Say Anything Blog

Rob: I am anti-abortion.  Under present law, however, only pregnant women have special rights.  I have long advocated that men have a choice to "abort their parental responsibilities" just like pregnant women do.  The difference?  No one dies as a result.  The taxpayers pick up the bill, just like when a woman can’t afford her abortion, unless the woman can afford to support her child.  Two wrongs don’t make a right(pun intended), but at least there would be equality under the law.  I really want it to reveal the hypocrisy of the "abortion rights" crowd.

It would be nice if men had a say about this whole thing. Then it would force the women to think really hard if they want to have the baby or not. Some women think they can get away with having the baby because they can always sue the father for child support. If they knew that they have nothing to look forward to, then they’d think twice of having babies. Moreso, they’d think twice before opening their legs!

Then again, this would only work if abortion was made illegal, except when the mother’s life is at risk. If it’s illegal, then people will think twice before having sex. 

Boys and girls… be responsible.

 
USE A CONDOM IF YOU CAN’T CONTROL YOUR URGES.

Don: The temperature in Hell is dropping rapidly, I think.  I agree with you almost entirely.  If abortion was made illegal, allowing men to abort their parental responsibility would no longer be necessary, because the responsibility for reproduction would once again be roughly equal.  My suggestion is to equalize the situation under the current situation.  I completely agree with your first paragraph;  nice logic!

Don: The temperature in Hell is dropping rapidly, I think.

 No, it’s still nice and toasty down there.  I think you have Don and Don the troll confused.

Oh, right.  My bad.  I thought I might be hallucinating.

Since the mother is, generally speaking, the primary caregiver to any child brought into the world, it is ultimately her decision. As much as I would like men to have an equal say on this issue, it is up to the woman to determine how much say we have.

Ed: My point exactly. The woman has total say over whether the kid is born or not, and is almost always given custody in cases of divorce, so women are primarily responsible for children.  Therefore, the man should not have to bear fiscal responsibility.  No power, no responsibility. If men have no say, then the woman has total responsibility.

This case illustrates the foundation of family law (marriage, divorce, child custody) brilliantly; it exists to protect the interests of the weaker parties (mothers and children) from the problems that may result when the husband/father wants to walk away or is injured/killed. 

It also brilliantly illustrates the absurdity of abortion; one of the weaker parties disposes of another instead of telling the stronger party to live up to his responsibilities. 

Robert: Yes, one of the "weaker parties" is made into the strongest party, without losing the privileges given to the ‘‘weaker party", in order to allow the "weaker party" to avoid responsibility altogether.  IMO, "abortion rights" are really about destroying the family structure, which interferes with the authority of the state.  It is a long range strategy.

Robert108. You said abortion rights are destroying the family. It does destroy family structure. In California and in some other states, a child who gets pregnant can go to the school nurse and get a referral to get a free abortion. Parents are not informed. How is that for undermining parental authority. A 13 year old who could not get a prescription for asperin or dental work without parental permission has the State on their side for a secret abortion.

I’m truly disgusted by the ignorance of the comments being made on this board.

Do you really think women treat having an abortions as casually as having a tooth pulled?  Every women I know who’s had an abortion has found it the most painful decision of her life, one that had serious psychological ramifications.  They made that choice because they felt it was the best choice they could make in the situation they were in.

The fact is, it is much easier for men to avoid their parental responsibility than for women.  The woman MUST make a choice, and if you think abortion is an easy choice for them to make, you are out of your minds.

Do those of you making these comments truly hate women as much as you seem to?  As if men have greater license to make stupid decisions about sex.  What kills me is how many folks who are against legal abortion are also against sex education in the schools.  Are you really so stupid as to think abstinence education works?  It doesn’t.  Pull your puritanical heads out of your a**es and read this for proof:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=30300

Al: Why do you hate your own sex so much?  Abstinence always works; the fault is in those who fail to practice it.  Thought that was  obvious.

AL,

Okay… so just how many of the folks who are against legal (for now) abortion actually are opposed to sex education in the (public) schools?  Please, tell me exactly what percent, and what is your "source" for this enlightened view of those with whom you differ?  BTW, the NARAL website doesn’t count as authoritative.

mats wrote 

 A 13 year old who could not get a prescription for asperin or dental work without parental permission has the State on their side for a secret abortion.

This tells me that 13-year-olds should be allowed to get dental work without parental permission.

Dave: That still doesn’t mean that unrestricted abortion for birth control purposes should be a "right".

Al, you seriously think that the anecdote you cite proves anything beyond that an anecdote occurred?

I’m one of those who is against condom-based (often called "comprehensive") sex education because, well, it’s been accompanied by the biggest jumps in teen fornication and pregnancy in history. 

In contrast, the teen fornication and pregnancy rates began to reverse as abstinence based sex education was tried.  Coincidence?  I think not.

And yes, I am aware of "studies" that claim that it doesn’t work, and took a look at one once.  That MN "study" simply claimed that because it wasn’t 100% effective, it wasn’t effective at all.  It used no control and did no statistical tests worthy of the name.

When I did a statistical test on the estimated likelihood of sexual experimentation among the study sample vs. the state at large, I found that (2 sample p test) there was a fairly large difference in the behavior of the two groups.  In short, abstinence education works.

Al spits out, Do those of you making these comments truly hate women as much as you seem to?

Check your ass at the door bud. We’re not the ones who advocate aborting the women. Seems that the "hate women" is coming from you.

What kills me is how many folks who are against legal abortion are also against sex education in the schools.  Are you really so stupid as to think abstinence education works?  It doesn’t.  Pull your puritanical heads out of your a**es and read this for proof:

Where is your "proof"?

The issue at hand is not debating whether a man who conscented to having a child and wants to seperate from the relationship should pay for the childs expenses.

Of course he should, but the issue this case is about to decide is to protect men from women who are obviously only out to cash in on the current system while getting a cute baby to show off bring yet another poor human being into the world for the wrong reasons.

Condoms slip, and  many women lie to get pregnant all the time and that is what this guy is basing this case on.

A man should have the right to let the woman know that they are not ready to have a child and that any child that results "accidentally" is either terminated, or the women may keep it but bear the responsibility.

He flat out told the bitch he did not want a child and yet she was cold enough to not only have the child but sit stone faced in court while the system legally fleeced his ass for 18 years.

Religious arguements are bullshit.
Pro-life is usually bullshit.

If I want to have casual sex with a woman and I let her know that we both have to use full protection and a baby happens I should be able to say I wont let you ruin my life or the childs potential life.

Either abort or face the challenge of raising the child ALONE.

Because bitch I done told ya.

Just watch how fast these women stop opening their legs to every tom dick and hairy.

"Like I said…Men choose to lay down with women or not to…I don’t feel sorry for him in the least…You do the crime…do the time.

And men think they’re so smart!! hahaha" posted by LEENA in a Roe VS Wade for men discussion forumn.

This is exactly the type of idiotic bitch that poor man is fighting against.

The very attitude he is trying to smash.

Morons will be morons but intelligent men are standing up for their rights and it is about time.

Most men will be able to choose now to let the woman know beforehand what could happen.

Men can then also choose to support the child if it is their wish.

The main arguement of the courts and their biased decisions is usually pro-life or religious reasons or simply biased backwards ass thinking.

BULLSHIT wake up and smell the reality of the universe you twits.

This case needs to pass not only for the sake of "men" but for the sake of our society which is supposedly based around equality and "justice".

Even if these men win this case the problem remains in the details of every couples situation for example:

When a woman takes a man to court for child support and he had informed her that he invoked his new rights how will they prove this in court.

