Who's right to choose, a womans right to choose.

[Nikki]

Then since a woman can elect to fall down a flight of stairs and miscarry then our public education system will provide no services to single parent kids. Why should I pay for anyone's kid? You know why? It isn't the kids fault. AHA! Notice the kids interests, not the poorly handled attempt at mom falling down stairs. We have a responsibility to our children. We, the public, have a responsibility to everyone's children in public education no matter what. The same goes for the father. He has responsibility to provide for his own children no matter what the prior circumstances are. The kid's interests are what matters, not any of the prior circumstances.

WOW. You hold on just one minute. I can see your point of view as far as a father is concerned. But I opt to not have children. I DO NOT for one second want to be paying for someone else's brats. They choose to have children they can't afford that is their problem not mine.

 

[Kreskin]

WOW. You hold on just one minute. I can see your point of view as far as a father is concerned. But I opt to not have children. I DO NOT for one second want to be paying for someone else's brats. They choose to have children they can't afford that is their problem not mine.

You don't pay taxes?

 

[Nikki]

You don't pay taxes?

I sure do. Which is why child allowences and the day care stuff piss me off. Like I said I do not think the government should have these programes I opt to not have children and I do not want to pay for your brats becaues you made wrong choices or can't afford them.

 

[Kreskin]

I sure do. Which is why child allowences and the day care stuff piss me off. Like I said I do not think the government should have these programes I opt to not have children and I do not want to pay for your brats becaues you made wrong choices or can't afford them.

I won't argue with you on that. The sad part is you're paying for guys who won't even pay for their own kids.

 

[Nikki]

I won't argue with you on that. The sad part is you're paying for guys who won't even pay for their own kids.

*sigh* I know.

Believe me I really do agree with what you are saying as far as morals go. I do think its dispcable on the parents part to opt out (depending on the situation ofcourse). I mean how fair is it if two 19 year olds have sex and they are students. Male is freaking out because he has no choices in the matter. The female debates abortion for a while but decides it is not for her. Then looks at adoption well that isn't for her either so she decides she wants to keep the baby. Well the male really wanted her to pick one of these options as he is 19 not ready to be a dad and so now he is screwed because of all this. That doesn't make him lazy it makes him a scared 19 year old kid. And I really don't think the rest of his life should be ruiened because of it. You know?

I have always been taught that morals and laws really need to be seperated.

 

[Sassylassie]

Damn near 30 pages to this thread and nothing anyone has said has convinced me that the male is completely devoid of responsibility to help provide for any child that he fathers. Many have repeatedly stated, as have I, that the only - and I do mean ONLY - responsibility the courts force them take on is to contribute to the financial well being of a child.

The amount of money males actually contribute to the raising of their children in no way covers the actual cost of raising them. This is only a very small aspect of what a child needs from his parent. I beleive that any child needs what both parents can contribute to their upbringing... in some cases there are wonderful grandparents and other family involved in the child's life to provide that role modeling that is so needed - without input from a loving male parent, this has to be addressed by some other family member... yet another responsiblity abdicated by run away dads and left for others to pick up... And what about the other needs of the child - the nurturing, the being there for them 24/7 hours a day, the constant putting their needs first, the worrying about their well being, the endless sleepless nights spent trying to figure out how to stretch the paltry amount of child support to cover extras that pop up that can never be pre- anticipated, issues such as affordable, yet decent child care while the mother works... and yes ... most of us DO work to support our children. The caring for them while they're ill, worrying about job stability if your child needs you to take too much time off to care for them due to a lengthy illness.. these needs the mother takes care of can never have a price placed on them.

The price a woman pays far far far exceeds the piddly amounts of money that come off a man's paycheck... in this way, women already DO accept responsibility for their choice to keep that child. Their lives are changed forever, and most welcome this change, but rest assured, it's no picnic...

Another point I've not seen addressed yet is the men who think they want to be a father, and participate in the decision to keep the child, but find out 6 months or a year into it that it's really not what they want, and then bail out of the fathering role. The stance that they're not responsible financially or in any other way when they jointly decided to have that child... what about these guys?

