If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#331
|
|||
|
|||
The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:_NZSf.1086$5F1.18@fed1read08... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... [snip] For all of Gini's babble about how the woman is only fertile at one point in her cycle, what she overlooks is that sperm may live in the female reproductive tract for up to 7 days and fertilization may occur even days after intercourse. Which is something you contradict yourself on in several previous posts (no, I ain't gonna spoon feed ya either - go look it up). You yourself have stated that MEN must be the primary party responsible for all births Um, no, I haven't. Haven't said anything even remotely along those lines. I have said that men need to be taking responsibility for their own birth control though. Last I checked, men don't control birth. When they control their own fertility, they sure do. No conception, no birth. That's how it works. Please explain how men control their own fertility? This I gotta hear... By using whatever birth control methods are available - rhythm method, condoms, abstinence, only having sex with someone they KNOW is not fertile (as in sterile) and sterility are currently the available choices. If and when a male pill becomes available, that will be another option. Not, that's not it. I want you to tell us how a man is in control of his fertility, not a list of birth control options. How does one do that Moonie? How do you control something that you have no control over?? Birth control is one thing, controlling one's own fertility is quite another. Ah.... "I didn't ask about the brakes, I want to know how you stop your car." You control your fertility by managing and being responsible for it. By using whatever birth control methods are available. If you can't understand that, then you probably shouldn't be having sex. No Moon. Like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target. It's not a question about preventing insemination, it's about fertility. You said men could control it. And I want you to tell me how that can be done. Is there an some sort of hidden "Off" switch that men have, yet no one ever told us about? Is there some sort of password that needs to be spoken to gain access to this hidden ability? And how is it you, of all people, lay claim that you know about this secret when no one else on the planet has ever heard about it? Four million years of evolution and you somehow have vital information about the biology of the human species that no other person has ever discovered. Wow. |
#332
|
|||
|
|||
The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)
"tonita" wrote Well, I wouldn't consider that an ideal start for a newborn to be schlepped back and forth. All babies need their mommies. == How sexist. If baby is not to be "schlepped back and forth," why should preference be based on gender? Actually, some states are now writing statutes stating that fathers should be given equal consideration in custody cases. I'm guessing that hasn't changed the practice much though. == |
#333
|
|||
|
|||
The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)
"tonita" wrote in message oups.com... Well, I wouldn't consider that an ideal start for a newborn to be schlepped back and forth. All babies need their mommies. Babies need to be taken care of. Not necessarily by "mommy." By someone. How ridiculous to think that only the female that carried the child to birth can take care of a newborn! Daddies perform different roles even though most people today disagree. Everyone wants to change human nature. But yes, both parents should have equal rights but you can't cut a child in half. Really? What "different roles" do daddies perform? When daddy gets up at night and gives baby her 2 o'clock feeding, how is that different from mommy doing so? When daddy changes baby's diaper, how is that different from mommy doing so? How is daddy taking an equal role in the care of his newborn "changing human nature"? Men can't gestate, but they CAN feed baby a bottle. 50/50 joint custody from day 1, with mom expressing milk if she insists on feeding baby only mother's milk. Otherwise, formula will work just fine. It takes 2 to create a child--2, then, should have equal rights and responsibilities. |
#334
|
|||
|
|||
The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)
tonita wrote:
Feminism happened and went to an extreme and society went along with it. Traditional roles in the family don't exist anymore and in case you haven't noticed, women react with hostility at the thought. I don't know what kind of woman would become hostile at the thought of having decent husband and provider and her role as mother and wife. Of course if a woman doesn't want that role, marry someone who doesn't want children or someone to raise them. If more couples would take time to "date", get to know each other, discuss what they want out of family life and make it happen. It's not impossible but life moves too quickly now. Of course having some kind of spiritual base would help. Say what you will about the commandments but I don't see how following them can hurt anyone. They only serve to protect us. Unless of