Not saying all women will lie about it but greedy bitches will try to and therein will lie the real issue if this case suceeds.

My answer is dont associate with a woman who wont respect your new found rights in the relationship.

If your inform your partner of the fact that you are invoking these rights one of two things will happen as a result.

1. She will agree to a simple recorded verbal or written agreement based on the rights attained through Roe VS Wade for Men. because she respects you.

2. Or she will not give you any pussy and find some other sucker to dupe into paying her to live the good life for free.

Posted by Robert Perry in the above comments.

"This case illustrates the foundation of family law (marriage, divorce, child custody) brilliantly; it exists to protect the interests of the weaker parties (mothers and children) from the problems that may result when the husband/father wants to walk away or is injured/killed. 

It also brilliantly illustrates the absurdity of abortion; one of the weaker parties disposes of another instead of telling the stronger party to live up to his responsibilities.  "

Robert don’t be an idiot.

The case intends to give the average man the right to let the woman know that he is not conscenting to have a child whether accidental or otherwise and that if it does happen she will make the choice to keep the child or terminate it.

 This is to keep greedy bitches from making babies to take advantage of the current legal systems policies.

It has nothing to do with guys who conscented to have the child or were not smart enough to properly use protection.

If you do either of those without invoking the right that these men are fighting for it’s your own damned fault and you need to pay up.

It seems to me that everyone should have the "right" to abortion, not just pregnant women.  The man should have the "right" to abort his parental responsibility at any time without giving notice to anyone, and with no restrictions, at any time during the pregnancy, for any reason he deems fit, just like the woman has those rights with respect to aborting her child’s life.  That would be equality under the law.  His "right to privacy" should be respected, and the matter should be between him and his abortion clerk at his City Hall, or whatever govt agency would handle the task.

 It seems to me that everyone should have the "right" to abortion, not just pregnant women.  The man should have the "right" to abort his parental responsibility at any time without giving notice to anyone, and with no restrictions, at any time during the pregnancy, for any reason he deems fit, just like the woman has those rights with respect to aborting her child’s life.  That would be equality under the law.  His "right to privacy" should be respected, and the matter should be between him and his abortion clerk at his City Hall, or whatever govt agency would handle the task.

Thats another moot point since it should never have to become and should never be the mans choice to abort.

In the sense that if this case grants men the right to say in the beggining of a relationship that if we accidentally make a baby or you lie about birth control it is your resposibility to either abort or raise the child solo.

Since at that point the woman knows the mans stance on it and the only way a child could be had at that point is if she lies or an accidental pregnancy occurs thus it is her burden.

This right will protect those who are intelligent enough to use it plain and simple.

S: I’m saying that since a woman has no conditions imposed on her, not even the necessity of informing the father, the father’s rights should mirror hers.  He should have the "right" to abort his parental responsibility in private, at his whim, just like the woman. 

Slappynutz, perhaps it is you who needs to grow up and remember that if you happen to deposit your genetic material in a woman and become a father, you are liable for the care of that child.  End of story.

Ironically, you confirm my point in your fulmination against "greedy" young ladies.  You simply desire to be able to walk away from a situation that you took great pleasure in creating.  Those whom you might victimize in this way should have the law on their side.

Again, you make a baby, you pay for it.  Don’t make a child suffer because you weren’t willing to take a cold shower.

Robert: And yet you think the child should suffer death because its mother finds it inconvenient to bear it, once she made the choice(same as the man) to engage in that activity which produces babies.  Why don’t you hold her as responsible as you do the father?  At least when he aborts his parental "right" nobody dies.

Robert108; I’m pro-life.  Was simply responding to Slappy’s incredibly childish rants about how he wants the milk for free without buying, or even caring for, the cow.

And nobody dies when fathers abdicate their responsibilities?  Baloney.  The major reason given for abortion is (ahem) that the woman is not in a relationship where she can adequately care for the child.

In other words, most abortive women have the bad luck of having a boyfriend like Slappy here.  So yes, Slappy’s attitude is VERY lethal.

Moreover, most of the crime in this country is committed by the children of unwed parents.  The families of thousands of murder and rape victims each year can tell you how benign that kind of attitude is.

You still are missing the point of this case.

 The woman lied to him point blank bout not being physically able to have a child and now he is expected to pay her sorry ass $560.00 a month for child he did not  knowingly create.

Your attitude of he stuck his cock into her, a baby popped out, it is his fault and he must pay is a lame generalized statement.

Bullshit.

This type of thing needs to stop.

It is about time that men are given the right to use this situation to their advantage in court.

So that the woman who lied is responsible and in the case of unintended accidents some poor bastards life is not ruined by the biased views people seem have towards this issue which are clearly slanted toward the woman without even giving the man a chance.

There are women taking full advantage of this and it must stop through giving men the right to reach an agreement with their sexual partners that they did their part in not spurring the birth of a child.

If a woman lies or fails to do her part then it is her who will pay for the mistake since she caused it to happen.

Another thing I happen to believe in planned parenthood and I am keeping it in my pants until I meet a like minded woman who does not have the IQ of a dog in heat.

Robert: My legal point, all emotionally based arguments aside, is equality under the law.  If the woman consents to sex, she bears the consequences, including pregnancy, but has this escape hatch of sentencing the child to death.  I am simply saying that the man should have a somewhat equal escape hatch, except that he doesn’t sentence the child to death in the process.  You can nuance it all you like, but that is the truth.  If we give the woman all the power, then she ought to bear all the responsibility.  My entire argument on this, btw, is to point up the obscenity of Roe v Wade.  Of course, you have the right to lead your life the way you choose;  you just don’t have the right to impose your choices on anyone else.

Slappynutz, have you considered the possibility that this man is lying?  In a world where it is seen as OK to "lie about sex," how do we know who to believe in a he said/she said situation?

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060313/OPINION03/603130348&SearchID=73238752298230

But even if he’s not, he still deserves to pay child support.  Sorry.  There is no such thing as "no strings attached sex" or "safe sex," end of story.  Sex involves emotional commitment and physical risk, including babies, STDs, and complications. 

And yes, the law should reflect this.  When you have sex, you are risking emotional changes, STDs, and children, period.  You become legally obligated to deal with all three as well.

Maybe the guy is lying in his own case.

Maybe he is telling the truth.

The fact is that this type of thing happens to many other men who were not lying.

Maybe the guys case lawyers are not asking for the right solution.

If the contractual agreement solution is implemented than at least guys have a way to protect themselves from unscrupulous women and that is what they want out of this case.

The male can choose to use this contractual agreement or not.

If he does not then any pregnancy under any circumstances he must be held legally and financially liable for.

Why should a man have to become an atm for someone who would lie to him like that.

Or in other mens cases pay the price for an accidental pregnancy that the female has the right to abort or keep.

I think people have to many "pro-life" delusions put in their heads by religious and conservative fanatics who most of the time do not have a leg to stand on.

I understand your stance in that yes the man in the case did not use protection and if their was a simple legal agreement that summerized and clearly stated the desire of the male to prevent unwated births including both participants to use protection this thing would rarely happen.

Or if the woman lied in this agreement about her fertility the man would have been in the clear for not using a condom and vice versa.

Either way a new set of rights and laws needs to appear to equalize and educate people on mens rights in these situations because there is no denying that it is an issue that has gone undealt with for far to long.

Hopefully

Name one male reproductive right.

Name one male reproductive right.

I can’t find any in my Constitution, but my dog ate half of it.