If you want to separate the moral from the legal here, that's just ridiuclous, since most laws have some basis in morality. More learned minds than yours or mine have disected this issue and come up with the best possible solution... to hold men ONLY accountable financially... and even then... only somewhat responsible financially. I cannot help but see any other point of view as a push to allow men to have all the sex they want, with absolutely no personal accountability for the consequences. No matter how ya slice it, that's just how it comes off, and likely why the courts don't entertain any laws to support that stance.

IMO, the men that turn their backs on their children already are getting off easy. The bottom line is if a guy wants to avoid such consequences, there's only one sure fire way to ensure he doesn't get caught with his pants down... and that's by keeping them zipped up.

Zan, since I buried this thread personally I guess I'm posting this from the great beyond. Zan that is a great post, and no the courts will never pass legislation, I will title it "Dick heads Law" so a man can go about impregnating women at will without consequences (paying child support) just because she "Chooses" to have the child. Frankly it's the most assine, childish and immature point of view I've ever heard. I'd expect a male hormone driven teenager to think up this malarky but never a grown adult.

Kreskin wrote: Opting out of responsibility is somehow equal to opting out of being a physical slave? What the hell do either of these have to do with each other? I don't think you get it. The right to an abortion is simply a right not to be a physical slave. Nothing more. There is no expectation to have one. It is not a desired outcome. The law doesn't expect a woman or a child to give up other rights because she has right not to be a slave. She doesn't have this right because it is a means of birth control. The law does not look at this right from the birth control perpsective. It is allowed only because she has a right not to be a slave. If some women choose it for birth control, there isn't much we can do about it. For the millions of others that would never in a million years exercise this right under any circumstances, their children don't automatically lose their rights and the fathers don't automatically receive free deadbeat passes

Yep bang on there Kreskin.

Niki wrote:
A physical slave this is what you call pregnancy nice. Accidents happen sure. And I am personally pro choice. But I think males should have equal rights.

Sure I'm all for a man having an abortion, when their species evolves. Not all females believe in abortion, I don't but I believe it's the individual females right to choose. You Niki seem to think it's like brushing your teeth, where as I think it's the killing of a child.

Niki wrote: Originally Posted by Nikki
I sure do. Which is why child allowences and the day care stuff piss me off. Like I said I do not think the government should have these programes I opt to not have children and I do not want to pay for your brats becaues you made wrong choices or can't afford them.

Well your mind set is the reason so many females raise their children on welfare, how many men pay child support for their children on Social Assistance almost none, zip nada. So these lazy losers can lounge around and do nothing to support the children they fathered while we the tax payer support these children. So tell me again that men don't have a choice, children living a life time in poverty because their father is a lazy bastard who "OPTED" out of his responsibilities. So Bear and Niki the men do have a choice and they decided daily to abandon their children to a life of poverty because they don't wanna be a father. So there is your choice for you Bear, abandon a child and let the Tax Payer pay for it men have been doing it for 30 years why break the cycle of despair and poverty now. Oh poor poor males what a burden it must be to want to hoe around with out any responsibilities.

 

[Kreskin]

*sigh* I know.

Believe me I really do agree with what you are saying as far as morals go. I do think its dispcable on the parents part to opt out (depending on the situation ofcourse). I mean how fair is it if two 19 year olds have sex and they are students. Male is freaking out because he has no choices in the matter. The female debates abortion for a while but decides it is not for her. Then looks at adoption well that isn't for her either so she decides she wants to keep the baby. Well the male really wanted her to pick one of these options as he is 19 not ready to be a dad and so now he is screwed because of all this. That doesn't make him lazy it makes him a scared 19 year old kid. And I really don't think the rest of his life should be ruiened because of it. You know?

I have always been taught that morals and laws really need to be seperated.

I think where I differ substantially on this issue is the viewing of an abortion as a wanted choice. I used the woman falling down stairs for a miscarriage example as an equivalent right. Or just because I have the right of self defense doesn't mean it can be legally used against me if I don't use it when I'm being beaten. A murderer doesn't get off scott free just because there was no evidence of his victim not exercising a right of self defense. Men should be happy it's a choice they never have to make. I consider myself pretty lucky that my sole responsibility during child birth is selecting the right cigars, or counting aimlessly beside my wife in labor just because the prenatal teacher told me to. I see the entire choice argument as neither here nor there, impossible to compare, and extremely pointless in doing so because once the child arrives that is the only fact that remains relevant.

