joyce and Linda Piccinino, 1994 "Unintended Births:
>Women's
>> >> >> >Attitudes vis-a-vis their Male Partners' Attitudes: 1982-1990",
>paper
>> >> >> >presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological
>> >Association,
>> >> >> >August 3, 1994, Los Angeles, CA. NCHS, 6525 Belcrest Road,
>> >Hyattsville,
>> >> >MD
>> >> >> >20782, (301) 436-8731
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >1 - Facts in Brief, Contraceptive Use, Alan Guttmacher Institute,
>New
>> >> >York
>> >> >> >City, New York, (212) 248-1111.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >2 - Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >3 - State of Kansas, ex rel., Colleen Hermesmann, Appellee, v.
>Shane
>> >> >Seyer,
>> >> >> >a minor, and Dan and Mary Seyer, his parents, Appellants. No.
>67,978.
>> >> >> >Supreme Court of Kansas. March 5, 1993.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >4 - See generally Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 265-6, 90 S.Ct.
>> >1011,
>> >> >> >1019, 25 L.Ed.2d 287, 1970.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>

[Dusty]

Yes, it was.

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not right over my head..
>
>
>
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:50:57 -0500, "Dusty" > wrote:
>
> >Whoosh! Right over your head!! Just like F-16's at tree-top level!!!!
> >
> >HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! :)
> >
> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> Hardly..
> >> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 21:21:51 -0500, "Dusty" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >I'm not touching you, is this bugging you?
> >> >
> >> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> Who let you out of yours?
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:19:30 -0500, "Dusty" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Oh, brother... Who let you out of your cage?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> Choice for men is something that would have disasterous results.
> >> >> >> Dont want to support what you did in bed last night?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Simple dont have sex.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Dont want to support a child from a marriage?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Simple, just use this stupid agenda and you dont have to
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Want to be a deadbeat?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Simple, use this plan.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Grow up. Everyone has to take responsibility for their actions.
> >> >> >> Including a man who cant keep his fly zipped and woman who cant
keep
> >> >> >> her legs closed.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> This is a unworthy cause that will never make it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On 16 Nov 2003 02:55:07 -0800, (Delete the "D")
> >wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Q: What is "Choice for Men"?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >A: Choice for Men is a proposal to improve the law so it
protects
> >> >men's
> >> >> >> >right to plan their families.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Q: Would Choice for Men force women to have abortions?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >A: No.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Q: What exactly is Choice for Men?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >A: Choice for Men would give men a recourse, remedy or relief
from
> >> >being
> >> >> >> >tricked or trapped into parenthood, perhaps by allowing them to
> >> >> >relinquish
> >> >> >> >their parental rights and responsibilities, like in an adoption,
> >via
> >> >> >> >financial compensation or by forcing an actual adoption. Some
> >> >proposals
> >> >> >> >would limit the time during which the choice can be made, make
the
> >> >choice
> >> >> >> >irrevocable, only apply when men are lied to about birth control
or
> >> >when
> >> >> >> >boys are statutorially raped. One proposal even allows women to
> >> >> >relinquish
> >> >> >> >their parental rights and responsibilities. Choice for Men isn't
a
> >> >> >medical
> >> >> >> >procedure.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Q: How many men are tricked or trapped into parenthood?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >A: No one knows the exact number, but we can estimate from the
> >> >following
> >> >> >> >statistics:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > * Preliminary data indicates that 33% of U.S. births may be
> >> >unintended
> >> >> >> > according to fathers[0].