The man’s right in this situation is to either have sex—and thus accept the possible roles of husband or father—or not have sex, and not get those roles.

I’m sorry, but no matter what level of seduction or deception is used, any thinking man (or woman) must own up to responsibility for his actions.  In this specific case, he’s got to ask himself "how does a 19 year old girl know she’s sterile?", "how many guys has she said that line to?", and "what kinds of interesting microbes might she have picked up on the way?", not to mention "what if she’s lying?"

Again, there isn’t any such thing as "safe sex."  To create new sections in the law as if such a thing were possible is folly and unspeakably cruel.

Robert:  That’s not a right.  I would support your position if the woman were held equally responsible;  no escape hatch of killing the child, unless the man has a similar right to kill his financial responsibility.  Anything else is bondage for men.

I guess we can speculate and try to find the logic in the situation but we will just have to wait and see.

 In my opinion the plantiff Dubay will likely get his peepee slapped by the courts and told to sit down, shut up, get nothing and like it.

Robert108, it certainly is a right, because the right to refuse consent to sex is protected by laws against rape.  It may not be the "equality of results" that you seem to advocate here, but it certainly is a right.

We also ought to consider whether we would really want this gentleman to win his suit and set the precedent that a man also has the right to insist on the adoption or destruction of his own child.  Under what criteria, pray tell?  Is it simply a cockamamie story, or is a legal contract required?  Does he have the right to insist on an abortion?

Yes, Roe V. Wade is "unfair," but the solution is not to ignore the historical right of children to support by their fathers.  It is to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Robert: You make my point.  The man’s right to sex is called rape.  It is only the woman who controls access to sex, and therefore she should incur all the responsibility.  I never said anything about an equality of results, so your quote isn’t from me.  I merely asserted that men should have equal rights under law, because we sure don’t have that now. I also never said anything about men destroying children, so don’t try to put that one on me, either.  I merely assert that if a woman has a right to an abortion, men should have a right to abort their paternity, in private and through equal legal means, subject to the same rules as for women destroying their children.  I keep saying this, and you keep distorting what I say.  This is getting boring.

If you believe you’re misquoted, I’ll quote you then:

"I merely assert that if a woman has a right to an abortion, men should have a right to abort their paternity, in private and through equal legal means, subject to the same rules as for women destroying their children."

And I emphatically disagree for the reasons I stated around the 5th post of this string.  Family rights begin with the right of a child to have the support of both parents, and the abrogation of the responsibility of one parent doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to jettison that idea for the other.  Just the opposite.

Robert: Your quotation of me contains neither of the "quotes" you attributed to me.  It is about equality under the law.  As long as the "right" to abortion exists, the same right to abort paternity should exist for men.  I guess you are confusing "aborting paternity", which would be filing a form, with "destroying their children" which involves the death of the child. 

I agree that such a "right" shouldn’t exist for either parent, but it exposes the hypocrisy of that "right" when you suggest applying it equally to men.  That is my point, which I repeat for at least the second time.  I want the same outcome as you do;  get it? 

Not quite yet—if you’ve been agreeing with me, please explain this: 

"I would support your position if the woman were held equally responsible;  no escape hatch of killing the child, unless the man has a similar right to kill his financial responsibility.  Anything else is bondage for men."

and

"As long as the "right" to abortion exists, the same right to abort paternity should exist for men.  I guess you are confusing "aborting paternity", which would be filing a form, with "destroying their children" which involves the death of the child.  "

 and

"I have long advocated that men have a choice to "abort their parental responsibilities" just like pregnant women do."

There is no confusion on my part here; unless you make absolutely clear that your "advocacy" of "termination of parental responsibilities" is merely a rhetorical play, I will assume that you are serious about further infringing on a child’s right to support by both of his parents, and I will object. 

Robert: First, there is no such right. If a child has any rights, it is to live.  If we don’t support that right, it is hypocrisy to assert any others, IMO. It is a social and legal tradition, and a good one.  I will say it one more time, and if you still don’t get it, it’s too bad.  I am against Roe v Wade;  it enables the slaughter of unborn children, and it creates special rights for pregnant women.  I suggest equal "abortion" rights for men, as being able to refuse the responsibility of paternity in the same way women abort their parental responsibility by killing the child.  The only difference is that the man’s right doesn’t kill the child.  Is that clear?  I think if we forced this equal protection to be afforded to men, it would force the re-examination of Roe v Wade, and hasten its demise.  You are just wrong, and willfully so about what I have written.  I don’t know what your problem is, but it isn’t with what I really suggest.  You willfully misinterpret what I write, and that is your problem, not mine.

Here is a good idea.

 Lets just start using genetic engineering to create smarter human beings so that in a few hundred years all the morons die out and walla problem is solved.

 No more retarded parents = no more unintended children.

The first line of defense that mainly women take on this issue is USE A CONDOM IF YOU CAN’T CONTROL YOUR URGES. Ok, lets be realistic…if both parties could control thier sexual urges and desires, Roe vs Wade would have never become an issue nor would child support or this issue.

If two people mutually decided to engage in unprotected sex (this happens millions of times a day) then two people at the time that a pregnancy occurs are EQUALLY responsible. This is the core of the issue of which most WOMEN clearly refuse to openly aknowledge. Women clearly have the option to OPT OUT in more than one way too. Abortion is certainly in my opinion much worse than a guy that doesnt pay child support. In fact, what do you think it is when a mother chooses to place a child up for adoption? Both cases are a very clear OPT OUT! And as it stands today, the mother can do such or be rewarded with the court ordering financial support.

 Sound like a looser dead beat dont I? I just happen to be a father that took custody of my two oldest children when the youngest was just 4 months. The mother went on to have three more of wich 2 she placed for adoption..HUMMM Imagine that! FYI- I also pay over 1200.00 a month for three other children but never received one red cent of support for the two that I took custody of. (Mother receives the lowest form of SSI Disability) My point is that she continued to have children, and continued to opt out and is rewarded with welfare for the one that she decided to keep and I cant even touch her for the ones that I have custody of. I have a case in the system right now that is identical to the mans case in question. This mother knew that not only did I not want anymore kids, but she knew that I coulnt afford them. She told me that the state forced her to have her tubes tied because she already had 5 on welfare… A BIG OLE LIE. Why shouldnt I be able to opt out, or force the courts to have made her have an adoption, or abortion?

HOPELESS IN PHILADELPHIA, PA (Former home of Judge Alito)

Yes, Slappy, let’s just get rid of all those unfit people.  Now if that doesn’t scare the heck out of you, please bone up on the history of the 20th century, specifically that of a nation called "Germany" from 1933 to 1945, OK?  There is no such thing as "lebensunwertes Leben," OK?

Robert108, the problem with your argument is that in all too many cases, men HAVE been allowed (with or without the support of the law) to "opt out" of parental responsibilities, and the results HAVE been lethal.

That is, hundreds of thousands of women "choose" abortion each year in order to maintain a relationship with a man who doesn’t want the child.  Moreover, hundreds of thousands of other fathers avoid child support simply by letting the mother go onto welfare—and their children have filled our jails and our inner city morgues.

So please, don’t tell me that your position isn’t lethal.  It’s been unofficially tried, and it’s killing about a million people each year.  You may not see it as immediately lethal, but when you step back and see the decisions that people are making, and why they’re making them, allowing men to abdicate their parental responsibilities (by persuading the mothers) is far more lethal than any war we’ve fought in this country.