 

[Nikki]

Niki wrote:
A physical slave this is what you call pregnancy nice. Accidents happen sure. And I am personally pro choice. But I think males should have equal rights.

Sure I'm all for a man having an abortion, when their species evolves. Not all females believe in abortion, I don't but I believe it's the individual females right to choose. You Niki seem to think it's like brushing your teeth, where as I think it's the killing of a child.

First off lets learn to spell my name. It's Nikki not Niki. Secondly we are not discussing the morals behind abortion. And I have yet to say weather or not I feel abortion is killing a child I only said that I was pro choice. You know why? Because that is not the issue at hand.

Niki wrote: Originally Posted by Nikki
I sure do. Which is why child allowences and the day care stuff piss me off. Like I said I do not think the government should have these programes I opt to not have children and I do not want to pay for your brats becaues you made wrong choices or can't afford them.

Well your mind set is the reason so many females raise their children on welfare, how many men pay child support for their children on Social Assistance almost none, zip nada. So these lazy losers can lounge around and do nothing to support the children they fathered while we the tax payer support these children. So tell me again that men don't have a choice, children living a life time in poverty because their father is a lazy bastard who "OPTED" out of his responsibilities. So Bear and Niki the men do have a choice and they decided daily to abandon their children to a life of poverty because they don't wanna be a father. So there is your choice for you Bear, abandon a child and let the Tax Payer pay for it men have been doing it for 30 years why break the cycle of despair and poverty now. Oh poor poor males what a burden it must be to want to hoe around with out any responsibilities.

Ugh once again you are missing the point. It isn't about morals!!!!! How many times do we have to tell you that. It isn't about weather or not we think that the males are lazy bastards for opting out. And like I said you don't even know that is the situation. It could be some 16 year old teenagers who had sex and now the female wants to keep the child instead of doing what is best for it and either a) adopting it out to a loving family who wants it or b) Adopting it out to a family member. So now some 16 year old male is Fuk'd for the rest of his life because some female didn't make the right decision before or after.

Females can opt and males should have the same opportunitie.

You are way to focused on the morality behind it. Stop screaming about how lazy males are.

 

[Nikki]

I think where I differ substantially on this issue is the viewing of an abortion as a wanted choice. I used the woman falling down stairs for a miscarriage example as an equivalent right. Or just because I have the right of self defense doesn't mean it can be legally used against me if I don't use it when I'm being beaten. A murderer doesn't get off scott free just because there was no evidence of his victim not exercising a right of self defense. Men should be happy it's a choice they never have to make. I consider myself pretty lucky that my sole responsibility during child birth is selecting the right cigars, or counting aimlessly beside my wife in labor just because the prenatal teacher told me to. I see the entire choice argument as neither here nor there, impossible to compare, and extremely pointless in doing so because once the child arrives that is the only fact that remains relevant.

I understand this. But let me put it to you this way. What if your 16 year old had sex and a pregnancy happened. What if this other 16 year old decided she wanted to keep the child ( not abort or give it up) and her parents said "well we aren't helping get the hell out". So now she is out on the street and is suddenly taking your 16 yr old son to court for child support. Don't you think your son should have a say in what happens with this child and what is best for it. Your sons life is suddenly over.

You are right in that everything should be about the child no doubt about it. However not every to be parent or parent make the right decisions.

My point is that the female does not always make the right decsions.

 

[Kreskin]

I understand this. But let me put it to you this way. What if your 16 year old had sex and a pregnancy happened. What if this other 16 year old decided she wanted to keep the child ( not abort or give it up) and her parents said "well we aren't helping get the hell out". So now she is out on the street and is suddenly taking your 16 yr old son to court for child support. Don't you think your son should have a say in what happens with this child and what is best for it. Your sons life is suddenly over.

You are right in that everything should be about the child no doubt about it. However not every to be parent or parent make the right decisions.

My point is that the female does not always make the right decsions.