course you're so self serving that you couldn't possibly follow them. There is a simpler way of life and everyone is making everything so complicated. A lot of people follow this way of life. Men have gotten a rotten deal out of the last 30 or so years, but I say it's time to really fight back for what's right. There is too much hostility between the sexes and it's worse than ever. Women cannot have it all ways and it's time for everyone to stop letting it happen. Let God back into our lives and go back to traditional family roles and focus on the family, not the material things or the sexual satisfaction that many people feel they must have at every moment. Nope, you missed the train. (That one left the station a long, long, time ago). We're in a new age now; The Age of Enlightenment. You just don't see it. -5 for you. I've been divorced and I'm not a bitter woman. I truly believe that women have become so self centered and have treated men like dirt. If men behave badly, what do you expect? It's what they've been trained to do. The clear message is that women don't need men even to get pregnant so what are men to think? I have nothing but contempt for women like this. All on their high horses. *That's* what has caused the mess we have today. What Tonita says is pretty much true but I still have two questions: What happened to change it and; How can we make it better? I think understanding the first will give us clues to the second. Phil #3 Phil #3 wrote: "tonita" wrote in message ups.com... I respectfully disagree with, well...everything. You make it sound as if when a man doesn't get sex he'll either walk around with an eternal erection or he'll end up raping someone. You apparently misunderstood. We all know that isn't true. People can use their intellect far more than they do. They *can* but as long as we let the government tell us how to think, why bother? Self control and self discipline. As for the government, that's kind of far fetched. Not at all. Apparently you are unaware that the state governments, the ones that force the child support guidelines upon the People, rake a tidy profit from the federal government in the form of block grants as a reward for collecting child support. Then add to it the interest on millions of dollars sitting in the government accounts for varying lengths of 1-3 months before disbursment. The government, at least in my opinion, horns in when there is a lot of public pressure. Look at our society today...political correctness and all of that crap. It is so acceptable for a teenaged girl to get knocked up, continue school, keep the kid go to junior prom and do it again the next year. Or worse, quit school and have babies as a career. The government pays because there isn't a choice anymore. Sure there's a choice, several in fact, but the basic step is for the governement to butt out. The government rewards women who operate the system by giving them the lion's share of the marriage plus custody of the children and far more money than is needed to support those children and people are surprised when the numbers of these women increase. Whether the mother has been married or not, the subject is the same: rewarding bad behavior and wondering why the bad behavior increases. It's done so kids won't starve or die. Hardly. It's done for political correctness; that is, feminists demand women be treated special and men be punished for being male. Child support has nothing to do with supporting children. Most fathers would do whatever is necessary for their children but the government will not permit it. It's almost a badge of honor to be a single mother these days. It's shameful. I think it happens because there are so many fatherless homes. To a large degree, absolutely. So it is with may pathological amomalities such as failing or dropping out of school, drug use, runaway juveniles, child abuse and neglect, crime and many others. I don't agree with any of it but that's the way it is. People get divorced because they can, men abandon because they can, women think they can have it all but they can't. That's why marriages end and thank the feminists for the victim status many women take. It's downright pathetic. Too true. Except most fathers want to remain in their children's lives as a parent but are not allowed. The government promise is custody and a C$ order, which is promoted as "liberating" for women. In fact, it makes them dependent on the government instead of their husbands and due to the monolothic number of laws in this regard, the husbands then come under the control of the government as well. Phil #3 Phil #3 wrote: "tonita" wrote in message ups.com... Dogs and cats breed without thought. Humans are supposed to have evolved above that level. No one *has* to give in to that drive. I am not so sure. Of course, it is different between men and women. Men have a stronger sex drive than women, which is, IMO, the main reason some women think of men as perverts for having a normal (for men) sex drive. From what I've read, women can do without sex easier than men and the longer they do without it, the easier it is to do without it; sort of a self-fullfilling prophecy, if you will. Men, on the other hand, are sexual