Robert: It’s not my argument, but don’t let that stop you.  Where do you get your numbers?  You also state in one place that "hundreds of thousands" of women choose abortion each year in order to maintain a relationship…  How do you know that?  Women generally blame men for their problems, so self-reporting might just be a leetle bit inaccurate.  Do you have any evidence at all for any of what you claim results in death?  My position is to make men equal under the law.  That is not lethal.  What women do, since they have no responsibility for the consequences of their actions, is lethal, over a million times a year.

I’ll say it yet again: I favor women being equally responsible for their sexual behavior.  Get it?  That equality can be at the lowest level(allowing men to abort their financial responsibility) or at the highest level(requiring women to be as responsible as men).  Your hyperbole is your own, and bears no resemblance to anything I have written here.  

BTW, men are never "allowed" to escape their parental responsibility.  Some individuals may not get caught, but the present law holds them responsible.  I suspect you are just emotionally reacting to my ideas and are not being rational and thoughtful.  Please try to organize your thoughts instead of spewing out nonsense.  Women kill over a million unborn children a year in this country.  That is a fact, and I believe it is partially due to the fact that we do not hold them responsible for their sexual behavior.  I also believe that enabling them to escape their financial responsibility by transferring it to the father who had no say in the process is not the way to cut down on those killings.  To put it more simply:  No responsibility=lots of killing  Some responsibility=less killing.  What do you have against that?

Are you sure your name isn’t Roberta? 

Source; National Right to Life, sir, as well as Focus on the Family and virtually any other pro-life organization.  Also note that (same source and others) that most of the early feminists were vehemently pro-life and anti-abortion because (ahem) it allowed husbands and boyfriends to "dispose" of the fruit of their fornication—and forced women to deny the very essence of their womanhood, the ability to be a mother.  The fact that men use abortion as a means of implementing the "right" not to be a father is not one that is by any means subtle.  I personally know several families where just this plan was taken—and in general, it doesn’t even save the relationship.

Again, your plan has been de facto tried if not de jure, and the death toll is 45 million and counting in this country alone—and it’s 50 million per year elsewhere in the world.  Don’t you think it might be time to reconcile your opinions with reality?  Letting the man avoid his God-given responsibility is a recipe for death, not life.

What is wrong about all of this is women need to blame someone for all that is wrong in there live

1)      I’m Pregnant and it is your entire fault so pay me child support because you didn’t us birth control. Now let’s thing about this men really have one kind of birth control but women have more then 20 from a pill to a shot and the best is some of women birth control can last 3 years.

2)      I need more money for child support 17% of the father pay is not enough I need more if he can buy a new car to get to work so he can pay me child support he can give me more money. Now  the 17% women get from the father is to much because if the man is making 36,000 a year 17% of that is 6,120 a total of $510 a month and that come out after tax’s so the man mite get paid 1,290 a month after tax’s.

And before anyone says it is had to be a single parent we need help All I can say to you is grow up I have ban a single DAD for 13 years and in and out of court for 8 of them fighting for my son and a single MOM can’t say that because the court give you the kids. And I think being a single parent is the best thing in the world you don’t have to consult with the other parent for some thing you would like to do if the child would like to do a after school activity you don’t need to asking any one ells. As fare as child support goes I have never received a single cent and the court never did anything to her.

Hear I have a good one for the women out there say you are married to a man for 5 to 10 years have a family together and live the very happy you don’t work you stay home with the kids and you do all of the stay home house MOM stuff. Now you go to the mail box and see a litter address to your husband from family court. He come home and has known I dear wait this is about. He go down to the family court house and fines out one of his ex-girl friends is saying she had a child from hem 12 years ago and she waits child support from hem. Now lets thing about this lets say he makes 80,000 a year after tax’s he takes home 55,000 after you pay for all of the kids after school activities the car payments and the rent or mortgage and all of the bills you mite be able to save $500 a month. Now you find out she is going to take 17% of that 80,000 and that 17% get added up before tax’s and taking out after tax’s so your 55,000 take home just became 35,000 you can’t do anything about it so now the house MOM need to get a job. And welcome to a man life

Robert: You apparently lack the ability to comprehend what I write.  The man has no right to abort a child, and I have never advocated that, so you are wrong to put that on me.  What I advocate is equaity under the law. Since women have all the reproductive rights and men have none, women are create all the abortions, 100% of them.  Men have no choice in the matter.  If the woman wants to kill it, it’s dead.  If she wants to keep it, the man pays, even if he never gets any time with the child.  No man, except the abortion doctor, has a hand in any abortion.  Get it? My position of allowing the man to "abort" his financial responsibiity under the exact conditions imposed on the woman does not ever kill a child.  Since the mother has all the power, I advocate that she has all the responsibility.  Since the present situation, 45 million killings and counting, is the result of the present inequity, I propose something that might, but returning financial responsibility to the woman, cause her to have less casual sex, since she might have to deal with the financial consequences of her actions.  If you are going to continue to blame men for abortion, that dog won’t hunt, because it is simply a lie.

It’s not that I don’t "get" what you’re saying, it’s simply that there is little effective distinction between allowing a man to pressure his girlfriend for an abortion and allowing a man to sign a legal document to opt out of parental responsibilities.  Either way, the mother is strongly likely to choose prenatal homicide because she doesn’t have the support of the father.  End of story.

If you want to end abortion, insist that men honor the God-given responsibility of fatherhood.  Men who do not support their children should be shunned, even if that seems unfair in light of current law.

Since the abdication of reproductive responsibility by women is the cause of the abortion holocaust, how can requiring them to be somewhat responsible be a bad thing?  Are you really saying it could get worse than it is already? 

Your persistence in blaming men for abortion is just ridiculous.  Men have to say in reproduction whatsoever.  Whiny women may say that they are responding to pressure, but that is just women evading more responsibility.  They have all the power, and so should have all the responsibility.  I am suggesting a way to get them to accept some responsibility for what they do.

If she knows she will be financially responsibility, she won’t be so ready to have casual sex if she doesn’t want the result.  End of story.  Once the unintended pregnancy happens, it’s all bad.  The key is to prevent that, not excuse it.  The incentive for casual sex is the avoidance of any responsibility for the consequences.  It’s all up to the woman, under present law.

I understand your premise;  I just don’t buy it. 

It’s so sad when all you people can do is recite the bible to defend your cause.  Guess what, I think men should deserve the exact same rights as women get when they are faced with this same decision.  They have untill the first trimester to "denounce" the pregnancy, if for whatever reason the guys doesn’t make the time he should then be able to move onto adoption and such.  I think that biologicly women should and will always have the upperhand, and I also think that ultimatly laws like these shouldn’t effect 90% of the people out there.  They should be made to the 10% of women who want to use men, anyway they can.  I’ve heard of stories of women who even purposfully put holes in the condom and hope to get pregnant for the simple benifits of the state and the husband.

Are you saying we need to have some kind of pre writen up contract now for sex that says "I don’t want a baby if you have one I’ll sue"?  Let me put it bluntly, YOU’RE NEVER GOING TO STOP CASUAL SEX.  You’re also never going to stop teenagers from having sex…period, so why not tell them to use a condom before they discover it for themselfs?  Sure, more young people will have sex but is it worth 10% having sex and 90% of that 10% pregnant or 75% having sex and 1 chick gets pregnant?  So adapt or you’re going to get stuff like this popping up.  Everyone seems to agree that it takes 2 people to have sex, if the woman doesn’t want a child just as bad as the man it’s her responsibility to say what can and can’t enter her vagina.  If she says no, and the man persists you’ve got rape!  Hormones work both ways just like protection.

I’m trying my hardest not to be extreme, women should and will always have the upperhand but there’s no reason to give them such a power to destroy some guy who…just like the woman wanted a random fling one night.  If that’s really the case, both parties need to be punished, maybe forcing them to marry would be more along the lines of someting acceptable to you?  Cause it’s not for me…that would be one messed up kid, it defetes the purpose of even having kids.  Maybe we should just steralize everyone at birth untill they pass a class?

It’s so sad when all you people can do is recite the bible to defend your cause.

Recite the bible?  Have you even bothered to read the majority of the comments here?  I, for one, am an atheist and never quote the bible in support of anything. 

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Robert,

You mention in the latest posting that men ought to; and I quote "honor thier God given responsibilty to fatherhood"

Are you really going to justify that men should just lay down and face the fact since they got a woman pregnant, by the way I am sure that the majority of people would agree it is a CONSENSUAL decision between a man AND a woman, that they should be forced to pay for something that was consensual? I agree that woman have a greater role but to automatically justify that since she does decide to have a baby that guarantees payment from the man is ludicrious.

Please for future refernce don’t bring up our god given responsibilty, women have a god given responsibilty to….Don’t kill its not the baby’s fault that the parents were too stupid to refrain or use protection.

As a man, my primary interest here is the God-given responsibility of the father, not the mother, especially inasmuch as leadership goes Biblically and culturally to the man.  I do not deny the responsibility of the woman, but realistically speaking, that of the man comes first.  Who, after all, initiates most sexual encounters?  It’s not the one with two X chromosomes, gentlemen.

And yes, you’re never going to stop casual sex completely.  However, if we remind those who would like to engage in it that they will be held responsible for the children they father, we can greatly reduce it, along with the abortion rate—and the welfare rate, for what it’s worth.

So again, let’s quit this Mickey Mouse game of pretending that allowing men to "write off" parental responsibilities is something new or good.  It’s merely a codification of a wretched system we’ve had for about 40 years, and a murderous one at that.  Let’s try what worked for millenia prior to this instead.  Paternal responsibility.

Mr Perry,

I would like to point out to you that on whatever level you are basing your ideas upon please take this into consideration. Whether us men like it or not woman are the bearers of morality. Morality in the sense of many issues. Men may have a common place appearance that we are the leaders of societal issues but in all reality woman are the ones who bear the brunt of morality upon their shoulders. What I mean by this is morality issue is: Women, although we like to instigate our urges, women are the ones to have the ultimate say, they have more power than even they, I think realize, as to whether they are going to take us to bed or not. They are the ones who decides who and when they will bed us not the other way around. If that is the case then that may be an example of rape. We definetly are willing participants! Getting back to the point, your ideas that men should be responsible for all this abortion and child support and the codification of women is absurd. lets come to some nuetrality about it all and have some equality between the sexes. Yes woman can have an abortion, which should be illegal in my opinion, but the case is Men need to have some foothold in law to have the same opportunities that women have. would you not agree? 

Robert: You are seriously deluded if you think men initiate in relationship.  The woman always decides, because no matter how much you want to get together with her, she will ignore you if she has already decided she doesn’t want you, and if she has decided she wants you, everything you do will "work".  If you don’t notice her, she will figure out a way to make that happen, without appearing to.  They system we have now is responsible for the abortion holocaust, and women have all the power.  I don’t know why you continue to blame men for this, but men have no reproductive rights at all in this society. The murderous system to which you refer is the one with women having all the power in the reproductive area.  Men have nothing to say about it.  I know, because I have lost four children through abortion.  I had absolutely no power to prevent their deaths.  I offered to take the child completely and raise it, in each case, and was powerless to make it happen.  Don’t hand me any cr*p about men being responsible for abortion.  It just ain’t so.  I swear on my four dead children that what you support is death.  You can’t expect something to change if you aren’t willing to make changes in the process.  Keeping things the way they are is the death choice.

In order to remedy the inequality between the sexes many see regarding reproductive freedom, I propose Scarlett’s Law (named for the woman who suggested such a law to me on another site):

1. A man and a woman may enter into a Scarlett Contract (similar to a pre-nup) which states that the man will have no rights or responsibilities in regard to any child born to the couple. It would be legally binding (I’m no lawyer; how do you make a pre-nup legal? Do it that way.).

2. If a woman who signs a Scarlett Contract becomes pregnant with the man’s child, she has the options of A) aborting the fetus (the man pays half of any costs), B) giving birth and keeping the baby (the man pays for half of any medical expenses incurred during childbirth – but no child support), or C) putting the child up for adoption (the man pays half of any expenses).

3. The man has no parental rights regarding the child if the mother carries her to term. If he wishes at a later date to reclaim those rights, he must have the mother’s permission, and pay her (or sign a promissory note for) the amount he would have paid in child support during the child’s life (if the kid’s nine, then he owes nine years of child support - some of this money could go back to the government if the woman recieved finacial assistance previously).

4. If the woman dies during childbirth, the father regains custody. He may keep the child and assume his parental obligations. If he chooses not to keep the child, he can offer to let the family of the mother accept custody of the child. If they decline, he can put the child up for adoption.

5. In the absence of a Scarlett Contract, a man has the rights and responsibilities of fatherhood. No contract, no way to avoid child support. Period.

I’ll respond to a couple of expected criticisms:

“Child support is for the child. The mother can’t sign that away.”

I’m not one who has a problem with my tax dollars going to financial assitance for poor families. If a two parent family needs government assistance, they should get it. If a single mom who signed a Scarlett Contract needs assistance, she should get it too (from the government, not the father). I’m a Canadian with socialist leanings, so this is consistent with my principles.

“What kind of scumbag would have a woman sign a Scarlett Contract?”

I dunno. Probably the same kind who would have a woman sign a pre-nup. But wouldn’t a woman want to know he’s a scumbag before she gets pregnant with his child?

Any comments?

Raging: No change here:  the woman still has all the power.  The man still has no reproductive rights.

Robert:

 The man has the right to opt out of parenthood against his will using my proposed contract.  That’s not a reproductive right? 

I have read most of your comments.  I find the majority very funny, a man has the right to choose, he can choose to wear a condom or he can choose not to have sex. 

He can also choose not to rely on a womans word that she is sterile or on birth control.  The fact of the matter is women have babies and men don’t and it has and always will be that way.

For any man to say he got tricked into having kids is ridiculous.  Both parties lay down together and both parties should have to face the consequenses of thier actions.  It is already far to easy for men to walk away from responsibility and to comment on mr. slappynutz $560 a month barely covers child care the baby still needs clothes and food and a roof over its head. 

I think that when a man has the ability to get pregnant then and only then should he have the right to choose. I know most of you on this page pay taxes, if this law passes then who is going to take care of the children that the dead beat dads abandon, the tax payers.  I know I don’t want to pay more taxes I pay enough now.

Bottom line be an adult and take reponsibility for you actions, strap up and stop you blood clot crying!

Alishia:  Only the man has legal responsibility.  The woman can avoid her responsibility by killing the child, and the man has no say in the matter either way.  When the man walks away from his responsibility, no child is killed, and he is branded a criminal.  When the woman walks away from her responsibility, a child dies and she goes scot free.  The mother, having all the power, should take care of the child she has chosen, not the taxpayers.  If she doesn’t, she should be branded a criminal, just like the man.

Bottom line, the women should take responsibility for their actions, strap up and stop their crying! 