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > * Paternities are established in U.S. courts at the rate of
one
> >or
> >> >two
> >> >> >> > per minute.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Q: Isn't Choice for Men simply a way for men to get out of
paying
> >> >child
> >> >> >> >support?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >A: No, it's more. Choice for Men is about fairness and family
> >> >planning.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Q: Can't men avoid paying child support by just using condoms?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >A: Proponents of legalizing choice for men generally support
> >> >> >> >contraception, but keep in mind that condoms are unreliable.
They
> >have
> >> >a
> >> >> >> >16% annual failure rate [1]. After just four years you can bet
on
> >> >having
> >> >> >> >an accidental pregnancy and after 20 years of using condoms, the
> >> >chances
> >> >> >> >are that a man will most likely experience not one, not two, but
> >three
> >> >> >> >accidental pregnancies!
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Q: Can't men avoid paying child support by not consenting to
sex?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >A: Many people are surprised to learn that men can't legally
avoid
> >> >> >> >parenthood by not consenting to sex. It's true! Here's a quote
from
> >a
> >> >> >court
> >> >> >> >case in Kansas:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > "The issue of consent to sexual activity under the
criminal
> >> >> >> > statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine
> >> >paternity
> >> >> >> > and for support of a minor child born of such activity."
> >[3]
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Similar cases have happened in other states.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Q: Aren't all children entitled to support from both parents?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >A: No. A common exception is single parent adoptions, which are
> >fully
> >> >> >legal
> >> >> >> >and looked upon favorably by the various social service
agencies.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Q: Wouldn't Choice for Men impoverish children?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >A: It's not yet clear whether legalizing choice for men would
> >affect
> >> >how
> >> >> >> >many fathers choose to be absent. The simple reason is that the
> >> >current
> >> >> >> >paternity laws reward women with child support for forcing men
into
> >> >> >> >fatherhood and may well result in more absent fathers. Even if
> >> >legalizing
> >> >> >> >choice for men did result in more single parent families,
adoption
> >and
> >> >> >> >sperm donorship are already legal for single parents and looked
> >upon
> >> >> >> >favorably by various social service agencies. One can also show
> >that
> >> >the
> >> >> >> >economic benefits of a second parent's income don't rise to the
> >level
> >> >of
> >> >> >a
> >> >> >> >"compelling state interest" which justifies the state forcing
men
> >into
> >> >> >> >legal parenthood. [4]
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Q: Where can I find out more about Choice for Men?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >A: 1. Email list servers dedicated to legalizing Choice for Men
> >> >> >> > (www.choiceformen.com/list_servers.html)
> >> >> >> > 2. www.choiceformen.com
> >> >> >> > 3. National Center for Men. Call (503) 224-9477
> >> >> >> > 4. Men's Rights Inc. Call (916) 484-7333
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > References
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >0 - Abma, Joyce and Linda Piccinino, 1994 "Unintended Births:
> >Women's
> >> >> >> >Attitudes vis-a-vis their Male Partners' Attitudes: 1982-1990",
> >paper
> >> >> >> >presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological
> >> >Association,
> >> >> >> >August 3, 1994, Los Angeles, CA. NCHS, 6525 Belcrest Road,
> >> >Hyattsville,
> >> >> >MD
> >> >> >> >20782, (301) 436-8731
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >1 - Facts in Brief, Contraceptive Use, Alan Guttmacher
Institute,
> >New
> >> >> >York
> >> >> >> >City, New York, (212) 248-1111.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >2 - Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >3 - State of Kansas, ex rel., Colleen Hermesmann, Appellee, v.
> >Shane
> >> >> >Seyer,
> >> >> >> >a minor, and Dan and Mary Seyer, his parents, Appellants. No.
> >67,978.
> >> >> >> >Supreme Court of Kansas. March 5, 1993.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >4 - See generally Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 265-6, 90
S.Ct.
> >> >1011,
> >> >> >> >1019, 25 L.Ed.2d 287, 1970.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