creatures and the longer they do without it, the stronger the urge becomes. It's nature's way of insuring continuation of the species. Still, you are correct in that no one has to give in but it *is* a natural drive. What is unnatural is *not* giving in to it. The problem is not sex, the problem is that the government is ready, willing, and with our tax and child support dollars, able to become surrogate husband and father. More is done to insure a steady supply of divorces with children than is devoted to the idea of a strong family consisting of mother, father, children. The strong family has no need for the government to step in and control the family (and a very large part of it's finance) and a split family, that is where at least one parent does not live with their children, the government is making a profit from enabling and assisting in broken familes and as a side benefit to an ever-increasing government, gaining further total control over the People. In short, it's not so simple as just saying "no". Phil #3 It's too bad everyone couldn't stay focused on the topic without all the bitterness taking over. Nothing will ever be solved in such a scattered way. Everyone wants to have their "Sex In The City" moments but refuse to consider the consequences after the fact. Hence the state of our world today. Too many fatherless kids, not enough personal accountability. Everyone wants theirs and to hell with everyone else. Someone else is always to blame. No more grit and backbone. Everyone is weak and must cater to their "feelings" above all else. Kind of makes for a very weak society in general and it certainly shows. I feel sad really. Kids are hurthing and the adults care very little about their psyches. As long as all the men and women are happily screwing, who cares? The kids will get over it, the kids will be fine, the kids don't care what the parents do. Go ahead and believe all that if that's what it takes to get through the day. There *are* good men and women in the world and I mean *real* men and women, not these morons who are behaving like juveniles. They're out there raising good kids, focusing on their families and working together to keep it together. They're not worried if they're going to feel good every second, or being happy every second. It's hard work and they're up for it. They're not into the blame game or the emotional tennis match, batting the blaming ball back and forth. Real men aren't guided by their penises and won't risk it all for some woman they hardly know. They actually care about who becomes the mother of their children. Real women are discerning and don't let just anyone into their bodies just for the momentary feelings. Real men and women don't have any interest in abortion issues or who's responsible for the pregnancy. They don't have to because they don't indulge in the self serving behavior that's created this mess in the first place. They don't have the "me, me, me" mindset. They sacrifice for the sake of their families. Yes, it's a very sad state and I suppose it will only get worse given the types of responses to this post. Everyone will just continue to blame someone else. Phil #3 wrote: Doesn't seem to have made much difference over the past 30 years although the marriage rate has dropped and will continue to do so, sex is one of humankind's basic drives. It's a difficult instinct to overcome. |
#335
|
|||
|
|||
The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ink.net... "Gini" wrote in message news:QEbTf.1700$8G2.430@trndny01... "Dusty" wrote Not, that's not it. I want you to tell us how a man is in control of his fertility, not a list of birth control options. How does one do that Moonie? How do you control something that you have no control over?? Birth control is one thing, controlling one's own fertility is quite another. == And it's a whole lot different than controlling one's sperm. I'm sure she'll will have very good answer. It will be amusingly convoluted but she'll come up with some way to dance around it. == When a man uses birth control he becomes infertile. Condoms render a man infertile? Since when? Last time I checked, the condom fell into the 'barrier method' of birth control, by keeping the sperm from proximity to the egg. Oh, I get it now. Managing fertility for women is when to have sex. Managing fertility for men is how to have sex. |
#336
|
|||
|
|||
The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "tonita" wrote in message oups.com... Well, I wouldn't consider that an ideal start for a newborn to be schlepped back and forth. All babies need their mommies. Babies need to be taken care of. Not necessarily by "mommy." By someone. How ridiculous to think that only the female that carried the child to birth can take care of a newborn! The CS system agrees. That's why they make fathers pay for daycare so the mommies don't have to take care of the babies. Daycare providers spend more time during a day with babies than most working mothers do during their child's awake hours. Daddies perform different roles even though most people today disagree. Everyone wants to change human nature. But yes, both parents should have equal rights but you can't cut a child in half. Really? What "different roles" do daddies perform? When daddy gets up at night and gives baby her 2 o'clock feeding, how is that different from mommy doing so? When daddy changes baby's diaper, how is that different from mommy doing so? How is daddy taking an equal role in the care of his newborn "changing human nature"? How hard is it to find, interview, and hire a daycare worker? Even dads can do that. If dads got custody more often they could use their higher earnings power to hire a nanny and allow the children to always remain in their home environment. It's the mommies who always want to ship the kiddies off to daycare centers. |