Killing the child was not the issue at hand and women have more than just a legal responsibility they have to care for the child. In this case the child is alive and well and both parties are held responsible.  And the man should have a legal responsibility because it is so easy for you to walk away. 

Just for the record I do no believe in abortion but I do believe a woman has a right to choose what to do with HER BODY.  I can’t force you to go have a vasectamy and you can’t force me to do something I don’t want to with my body. You can however, control YOUR SPERM!

Like I said before none of you idiots have a leg to stand on in this debate until the day you can bare a child.  The tax payers will pay if the fathers don’t because children are expensive and the people who made the child need to pay for it.  You must remember that women have babies not men so if you don’t want to do the time than wrap it up or keep it in your pants.

 There has not always been child support laws, they were put in place for a reason, so the government does not have to bear the burdon of caring for kids with dead beat dads and so men would be held accountable for their actions.

I bet you don’t have children do you Robert? Oh and can you tell me how is it phyically possible for women to strap up when we don’t have penises?

When women have the absolute power over consensual sex, and have absolute power over the life and death of the child, they have all the responsibility.  If women control their eggs, sperm control is unnecessary.  Don’t open your legs if you don’t want the child.  You have the right to control your own body, but there is another body in there, and you seem to have the right to kill that body at your whim.  You are right that both parents are responsible for the child, not just the man.  The woman can evade her responsibility by killing the child, but the man has no say either way.  That is responsibility without power.  If you read my previous posts, you will find out the status of my children.  Strap up your legs if you don’t want children.

The govt bears no burdens;  it is the taxpayers.  We should all have a voice in this.  We pay for a significant amount of the abortion expense, and some of us are sick of that.  A safety net encourages risky behavior. 

As someone who has been in this situation,ie nurseing student and haveing a girl friend of three months tell me that I am the miricle worker.She swore she couldnt get pregnant.I saw my nurseing career go down the toilet for child support.I did my duty and signed the birth certificate only to find later that she had torn up the one that i signed and changed  my daughters name,with out my signature on it.Women dont understand the life changeing situation that they put us in.they have twenty forms of birth control includeing the female condom,but still expect us to take responceibility while they get paid.To me ,this is a form of rape,except that it continues with the governments blessing.

All I am saying is two consenting adults have control over their sperm or eggs.  A woman can have sex with whom ever she wants and so can a man.  To tell women to keep their legs closed is silly because someone has to have sex with her to create a child and men should know by a certain age how babies are made, we can’t do it alone. Tell all these men that don’t want kids to protect them selves.  This mans situation could have been a lot worse, he could have contracted an STD. 

So if you don’t want to be a father keep it in you pants! And to Jay that you stupidity for beilieving what a woman that you only knew for three months said.

Women have babies and men don’t, the day you can get pregnant will be the day you can have a say so with what happens to an unborn child.

Alisha: Like you said, the man and the woman contribute equally, but only the man has enduring responsibility;  the woman can skate by killing the child.  If the woman doesn’t want a child, she should refrain from doing the thing that makes babies.  Allowing her to skate by killing it, but holding the man responsible is simply unjust.  Make both responsible, not just one.  Since women have babies and men don’t, women should have more responsibility, not less.  As a citizen, I have a say about the killing of children.  None of your rhetoric changes that.  The way things are now, women have all the power and none of the responsibility, which has given us the 1-2 million abortions a year.  You like that?

The man is not the only one with the enduring responsiblity when the mother of the child has a financial reponsibility and the parenting responsibility of caring for the child.  The money that men are asked to pay for child support is nothing compared to what the woman has to endure in raising and caring for a child. I don’t believe in abortion as I have stated before.

If this passes every man who doesn’t want to pay for a child won’t, the system doesn’t work that well now but you want to make it worse by allowing so many men to walk away. You want to make it easier for ignorant men to cat around making babies and then say they have no responsibility to care for them.  You may be an intellengent man but I know a lot of idiots that would use this as a way to escape reponsibility.  You are not looking at the big picture.

Sure this guy didn’t want kids and he was so called tricked into becoming a father so he says but where is the proof.  I think that since men have no say so in what happens to an unwanted pregnancy than they should be more responsible and stop thinking with their little heads.  If I was a man I would take extra care in protecting myself if I didn’t want any kids. 

I have no worries because this is a battle that men will never win.  So you can keep crying Robert cause it ain’t gonna happen!

Lady…you do realize that you’re putting 100% of the responsibility on the man for birth control right?  You do realize that sex takes 2 people?  And unprotected sex also takes 2 people?  Why not crying no if a condomless male penis gets near you?  If he puts it in then, it’s called rape…face the facts lady women are just as effected by hormones as men.

 I think what you need to realize is that this is going to be a very specific case that makes it and will most likly change how this issue will be viewed in the future.  I DO NOT think this is going to change the case of accidents but I think this will effect cases more specific to women who think "omg I got pregnant, if I keep the baby that means I ruin the guys life and get to do nothing all day…I better say I’m agianst abortion and force him to give me money".  Think of how many women would think differently about unsafe sex, just as men already do if they can no longer say "Ya…I’m on the pill" and then suck the guy dry because he wanted the encounter just as bad as the girl.

To further explain myself and how you’re completly wrong you have to put yourself in the other persons shoes.  Imagine being with someone for quite some time, they tell you they’re on birth control and there’s every indication that they are on it.  Months go by and you’re fine when suddenly out of nowhere there’s a child.  The woman stopped taking the birth control and didn’t tell the mate…now she leaves him and calls him a deadbeat dad and sucks his paychecks dry while raising a baby being able to sit at home and do nothing all day while over half of any money the guy makes goes to this woman who found a way out.

This case won’t effect much else, regardless of what you think.  It’s called revoultionary, maybe next time don’t use YOUR little head when encountering another man.  That’s the message this will send out.  I feel like I need to remind you…sex takes 2 lady.  Not 1, 2.

Aishia:  You really hate men, which is why you think the present situation is OK.  I advocate an end to the hypocrisy of the present situation, where the woman has all the power and no responsibility, and the man has all the responsibility and no power.  If women stepped up and took responsibility, this law wouldn’t be necessary and we wouldn’t be having 1-2 million abortions a year.  You continue to blame men for what is a problem with women’s lack of responsibility:  abortion.  You have a choice to kill or not to kill:  the man has no choice but to be subject to what the woman chooses.  He has no power, and you like that, while accusing men of being irresponsible.  If you have sex with a man who doesn’t want children, you are responsible for the outcome, aren’t you?  If you have sex with a man when you don’t want children, you are responsible for the outcome.  Whether you admit it or not, the present situation, since it disempowers men, encourages them to be irresponsible in the first place.  Your last statement reveals your consciousness quite clearly: you are at war with men, in your own mind.  So sad!  Your hatred distorts your mind.

Robert I don’t hate men and Chris if you read my previous posts you will read that I have said many times that I does take two to make a child and therefore those two should accept responsility.  I think that both parties should take an active role in birth control if they do not want children men and women BOTH!

The reality of the situation is there are so many different ways to view this situation but when two adults lay down together and they both choose not to use birth control than they are both responsible for the outcome.

There is no 100% effective birth control method other than abstenence.  This law suit would.  If you don’t want kids take the nessesary step to prevent an unitended pregnancy.

Aishia:  Since you probably grew up during the reign of feminism, you might not realize that before 1965, men and masculinity were celebrated as being positive.  You probably don’t think you hate men, but your repetition of some feminist slogans about men is hateful to any man who isn’t brainwashed by feminism.

