A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Choice for Men Entertainment



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 19th 08, 10:02 AM posted to alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support,alt.mens-rights
Kingsley G. Morse Jr. (Delete the D)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 114
Default Choice for Men Entertainment


KEEP YOUR PANTS ON! (ON ALL DAY, ON ALL NIGHT)

(C) 1994-1995,2001

There are times when, as a man, I just have to hang my head between my knees
and weep with joy when I contemplate my reproductive rights. We have no
recourse or remedy in cases of accidental pregnancy, if we're lied to about
contraception, or even if we're raped. I'm not making this up.

While women's reproductive rights have been recognized since Roe v. Wade in
1973, it has come to my attention that a certain other gender has never had
the right to "choice", despite the fact that sexism has been shown, by
scientific laboratory tests, to be bad.

Since 1973, millions(1) of women whose birth control failed, or who didn't
use birth control, or whatever, have had abortions. How many men have had
abortions? None! Why? (Besides the obvious I mean). Because the laws don't
give men a reproductive choice. As you know if you follow world events,
what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Yet our lawmakers, who
apparently haven't read newspapers or the Constitution yet, believe women
should have a choice and men should not.

It gets worse. Take the famous "Frank S." case(2) for example. The court
ordered Frank to pay child support even though Pam lied to him about using
birth control. Men can't use fraud as a defense. I'm not making this up.
This demonstrates the "No" means "No" principle. When a man says "No" to
parenthood, he really means 'Ignore me, I have "No" reproductive rights'.

And it's not just Frank. Ask Shane Seyer(3). Despite the fact that he was
just twelve years old and too young to legally consent to sex, he was forced
into parenthood by his baby sitter, and a court is making him pay child
support. The February 12th 1995 issue of the St. Louis Missouri
Post-Dispatch had article about another babysitter who forced a boy into
fatherhood. This brings up the burning issue: did the boys' parents raise
their allowances to pay child support?

And it's not just Frank and Shane. Lots of men are forced into parenthood.
Although Frank and Shane's cases are worse than most, you can bet that other
guys want a choice too. How many? According to our own federal government,
when its not busy deciding which picture to put on the Elvis stamp, over
500,000(4) paternities are established each year. "Paternities established"
is a secret code known only to the government, which can be translated as
"dragged into court and forced to be a father". 500,000 is about one a
minute, or the number of people living in Austin Texas. But this isn't the
whole picture. Paternities are only established for unwed mothers. Husbands
can dispense with the courtroom formality, proceed directly to forced
parenthood, do not pass go and don't collect $200. Other government figures
show that one out of four children are born to unwed mothers and preliminary
data indicates that 33%(5) of the four million(6) U.S. births each year may
be unintended by fathers.

At this point many reasonable readers might think that the best way to avoid
parenthood would be for men to "keep their pants on". On all day, on all
night, and on in the shower. Case law knows this as "the pants defense".
Some men would probably be willing to wear two, three or even four pairs of
pants, whatever it takes, if it worked. Armed with this advance information,
the determined men and women responsible for men's (current lack of)
reproductive rights have found more ways to force men into parenthood, and a
way that doesn't even require the "father" to have sex!

I'm not making this up either. Ask Rodney Darnell(7). Officials in Iowa have
begun garnishing his paycheck on behalf of a child with a different last
name. A DNA test proving that he is not the child's father was ruled
"irrelevant", as was the statement by the child's mother that he's not the
father.

Ultimately, there's the taxpayer, paying for children on welfare that he's
never even met. He stares off into space, thinking that this is yet another
case of our government serving him in a way he'd never have thought of
without the aid of a big bottle of booze.

Child support isn't cheap. Count on about 1/4 of take home pay for eighteen
years. Maybe guys should plea bargain to spend all of only four years in
jail and let it go at that. That's the kind of men we are. Don't even think
about the guys who are forced to pay for twins. I've decided to withhold
their names pending notification of next of kin.

So our laws are letting fraud, mistaken identity, and non consensual sex
force men into parenthood. Actually, I'm exaggerating. It turns out that our
laws DO give men a reproductive choice. men can always choose between paying
and going to jail. If you think men are being treated as scapegoats, I'm
sorry, you obviously have a bad attitude, and will most likely never be
satisfied with the real choice that men have now. It's called "Men's
Choice", and it's a hair color from Clairol. I'm not making this up.

It's not just men who want to change the law. So does a former president of
the National Organization of Women (NOW), Karen DeCrow. She was Frank's
attorney and said "Justice therefore dictates that if a woman makes a
unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father
does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21
years of support. Or, put another way, autonomous women making independent
decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice."

And it's not just men and Karen. My own survey found that more women want to
give men a choice than do men!(8) That's right. I, myself, asked 102 people
if men should have a choice, and more women said yes. Maybe women know just
how important choice is, and want their brothers and sons to have it.

And it's not just men and women. Its our environment. Too many births means
overpopulation, pollution and deforestation.

And it's not just humanity and the environment. This is also the opinion of
Men's Rights Inc. and the National Center for Men, which want to reform our
paternity laws.

So if Frank gets deceived again, he would have some recourse or remedy and
Pam can do what she wants, which may well involve a career robbing banks.
Or, Pam could:

1. have an abortion.

2. put the child up for adoption.

3. raise the child on her own, without any involvement or interference
from the father.

Unfortunately, at this point in time, people are treating reproductive
rights as a matter of personal taste. Person A may think reproductive
freedom is a fundamental right, as women have enjoyed since 1973, yet person
B might think all men are philandering scum who should be forced into
parenthood, and, if necessary, sell that extra kidney to pay child support.
But does this mean person B is wrong? Of course not. It simply means person
B is half-witted and should not be permitted to operate machinery. Of course
I'm kidding, machinery will never be THAT easy to operate.

My survey also showed that only about a third of us think men shouldn't have
a choice. Sheesh, what's this country coming to? Emancipation in the 1800's,
suffrage and choice for women in the 1900's, the next thing you know, men
might get a reproductive choice too. Of course we may all be flying around
in the Jetson's space ships by the time that happens.

On the other hand, if you don't want to wait that long, join a free email
based list server dedicated to legalizing Choice for Men.

References

1. Alan Guttmacher Institute, New York, NY, (212) 248-1111

2. 5/3/83 L. Pamela P. v Frank S., Court of Appeals of New York: 462
N.Y.S.2d 819 (Ct.App. 1983)

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. Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, 1992 Congressional Report

5. DRAFT Unintended Births: Women's Attitudes vis-a-vis their Male
Partners' Attitudes: 1982-1990, Joyce C. Abma and Linda J. Piccinino,
NCHS, 6525 Belcrest Road, Hyattsville, MD 20782, (301) 436-8731

6. Alan Guttmacher Institute, New York, NY, (212) 248-1111

7. Des Moines Register, Jan94 and News of the Weird, March 11, 1994

8. Survey conducted by Kingsley G. Morse Jr., October 1992, National
Center for Men, P.O. Box 555 Old Bethpage, NY 11804 (516) 942-2020.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Choice for Men Entertainment Kingsley G. Morse Jr. (Delete the D) Child Support 0 June 19th 07 10:02 AM
Choice for Men Entertainment Kingsley G. Morse Jr. (Delete the D) Child Support 2 March 19th 05 04:52 PM
Choice for Men Entertainment Kingsley G. Morse Jr. (Delete the D) Child Support 2 November 17th 04 10:35 AM
Choice for Men Entertainment Delete the D Child Support 0 November 19th 03 10:55 AM
Choice for Men Entertainment Delete the D Child Support 0 August 19th 03 10:55 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.