#337
|
|||
|
|||
The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)
"Phil #3" wrote in message ink.net... "tonita" wrote in message oups.com... Well, I guess the feminists have suceeded in beating men down. I always say anything worth having is worth fighting for. Maybe it's time for men and women to start behaving themselves so none of this will happen? It's still a blame game. Blame the man, blame the woman, blame the government. I suppose if I had a child out of wedlock I could turn to the government for help but I didn't and I won't. My kids didn't. My friends didn't. It all boils down to behavior and the attitude of wanting something more for one's life and the lives of their children. The idea of living a more dignified life. People can change but they don't have to. It's a societal problem, government included but I don't think it's totally to blame. There are no values to stand behind anymore. Nobody has to have values or, dare I say, morals. It's a free-for-all world and everybody just stands by and watches and supports. I can't change it but I certainly haven't contributed to it either. Blame is not the correct word. Identifying a problem is the first step in correcting it. Do you have any idea about the possibility of an unmarried father gaining custody? It is so close to impossible as to *be* impossible and without at least $150K to spend on lawyers, it just won't happen and probably won't then. It's damn near impossible for a divorced father as well. Mothers are freely given what men must fight for and usually are denied including custody and in the cases where father gets custody (almost always because the mother allowed it), they rarely get C$. In my opinion, the drop in respect for others led to legalized abortion-as-birth-control and the so-called 'no-fault' divorces. "No fault" divorce is code for "marriage is meaningless". The nation's thought is "it's all about *me*". Phil #3 Phil #3 wrote: "tonita" wrote in message ups.com... I respectfully disagree with, well...everything. You make it sound as if when a man doesn't get sex he'll either walk around with an eternal erection or he'll end up raping someone. You apparently misunderstood. We all know that isn't true. People can use their intellect far more than they do. They *can* but as long as we let the government tell us how to think, why bother? Self control and self discipline. As for the government, that's kind of far fetched. Not at all. Apparently you are unaware that the state governments, the ones that force the child support guidelines upon the People, rake a tidy profit from the federal government in the form of block grants as a reward for collecting child support. Then add to it the interest on millions of dollars sitting in the government accounts for varying lengths of 1-3 months before disbursment. The government, at least in my opinion, horns in when there is a lot of public pressure. Look at our society today...political correctness and all of that crap. It is so acceptable for a teenaged girl to get knocked up, continue school, keep the kid go to junior prom and do it again the next year. Or worse, quit school and have babies as a career. The government pays because there isn't a choice anymore. Sure there's a choice, several in fact, but the basic step is for the governement to butt out. The government rewards women who operate the system by giving them the lion's share of the marriage plus custody of the children and far more money than is needed to support those children and people are surprised when the numbers of these women increase. Whether the mother has been married or not, the subject is the same: rewarding bad behavior and wondering why the bad behavior increases. It's done so kids won't starve or die. Hardly. It's done for political correctness; that is, feminists demand women be treated special and men be punished for being male. Child support has nothing to do with supporting children. Most fathers would do whatever is necessary for their children but the government will not permit it. It's almost a badge of honor to be a single mother these days. It's shameful. I think it happens because there are so many fatherless homes. To a large degree, absolutely. So it is with may pathological amomalities such as failing or dropping out of school, drug use, runaway juveniles, child abuse and neglect, crime and many others. I don't agree with any of it but that's the way it is. People get divorced because they can, men abandon because they can, women think they can have it all but they can't. That's why marriages end and