I am right there with you about shared responsibility and would like it to be included in the law.  Right now, the woman can escape her responsibility but the man can’t, which isn’t shared responsibility.

Since no non-surgical birth control method is 100% effective, any vaginal intercourse may result in pregnancy.  That is a fact.  Of course, you are spot-on about abstinence.  It is just irresponsible to have the kind of sex that makes babies if you don’t want them.  I don’t think any pregnancy is "unintended".  I think "unconscious" or "irresponsible" would be more accurate. 

  I think that if men had a choice to be a father or not, then a lot less women would get pregnant.  I believe that most unplanned pregnancies occur because the woman wants to get pregnant.  I mean if a girl does not want to get pregnant, then she should either be on the pill, or make her boyfriend wear a condom.  Although, I think it was estimated that 1,000,000 unplanned pregnancies occur because of "birth control accidents".  I guarantee that these were deliberately careless acts of not taking the pill, but still making the boyfriend believe she was.   In a poll taken in a women’s magazine, 42% of women said they would lie about taking birth control in order to get pregnant.  If men had a choice about unplanned pregnancy, then women would not attempt to get pregant out of wedlock.  This would reduce pregancy thus also eliminate welfare moms.  This would be the best choice for America.

Other than sterilization is there a birth control pill  for us guys that would render the sperm sterile for the moment while taking a Pill?

I also feel if the man had a say lot less unplanned babies would be out there. It would eliminate a lot of welfare moms and it can also break the welfare mom cycle you know 8 out of 10 moms on welfare grow up on welfare.

In unwanted pregnancies, everyone loses.  As for my situation, I may be the father of an unwanted child.  There is a beautiful 2 year-old girl conceived in deceit and deception, instead of love and understanding by two otherwise wonderful people, who may be trapped in the midst of an all out war. 

When I first met the mother, I told her that I didn’t want a child with her or anyone else until I was married.  She advised me not to worry about that because she was on the pill.  In the beginning, even though she told me she was on the pill, I still used a condom with her because I feared contracting a disease just as much as getting her pregnant.  However, as time went on, I became more and more comfortable with her and would sometimes choose not to use protection.  For a while, everything was fine even though I wasn’t always protecting myself.  Then one day, I decided to call her to end our casual relationship because things had gotten more serious between my girlfriend and me.  As luck would have it, she called me a few weeks later to tell me she was pregnant.  I then asked her how could she be pregnant if she was on the pill.  To my dismay, she then stated that she was never on the pill.  She even stated, "Just because I told you I was on the pill but wasn’t, doesn’t mean I should go through this alone."  At that point, needless to say, I became very irate.  I requested that she have an abortion, but she refused.  Citing that I would be willing to take care of the child alone but didn’t want to ever have anything else to do with her, I requested that she let me adopt the child and never contact the two of us again.  She refused both options, so I decide to distance myself from her.  As the pregnancy progressed and my raged dampened, I begin to re-invest in a possible relationship with her simply for the sake of the child.  I was there with the mother as much as possible.  I would visit her often just to make sure she was okay, brought her fruits and vegetables, bought the mother-to-be a mother’s day gift, and even went to some of her prenatal doctor appointments trying to show support.  All the while, I’m dying inside because of the helpless feeling brought upon me by a deceitful person whom I must now spend the better part of my life with.  And now there’s a beautiful child involved in an ugly war of two very strong-willed people, neither giving an inch.  Me fighting to preserve the life I worked so hard to acquire, and her fighting to tear it down.  Regardless of the outcome, we all lose.  I lose, the mother loses, but most all, the child loses. 

Becoming a parent is a life-altering decision.  Unfortunately, for a man, someone else ultimately decides whether or not he will become one. Whether you agree or disagree with the moral implications of Roe vs. Wade for Men, you must understand, that it is trying to correct undoubtedly the most one-sided law under this great nation.  No other law ever implemented intentionally excludes nearly half of the general population, not including the Seperate But Equal Doctrine, and we all know how that turned out.  And it is the only law that discriminates based on either race, sex, color, religion, or national origin. All men are asking for is equal protection.  Nothing more, but nothing less either."

Nicely said

I also believe that if there is a 50-50 chance that a women will lose custody to the father,in the court system that women would have a lot less unentended pregnancys.Takeing a pill would look as good to them as it would to us guys,if we had one.

instead of lawyers manupulateing the custody system.There should be a simple flip of a coin to determin who recieves custody,making the slavery of child support an equal oppertunity nightmare.

At first blush this issue seemed really cut and dried—men should have the same number of options as women when it comes to reproductive control. But I think that this issue is more complex than meets the eye for a couple of reasons:

1) The differences in biology make a man and woman’s choices for reproductive control distinctly different (if you agree that legally, abortion is viewed as a form of reproductive control—- a woman should not be forced to reproduce by carrying a child to term. I don’t necessarily agree, I’m just setting up the legal basis) which, I think has some effect on what sorts of legal arguments can be made on the man’s behalf. Some would argue that a man’s reproductive control is in the act of sex itself: he has the right to control when he has sex, he knows that sperm will aid in pregnancy so he can choose to either not have sex or use some form of artificial birth control. A woman’s options for reproductive control are different. So in this scenario, it isn’t that men and women don’t have options—- their options are just different and distinct because of biology.

2) I think there is a greater public policy issue and am betting that this is the way the courts will go. Even though this opt-out would theoretically only be available for the length of time a woman has to "abort," this issue isn’t and can’t just be about the rights of the man and those of the woman. If a child is born out that kind of situation where the man has "opted out," the child also has rights that may supersede those of the biological parents. It’ll be interesting to see how the court balances all of this.

Mara:  I always knew it!  Biology is destiny.  The feminists denied this, of course, when it was to their political advantage.  It’s nice to see it coming back again.  A few quibbles:  At no point in the process is the man "in control".  He can only have sex with the permission of the woman;  anything else is rape or sexual assault.  He has no rights in this area!!!  He has responsibilities without any rights, which is supposedly not OK, but it is a daily reality for men.  Since the woman is not forced to reproduce; it is always her choice(except for rape), that argument has no basis.  Since the woman has the power to grant or refuse sex, she at least shares the responsibility equally, or should, but that is not the case.  She can opt out at any time, for any reason, or no reason at all, and the father has no power whatsoever.  This is not equality under the law, any way you slice it.

Nice to see you consider that the child has rights.  If the child has no right to be born, how can it have any rights at all? 

Problems for men do not acure before birth its the ones after birth we need to be concerned with.It is the 90% chance of not obtaining custade,Because the mother has custady at birth.And even if she is unfit.drug addiction ect the child needs her for about a year.Regardless And the fact that after taxes and support atleast in my case and child support I get to live on 25% of my grose income.Plus will not get a tax return.because she gets that to.and then there is a problem when you get behind,lay off or cutbacts.12 weeks inears=No drivers lisance.And regardless Of wether You know it or not If the mother refusses To give the child your name she dosnt have to married or not.And If you get more than 2 hours a week visitation.You did good.When you do loose your lisance you than inturn have a hard time finding and keeping work when you do find it.Than when A company needs to cut back on labor costs.Because of the extra headaches they have scu and adminstrative fees ect you get the ax.I think If Two poeple have sex.And a child consues they should be legally married.at birth and the fathers last name should be aotomatically the last name of the child and the mother get to pick the first.I dont care how you slice it if things were setup so the child has both parents in the same house and two people are together with one rent,light,bill ect.and both parents are Equally represented across the board.than there would be far less fathers running off.