If her parents were kicking her and my one-month old grandson onto the street I'd probably go over and give her parents a swift kick in the ass, then I'd bring her and my grandson into our home. There would be no need for court because I would want to help them. I would arrange counselling for both 16-year olds and have them come to a reasonable decision on how to move forward. I would expect both of them to share responsibility.

I believe I read of a court decision in the States that required normally a $500 minimum monthly child support but in the case of a 16-year old student they reduced it to $50 because he could go out and mow lawns or do whatever in his off-school time to pitch in. I believe it was expected that as the male grew older and increased his income he would have more financial obligation. Sounds reasonable to me.

No matter what was decided, her not electing an abortion would have no bearing. I don't believe that factored into the US decision at all, nor should it have.

If he had raped her would he have no responsibility for his actions?

 

[Outta here]

If her parents were kicking her and my one-month old grandson onto the street I'd probably go over and give her parents a swift kick in the ass, then I'd bring her and my grandson into our home. There would be no need for court because I would want to help them. I would arrange counselling for both 16-year olds and have them come to a reasonable decision on how to move forward. I would expect both of them to share responsibility.

Good response Kreskin, and I too am more than a little surprised at any responses which would advocate anything less. This, I believe is the behaviour of reasonable, responsible people. I would do the same...

and yes, it would be an unfortunate twist in both 16 year old lives if such a thing were to occur, but wringing one's hands, crying victim and looking for ways out of the situation is not the answer. Buck up, step up and get on with it. If they're adult enough to engage in consensual sex, they're adult enough to handle what comes next... especially with positive supports from their own parents. Taking an 'every man for himself' attitude at times like this helps no one, and does nothing to instill any sense of personal accountability into a young person.

 

[lena]

womans.......no other...next...

 

[Zzarchov]

Some Thoughts here.

If this situation is causing so much stir (And by the way, before you start calling me a deadbeat, keep in mind I was raised by a single mother and fully understand the concept what it means in real terms to have a father who doesn't pay support)

Perhaps the simplest solution is once the baby is born to have one sole guardian. If the Mother and Father want it they can fight over it, if only one wants it they can take it, and if neither want it they can put it up for adoption (we have a baby shortage after all)

But the current system isn't fair. I mean, currently all the arguements against assume the mother is an angel and the father a bottom feeding carp of some form.

1.) The bottom feeder is as likely to be the mother as the father.
2.) the angel is as likely to be the father as the mother.
3.) If the father is a bottom feeding carp like creature should he really be the father? Further more, if he does the responsible thing and realises he is in fact not able to be a father..should he AND THE CHILD be punished if the Crack ***** mother that slept with this failure wants a welfare cheque?

Lets end the sexism ok, which is what this blatantly is.

 

[selfactivated]

If this situation is causing so much stir (And by the way, before you start calling me a deadbeat, keep in mind I was raised by a single mother and fully understand the concept what it means in real terms to have a father who doesn't pay support)

Perhaps the simplest solution is once the baby is born to have one sole guardian. If the Mother and Father want it they can fight over it, if only one wants it they can take it, and if neither want it they can put it up for adoption (we have a baby shortage after all)

But the current system isn't fair. I mean, currently all the arguements against assume the mother is an angel and the father a bottom feeding carp of some form.

1.) The bottom feeder is as likely to be the mother as the father.
2.) the angel is as likely to be the father as the mother.
3.) If the father is a bottom feeding carp like creature should he really be the father? Further more, if he does the responsible thing and realises he is in fact not able to be a father..should he AND THE CHILD be punished if the Crack ***** mother that slept with this failure wants a welfare cheque?

Lets end the sexism ok, which is what this blatantly is.

THANK YOU!!!

 

[Kreskin]

If this situation is causing so much stir (And by the way, before you start calling me a deadbeat, keep in mind I was raised by a single mother and fully understand the concept what it means in real terms to have a father who doesn't pay support)

Perhaps the simplest solution is once the baby is born to have one sole guardian. If the Mother and Father want it they can fight over it, if only one wants it they can take it, and if neither want it they can put it up for adoption (we have a baby shortage after all)

But the current system isn't fair. I mean, currently all the arguements against assume the mother is an angel and the father a bottom feeding carp of some form.