thank the feminists for the victim status many women take. It's downright pathetic. Too true. Except most fathers want to remain in their children's lives as a parent but are not allowed. The government promise is custody and a C$ order, which is promoted as "liberating" for women. In fact, it makes them dependent on the government instead of their husbands and due to the monolothic number of laws in this regard, the husbands then come under the control of the government as well. Phil #3 Phil #3 wrote: "tonita" wrote in message ups.com... Dogs and cats breed without thought. Humans are supposed to have evolved above that level. No one *has* to give in to that drive. I am not so sure. Of course, it is different between men and women. Men have a stronger sex drive than women, which is, IMO, the main reason some women think of men as perverts for having a normal (for men) sex drive. From what I've read, women can do without sex easier than men and the longer they do without it, the easier it is to do without it; sort of a self-fullfilling prophecy, if you will. Men, on the other hand, are sexual creatures and the longer they do without it, the stronger the urge becomes. It's nature's way of insuring continuation of the species. Still, you are correct in that no one has to give in but it *is* a natural drive. What is unnatural is *not* giving in to it. The problem is not sex, the problem is that the government is ready, willing, and with our tax and child support dollars, able to become surrogate husband and father. More is done to insure a steady supply of divorces with children than is devoted to the idea of a strong family consisting of mother, father, children. The strong family has no need for the government to step in and control the family (and a very large part of it's finance) and a split family, that is where at least one parent does not live with their children, the government is making a profit from enabling and assisting in broken familes and as a side benefit to an ever-increasing government, gaining further total control over the People. In short, it's not so simple as just saying "no". Phil #3 It's too bad everyone couldn't stay focused on the topic without all the bitterness taking over. Nothing will ever be solved in such a scattered way. Everyone wants to have their "Sex In The City" moments but refuse to consider the consequences after the fact. Hence the state of our world today. Too many fatherless kids, not enough personal accountability. Everyone wants theirs and to hell with everyone else. Someone else is always to blame. No more grit and backbone. Everyone is weak and must cater to their "feelings" above all else. Kind of makes for a very weak society in general and it certainly shows. I feel sad really. Kids are hurthing and the adults care very little about their psyches. As long as all the men and women are happily screwing, who cares? The kids will get over it, the kids will be fine, the kids don't care what the parents do. Go ahead and believe all that if that's what it takes to get through the day. There *are* good men and women in the world and I mean *real* men and women, not these morons who are behaving like juveniles. They're out there raising good kids, focusing on their families and working together to keep it together. They're not worried if they're going to feel good every second, or being happy every second. It's hard work and they're up for it. They're not into the blame game or the emotional tennis match, batting the blaming ball back and forth. Real men aren't guided by their penises and won't risk it all for some woman they hardly know. They actually care about who becomes the mother of their children. Real women are discerning and don't let just anyone into their bodies just for the momentary feelings. Real men and women don't have any interest in abortion issues or who's responsible for the pregnancy. They don't have to because they don't indulge in the self serving behavior that's created this mess in the first place. They don't have the "me, me, me" mindset. They sacrifice for the sake of their families. Yes, it's a very sad state and I suppose it will only get worse given the types of responses to this post. Everyone will just continue to blame someone else. Phil #3 wrote: Doesn't seem to have made much difference over the past 30 years although the marriage rate has dropped and will continue to do so, sex is one of humankind's basic drives. It's a difficult instinct to overcome. |
#338
|
|||
|
|||