And there should only be two reasons for a man not to have to pay support 1)The mothe didnt give the child the fathers last name.And 2)The woman refused to marry the childs father.Marrege is the key ephasis here.That is what is bes for the child and both parrents,If you wouldnt marry the person dont have sex with them.And If the father refuses ta atleast give marrege a chance than make him pay support untill he changes his mind.@ people working together and Putting the child first.Both watching the child and guiding the child.And in most cases two income coming into one house.And the rest will strengthen our country at the same time.In the case of devorce Joint physical custady.Nither parent forced to pay because A man or woman is likle to more than They will allow you to take If they spent time with a child and are allowed to actually be a parent not just a check.no one parent over the other one unless abbusave.Thats what needs to be done.

Hoodia gordonii diet pills.
http://beam.to/cellulitesolution/
http://beam.to/hoodiapills/
http://beam.to/hoodiagordonii/
http://beam.to/h57hoodia/
hoodia diet pills
hoodia gordonii
h57hoodia
cheap pharmacy hoodia cactus extract kill appetite pills.

Why do people keep bringing up “you all hate women” just because some men want equal protection?

First thing: someone brought up what women don’t have casual abortions and it’s the toughest decision for them in the whole world waaah waaah wahhh.  Wrong.  I know one woman personally and another by common association who’ve each had over 3 abortions simply because they don’t like using birth control.  I’m sure there are many more.

Second thing: I know several of you refuse to believe it, but the fact is women lie.  They do.  They prick condoms, they lie about the pill, they make up excuses, and on and on.  As a general rule, you CANNOT trust a single woman in her thirties on any topic regarding motherhood, pregnancy, or sex.  Believe me the biological clock is ticking…

So that brings me to my conclusion: if both partners take precautions to prevent a birth, and both parners agree that said birth is unwanted, then there needs to be some legal recourse for the male for the very reasons stated above - that you cannot trust that woman to not secretly want that birth.

It’s not so much of a “free-ride” thing as my fellow males have argued above.  Child support is by no means a free-ride for either the mother or the child.  It does, however, provide that final safety-net that the woman needs to support her in her deceitful deed.

I have an idea. Since the mother carries the baby, the father can decide whether the baby is carried to term or not. That way, he has equal responsibility as to whether the baby is carried or not. It’s the mother’s body, it’s the father’s decision.

Not only that, but make it a 50/50 chance that the father will get custody of the baby and the mother has to pay 75% of her salary to the father. And vice versa.

There we go, that’s equality.

As for those of you that only say “don’t spread your legs”, why don’t you keep your penii to yourself? Spare yourself the agony if you don’t want children. There are plenty of men in college who go out there and hang condoms on their doors, bragging about how much sex they’ve had. Do you think that’s the women that leave semen in the condoms, hang them on the doors and then go out and tell everyone?

I certainly don’t fool around like that. Sure, women do spread their legs, but men also have it in their biological systems to procreate also, and a lot of men choose to cheat on whoever they go out with. Biologically speaking, the more people men have sex with, the more likely they’ll have progeny and the more they will have. That’s just the way nature works.

ss: Legal sex only happens when the woman consents, therefore all consequences of that act are the woman’s responsibility.  Abortion, in its present form, is designed to relieve the woman of responsibility for having consented to sex.  The man, however, has no way to escape his responsibility.  Therefore, no equality under the law.  The real sufferer here is the child.  The death penalty for being conceived to the wrong woman.  No equality under the law there.  This whole Godless approach to reproduction is wrong in every way, and society suffers as a result.  Something like 70% of violent male offenders grew up without a father in the home.

Legal sex only occurs when a MAN and WOMAN consent. It is still rape if the man does not consent. It is the rape of a man.

The woman has to carry the baby, and feed it once it’s born. If you want equality, start there. Men are capable of breastfeeding, so why don’t we demand that they breastfeed the baby and have the ability to kill the baby just like the mother does?

Are you just taking a stand on abortion, or are you looking at the entire issue?

The issue seems to me as though men want to shrug off the responsibility when a baby is born so they can run off and do what they want.

After all, all they have to do is agree to stick their penis in and deposit their genetic material and then get the hell out of there.

By the way, sometimes sterilizing doesn’t quite work. There’s the possiblity of tubal pregnancies, or that they didn’t quite clip the penis right.

And being old is not necessarily an indicator of fertility. My grandma was supposed to be past menopause and yet she still carried my mom to term. Plenty of neighbors stopped by, telling grandma that if she didn’t want the baby, then they would take her. It’s just the way society works.

If 70% of violent offenders grew up without a male in the home, then why do you think it’s fair for men to run away from the home?

It is really too bad that both men and women would go to such extremes to shirk their responsibilities for a unplanned pregnancy…

This issue shouldn’t have anything to do with whether or not the man can decide to have the baby aborted.

It’s more about whether he is financially responsible.

Anon…That is what I am saying. Shirking responsiblity. We all need to take responsibikity for our actions. Financially or personally or whatever. It seems both the men and the women are going to extremes to get out of what they created…

exactly my point, zsa zsa.

ss: “Legal sex only occurs when a MAN and WOMAN consent. It is still rape if the man does not consent. It is the rape of a man.”

While you may be technically right, you would be laughed out of court with such a charge.  The reality is that there is not equality for men under present reproductive law, and that is probably for the best.  I favor an equality of escape, as it were.  I think a man should be able to abort his parental responsibility, which would probably result in women being more careful about who they f*ck, which is where it was before the pill and abortion on demand.  Sometimes, change isn’t progress.
Under the present situation, where men have no reproductive rights or choices, the accusation that men “run away” from fatherhood is just false.  We are driven out; we can plainly see that we are unnecessary the way it is now, and are actually unwanted, except for our wallets.  The solution here is respect for fatherhood, not more blame from the angry feminists.

Robert, in a perfect world neither parent would be able to “abort” their responsibility to the child.  The mother should have to have it and the father should have to provide either fathership or child support.

Unless responsibility is transfered to an acceptable adopting couple, that is.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Rob:  I agree.  In fact, I would go even farther and say that we open the door to bad things when sex is used for entertainment outside of marriage, at least vaginal intercourse.  Once that step is taken, it’s only a matter of time before something bad happens.  The question then is: “How do we deal with the consequences of that?”  Making them easy for women and tough for men doesn’t seem to be working, so let’s try something else.  Capice?  I don’t think we need perfection here, just good sense.

The “making it easy for women and tough for men” thing doesn’t work because (at least in my experience) men want sex more than women.  Men are more willing to look past the serious consequences of their actions (unwanted children) because they are, by their very nature, more inclined to want sex.  Women are less inclined to want sex, but have fewer consequences to having sex.  They can just abort any unwanted children.

The key should be to make the consequences high for both.  Make the women have the children, make both parents have to support it/provide for it.

This also has the benefit of halting this practice of murdering unborn children on the whim of the mother.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

“The key should be to make the consequences high for both. Make the women have the children, make both parents have to support it/provide for it.”

Absolutely.  Again, the question is what do we do until that happens?

I don’t know, robert.  I don’t think that alleviating responsibility for father’s is the answer though.  That’s just another step backwards.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Rob: I would tend to agree with you, at least on a theoretical basis.  I am dismayed by the utter failure and destructiveness of the present state of things, however, and don’t think we could make it much worse.  IMO, we are seeing our social structure crumble before our very eyes.  Abortion is not the only cause of this, but it certainly is a major contributor.  I see bringing things into balance as a possible move in the right direction, even if it only serves to make women hesitate a little more before spreading their legs.