1.) The bottom feeder is as likely to be the mother as the father.
2.) the angel is as likely to be the father as the mother.
3.) If the father is a bottom feeding carp like creature should he really be the father? Further more, if he does the responsible thing and realises he is in fact not able to be a father..should he AND THE CHILD be punished if the Crack ***** mother that slept with this failure wants a welfare cheque?

Lets end the sexism ok, which is what this blatantly is.

The only reason this is painting the father as a bottom feeding carp is because in this thread he is saying it is his right to be one. The issue being argued isn't sexist in the slightest, unless you consider not helping your kid because they could've been aborted as a sexist position. I couldn't care less if the mother is an angel/hoe or the father an angel/deadbeat. Both had better buck up to jointly support the kid they created or agree on another solution. If one intends to cut and run they can expect life to get a whole lot worse than what it is if the other elects to hold them accountable.

 

[Zzarchov]

Its seemed to me Kreskin that this thread is not per say about that.

It is about the fact that the mother is allowed to be a bottom feeder carp and the father cannot. The logic being either none or both should be able to be bottom feeders. The situation where one can and the other cannot is not fair.

The second string is the insistence that women have an inalienable right to be bottom feeders (but not men).

So the debate could argue the other way as well. What important is that both parents have to have the same inhibitions or allowances to be a deadbeat parent.

One cannot be free to be a deadbeat while the other cannot.

 

[Kreskin]

Its seemed to me Kreskin that this thread is not per say about that.

It is about the fact that the mother is allowed to be a bottom feeder carp and the father cannot. The logic being either none or both should be able to be bottom feeders. The situation where one can and the other cannot is not fair.

The second string is the insistence that women have an inalienable right to be bottom feeders (but not men).

So the debate could argue the other way as well. What important is that both parents have to have the same inhibitions or allowances to be a deadbeat parent.

One cannot be free to be a deadbeat while the other cannot.

That's not the thread I've been involved with here. From the first couple of pages it became a comparison of "rights". That since a woman can have an abortion a guy can therefore not take any responsibility for his children. Feel free to talk about dreadful mothers if you wish. I'll be more than happy to rant about them as well.

 

[talloola]

*sigh* I know.

Believe me I really do agree with what you are saying as far as morals go. I do think its dispcable on the parents part to opt out (depending on the situation ofcourse). I mean how fair is it if two 19 year olds ha.ve sex and they are students. Male is freaking out because he has no choices in the matter. The female debates abortion for a while but decides it is not for her. Then looks at adoption well that isn't for her either so she decides she wants to keep the baby. Well the male really wanted her to pick one of these options as he is 19 not ready to be a dad and so now he is screwed because of all this. That doesn't make him lazy it makes him a scared 19 year old kid. And I really don't think the rest of his life should be ruiened because of it. You know?

I have always been taught that morals and laws really need to be seperated.

The father to be has just as much responsibility as the mother to be, as her future, her education, her
ability to earn a good living, can be affected just as much as his.
She was not ready to be a mom just as much as he wasn't ready to be a dad, TOUGH, once the deed
is done it is too late to feel "sorry" for either one, they both have to face up to responsibility.
The reason the legal system may have to become involved is because he "can" run away, but she "can't."

 

[Kreskin]

The father to be has just as much responsibility as the mother to be, as her future, her education, her
ability to earn a good living, can be affected just as much as his.
She was not ready to be a mom just as much as he wasn't ready to be a dad, TOUGH, once the deed
is done it is too late to feel "sorry" for either one, they both have to face up to responsibility.
The reason the legal system may have to become involved is because he "can" run away, but she "can't."

Good point. When she runs it is on the 6 o'clock news with the headline "Mother Abandons Child".

 

[selfactivated]

Good point. When she runs it is on the 6 o'clock news with the headline "Mother Abandons Child".

Only if she abandoned it in the toilet or the dumpster, or hey how about the mom that drowned all her kids and saved herself? Theres REAL parent material. The question is this.......if you want to continue bashing each other instead of an adult conversation is it worth your time bothering at all?