The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "tonita" wrote in message ups.com... I think I just did answer that question so I'm not sure in what context you are asking here. Are you saying in *all* cases of pregnancy? Statistically men don't ask for custody of the newborn. Really? Is there a study that you can show us that states that men do not want custody of newborns? Or are you just going by what you see in the world around you? How do you know that men don't ask? Having to "ask" implies that the child does not belong to him. Your question can't be answered generally because all cases are different I suppose. And I guess women generally are the custodians, but at this time, men aren't fighting enough for their own rights. What makes you think that men aren't fighting for their rights--and losing most of the time? You can't just make an assumption about this. How many men as opposed to women really fight for the custody of a newborn? If there is a fight, Tonita, then I would assume that BOTH are fighting--my mother always taught us that it takes 2 to fight. Unfortunately, women are generally awarded custody simply because of the fact that they are women. THIS is what needs to change. 50/50 custody should be the default position of the family courts. And, if that is not a possibility, men should have as much right to sole custody as women do. 50/50 is ALWAYS a possibility unless one parent is dead. I wouldn't have a problem with a man gaining custody of his child. I dare to say there are a lot of women out there who should not be mothers but things won't change I guess for a long long time, if ever. So, I'll say this...a child should get monetary support from the non custodial parent, whoever it may be. How's that? ONLY if 50/50 custody is unworkable. THE CHILD deserves BOTH parents in his life. THAT is far more important than money. As for the general state of our society today, I agree with what you say. The number of out-of-wedlock births and single-parent homes is alarming. But the issue is not going to be solved by being punitive. Both genders need to have equal choices. Both have the right to abstain from sex or use adequate birth control, thus (hopefully) preventing a conception. But, in the event of a conception, all equality disappears. The woman is in control--for 18-22 years! I am willing to wager that, if the $$ were cut off, and dad had the child 50% of the time, women would be MUCH more careful about their choices. Raising 2 or 3 kids from 2 or 3 dads, balancing the times you can go places by the times that you have the children, and working to pay for the children's expenses when they are with you would not be nearly as pleasant as having full custody + child support from 3 different men. Equalize things, and I think we'd see a real change in things. You got that right! What keeps the "child support" industry going is MONEY....... plain and simple. teachrmama wrote: These are your words, Tonita--the words that I responded to: "If a man sires a kid he should pay support for the kid." My question stands: Why shoud the man pay support? Why should he not have the privilege of raising his child? |
#339
|
|||
|
|||
The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)
tonita wrote:
If a man sires a kid he should pay support for the kid. Simple concept. I believe that men and women should have equal rights and that the exercise of those "rights" should be equally effective and lead to equal, or at least equivalent outcomes. In most jurisdictions in the US, an unmarried mother can put her child up for adoption without the consent of the father and, if the father wants to retain custody of the child, he must assume all legal and financial responsibility by "adopting" his own child, thereby absolving the mother of all legal and financial responsibility, in only a few jurisdictions do fathers have this option and in NO jurisdiction do mothers have to "adopt" their children, absolving the father of responsibility... In a large, and growing number of jurisdictions in the US, a mother can legally abandon her infant child by dropping it off at a "responsible site" like a hospital, fire or police station. In only a few of these jurisdictions is this option available to a father. And, of course, there is abortion... When women are held to the same legal obligations as men are I will agree with you... ....ken |
#340
|
|||
|
|||
The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)
"tonita" wrote in message oups.com... Well, I wouldn't consider that an ideal start for a newborn to be schlepped back and forth. All babies need their mommies. Daddies perform different roles even though most people today disagree. Everyone wants to change human nature. But yes, both parents should have equal rights but you can't cut a child in half. I will never understand the female logic that it's okay for a newborn child to be "schlepped back and forth" from daycare 10 times per week, but it is not okay for a newborn child to be "schlepped back and forth" from their father a couple of times a week. Why aren't the trips to and from daycare worse than far fewer trips to be with the father? Why is it a mother would entrust a child to a daycare worker before they would entrust a child to the baby's father? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NFJA Position Statement: Child Support Enforcement Funding | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | March 2nd 06 12:49 AM |
AL: Court issues history-making decision in child custody case | Dusty | Child Support | 1 | August 3rd 05 01:07 AM |
Child Support Policy and the Welfare of Women and Children | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | May 13th 04 12:46 AM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Foster Parents | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
So much for the claims about Sweden | Kane | Spanking | 10 | November 5th 03 06:31 AM |