[Dusty]

Yes, it was.

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not right over my head..
>
>
>
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:50:57 -0500, "Dusty" > wrote:
>
> >Whoosh! Right over your head!! Just like F-16's at tree-top level!!!!
> >
> >HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! :)
> >
> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> Hardly..
> >> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 21:21:51 -0500, "Dusty" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >I'm not touching you, is this bugging you?
> >> >
> >> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> Who let you out of yours?
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:19:30 -0500, "Dusty" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Oh, brother... Who let you out of your cage?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> Choice for men is something that would have disasterous results.
> >> >> >> Dont want to support what you did in bed last night?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Simple dont have sex.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Dont want to support a child from a marriage?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Simple, just use this stupid agenda and you dont have to
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Want to be a deadbeat?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Simple, use this plan.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Grow up. Everyone has to take responsibility for their actions.
> >> >> >> Including a man who cant keep his fly zipped and woman who cant
keep
> >> >> >> her legs closed.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> This is a unworthy cause that will never make it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On 16 Nov 2003 02:55:07 -0800, (Delete the "D")
> >wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Q: What is "Choice for Men"?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >A: Choice for Men is a proposal to improve the law so it
protects
> >> >men's
> >> >> >> >right to plan their families.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Q: Would Choice for Men force women to have abortions?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >A: No.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Q: What exactly is Choice for Men?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >A: Choice for Men would give men a recourse, remedy or relief
from
> >> >being
> >> >> >> >tricked or trapped into parenthood, perhaps by allowing them to
> >> >> >relinquish
> >> >> >> >their parental rights and responsibilities, like in an adoption,
> >via
> >> >> >> >financial compensation or by forcing an actual adoption. Some
> >> >proposals
> >> >> >> >would limit the time during which the choice can be made, make
the
> >> >choice
> >> >> >> >irrevocable, only apply when men are lied to about birth control
or
> >> >when
> >> >> >> >boys are statutorially raped. One proposal even allows women to
> >> >> >relinquish
> >> >> >> >their parental rights and responsibilities. Choice for Men isn't
a
> >> >> >medical
> >> >> >> >procedure.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Q: How many men are tricked or trapped into parenthood?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >A: No one knows the exact number, but we can estimate from the
> >> >following
> >> >> >> >statistics:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > * Preliminary data indicates that 33% of U.S. births may be
> >> >unintended
> >> >> >> > according to fathers[0].
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > * Paternities are established in U.S. courts at the rate of
one
> >or
> >> >two
> >> >> >> > per minute.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Q: Isn't Choice for Men simply a way for men to get out of
paying
> >> >child
> >> >> >> >support?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >A: No, it's more. Choice for Men is about fairness and family
> >> >planning.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Q: Can't men avoid paying child support by just using condoms?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >A: Proponents of legalizing choice for men generally support
> >> >> >> >contraception, but keep in mind that condoms are unreliable.
They
> >have
> >> >a
> >> >> >> >16% annual failure rate [1]. After just four years you can bet
on
> >> >having
> >> >> >> >an accidental pregnancy and after 20 years of using condoms, the
> >> >chances
> >> >> >> >are that a man will most likely experience not one, not two, but
> >three
> >> >> >> >accidental pregnancies!
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Q: Can't men avoid paying child support by not consenting to
sex?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >A: Many people are surprised to learn that men can't legally
avoid
> >> >> >> >parenthood by not consenting to sex. It's true! Here's a quote
from
> >a
> >> >> >court
> >> >> >> >case in Kansas:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > "The issue of consent to sexual activity under the
criminal
> >> >> >> > statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine
> >> >paternity
> >> >> >> > and for support of a minor child born of such activity."
> >[3]
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Similar cases have happened in other states.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Q: Aren't all children entitled to support from both parents?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >A: No. A common exception is single parent adoptions, which are
> >fully
> >> >> >legal
> >> >> >> >and looked upon favorably by the various social service
agencies.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Q: Wouldn't Choice for Men impoverish children?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >A: It's not yet clear whether legalizing choice for men would
> >affect
> >> >how
> >> >> >> >many fathers choose to be absent. The simple reason is that the
> >> >current
> >> >> >> >paternity laws reward women with child support for forcing men
into
> >> >> >> >fatherhood and may well result in more absent fathers. Even if
> >> >legalizing
> >> >> >> >choice for men did result in more single parent families,
adoption
> >and
> >> >> >> >sperm donorship are already legal for single parents and looked
> >upon
> >> >> >> >favorably by various social service agencies. One can also show
> >that
> >> >the
> >> >> >> >economic benefits of a second parent's income don't rise to the
> >level
> >> >of
> >> >> >a
> >> >> >> >"compelling state interest" which justifies the state forcing
men
> >into
> >> >> >> >legal parenthood. [4]
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Q: Where can I find out more about Choice for Men?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >A: 1. Email list servers dedicated to legalizing Choice for Men
> >> >> >> > (www.choiceformen.com/list_servers.html)
> >> >> >> > 2. www.choiceformen.com
> >> >> >> > 3. National Center for Men. Call (503) 224-9477
> >> >> >> > 4. Men's Rights Inc. Call (916) 484-7333
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > References
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >0 - Abma, Joyce and Linda Piccinino, 1994 "Unintended Births:
> >Women's
> >> >> >> >Attitudes vis-a-vis their Male Partners' Attitudes: 1982-1990",
> >paper
> >> >> >> >presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological
> >> >Association,
> >> >> >> >August 3, 1994, Los Angeles, CA. NCHS, 6525 Belcrest Road,
> >> >Hyattsville,
> >> >> >MD
> >> >> >> >20782, (301) 436-8731
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >1 - Facts in Brief, Contraceptive Use, Alan Guttmacher
Institute,
> >New
> >> >> >York
> >> >> >> >City, New York, (212) 248-1111.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >2 - Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >3 - State of Kansas, ex rel., Colleen Hermesmann, Appellee, v.
> >Shane
> >> >> >Seyer,
> >> >> >> >a minor, and Dan and Mary Seyer, his parents, Appellants. No.
> >67,978.
> >> >> >> >Supreme Court of Kansas. March 5, 1993.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >4 - See generally Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 265-6, 90
S.Ct.
> >> >1011,
> >> >> >> >1019, 25 L.Ed.2d 287, 1970.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
>