Who's right to choose, a womans right to choose.
- Thread starter CDNBear
- Start date
How have I not given an arguement for a level playing field?
Just because you do not like the answer, does not mean I didn't type it, nice try to deflect. You have still not answered the original question. It is likely you never will, because the answer will not jive with your mantra.
I only point out your apperant hatred of men because you had conyinuously projected it at me, reading into my comments, saying I said things I did not say, assuming I have some agenda(another question you have not answered). Pointing out your position is hardly insulting, unless of course you do not like what you see in the mirror?
One more time just for you. In bold big print, to make it easier.
TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD. WOMAN CAN SUPPORT THEIR OWN CHILDREN.
Now, that I have answered your question for the umpteenth time, perhaps you could do me the honour of answering one of mine.
Umm, isn't that the point of a legal case, to apply the law, and define the "winner" of the arguement.
Perhaps, "she gets support ordered, and his pay checks are garnished"
Is that better.
Symantics at best, his life is over and everyone elses is just as screwed.
I'm asking you what logic was applied by the courts for them to decide that the father had an obligation to provide support to their own child. Was the judge just some vindictive lunatic or do you think they looked at all the facts before deciding?
I personally know one guy, a family friend, who had some issues with visitation rights. He was not allowed to be alone with his daughter and he was on a rampage about father's rights. Frankly, the guy as cocaine addicted a-hole who couldn't manage his own security let alone that of a 2-year old, but he was writing letters to everyone and made a fabulous angelic-like case on paper. I didn't know his ex or his kid but it was evident why they had the restrictions involved. And if he had stopped buying coke he wouldn't have had a financial problem.
Let's get one thing straight. Many single parent females are quite capable of completing university degrees while parenting and going on to have very successful professional careers. Where do you get the idea that having a child means future opportunities and successes cease to exist! Furthermore, men can likewise pursue their hopes and dreams after children. I do have one "opinion" though, and that is that men that don't want to take responsibility for birth control and don't want responsibility for their children probably don't have much in the way of responsibility in their career position ... it just seems that men like that don't want any more responsibility than they had when they lived at home with mommy and daddy.
They looked at the facts and applied the law as it stands.
A cahnce encounter, ends in pregnancy, the woman choses to keep the baby, the man is therfore responsible to support her choice in the matter. Ergo, he must pay, legal confines of the law. Not an opinion or an emotion, common rule of law. Regardless of whether she had said "Oh you don't need a condom, I'm on the pill" or he said "I hate condoms, you're on the pill right?"
Neither is a defence that the law will allow. Nor does the law(to my knowledge) make provisions for accidents, ie condom failure or what have you. Not to mention, it is hardly provable that a woamn had tried to get pregnant by means of deception or malice.
It is hard topic to be sure, but as much as I can see the effects on woman who's lives are for ever changed by it, with the choices at hand(regardless of the hysterics and emotions of abortion, not to anyone in particular) it hardly seems to be a fair law when one of the particapants is ready and the other is not( and it rightly stupid to infer, that then they should not be having sex if they are not ready to commit, catch up to the times, not to anyone in particular), and that effect is compounded by a biased law.
Do babies grow on trees, or is that a consequence of sex that women alone bear.
There you go again: "your apperant hatred of men because you had conyinuously projected it at me".
What other options are there for leveling the legal playing field. We have: allow men to force women to have an abortion, make it illegal for women to have an abortion. Abortion is the only "opt out" option that you claim women have that men don't have, so that seems to be the issue.
I see, you would prefer to discuss whether men should have to contribute to the financial care of the men's children. I don't know ... men's children ... who should support them - welfare?
Excellent point.
There are many cases just like this, even in my small group, hence my advocation and shout outs to my two friends, Dunsmuir and Dunsmuir.
If your are unfit, you are unfit. I have an exfriend, whos wife I sent to my buddies. He's getting his just deserts for his actions that are not unsimular to your story. And rightly so.
But I am more inclined to worry about chance encounters and casual relationships that end in this tragedy.
ONLY if they CHOOSE! Women have ALL the choices! Cant you see that. Seriously......A woman CHOOSES to tell a casual stranger IF she is pregnant at all OR she CHOOSES to terminate the pregnancy in one of MANY different ways available to her (even indians had a "morning after pill" ) OR she can take the poor sod to court and ruin his life too! But its ALL HER CHOICE!
Family law is a provincial jurisdiction. Is it a bit of a coincidence that the same/similar decisions on family law come out of every jurisdiction. Every Province can create their own laws but everyone comes up with the wrong laws?
Absolutely true, I couldn't agree with you more.
The only flaw is, and this is fact. Go and try it if you think I'm lying...
If a man is locked into a support order, his chances of acquiring OSAP, or some form of training assistance is almost always denied. The reasoanble return, expectations of financial institutions that dole out such things over ride the underlying premiss of further ones education. Where on the other hand, a woman that has a support order or not, has no order against her, therefore her chances of financial assistance is greatly enhanced.
Same here in the states. I dont think they were wrong in the era's they were thought up in. There were different social rules then. I think there out dated and niave (?).
Of course.
If all the laws are based on a flawed judgement*, then yes all facsimile's thereof would undoubtedly be flawed.
Judgement, or case law that further procidings refer to too, for clarification or basis of arguement.
I do not believe the laws are wrong, though I may have said that heatedly, I do however, feel that there is a flaw.
The poor sod ... the poor little victim ... men, victimized by women because they don't want to grow up. You have got to be kidding.
"OR she can take the poor sod to court and ruin his life too" I like this part ... where you state that his life is ruined too, implying that her life has also been ruined.
And what gives woman the right to force them. Now we're getting into the Charater of Rights and Freedoms.
I think the day a court looks at a child and says your parent has no obligation to you because you could've been aborted or given away is the day hell starts thawing out. That wouldn't even happen while hell was freezing over.
There are federal guidelines governing child support contributions by parents spending less than 40% parenting. If a parent spends more than 40% of the time being a parent, they don't pay child support. These rules were implemented in 1997 because so many parents didn't want to spend time with their children and didn't want to contribute financially so someone else could raise the child. These laws are not outdated. What was outdated was the absence of a law protecting the rights of children.
Perhaps you should share the 40% fact with those cheap dads ... they can contribute time instead of money if they like - that seems like a pretty good option, eh.
They can continue going to school, they don't have to work at burger king, they don't have to ruin their lives (or should we say they don't have someone to blame for making nothing of their lives).
Last edited: