dawnstar


The problem is that we will like it to be in a way that all parties will be responsible for the care of children born out of wed luck.

But it ain't happening.

My whole issue is that we women are the one that control childbirth and pregnancies, we are the ones that get pregnant and most of the time the one that chose to bring children in this world.

And because of that we should also be responsible for the care of the child that we are bringing into this world out of wed luck.

Because after all most women are the ones that ends with the child.

By the way I see poverty everyday, within single mothers and within children in my neck of the woods.

Until you get to see what poverty does to a child and a women you can not possibly understand why women chose to bring children into that type of life.

Crack addiction is also another problem in my neck of the woods.

Until you see a child born a crack addicted having a seizure in school or an episode you do not understand why women will chose to bring a child to this world to be addicted like them.

And not to forget HIV another problem in my neck of the woods.

Yes responsibility should be shared when it comes to Choosing to bring children into this world our of wed luck

Is not happening.

Waiting for a man to take that responsibility is prove to be a waste of time for the women that chose to have these men children but still they are having then.

No only one child but many.

Before I came to the south as an adult married woman with two love and wanted children, my view of single mothers, abortion and poverty was not even part of my vocabulary and neither in my mind.

Because I never was really exposed to it

My first reaction, pity anger at society and the world.

What change my mind?

When I realized that many women are not force to do what they do but rather than improve themselves they just live life and Force their children to the same mediocre life they live.

The post in which I pointed out that most single mothers will live in a live of poverty at least here in the south.

Comes from an experience I have in a high school I was working, on the day of the welcoming of the school year.

The school is located in the side of town more deemed poor because the poverty level.

My [b[mouth drop open when the assistant supervisor stood up and asked all the pregnant teens to leave the amphitheater, to my dismay it was many.

Then the first words that came from their mouths was about how hard life was for a teen pregnant mother.

She told them that most of them if they got pregnant no to expect to have a man take care of them and the child, but rather seem them disappear.

Then She told them that without an education and with a child they would more likely would end in a life of poverty.

Then she just like that told the girls to Keep their legs cross.

My mouth just drop open and I thought that it was all my imagination.

In the 4 years my daughter attended high school never any school officials in any moment has made a speech like that to the students.

Occurs the schools were not the same by any means.

So you made your own opinion of what it should be rather than what the facts are by area, states and poverty.

Life is life and is hard life for a single mother in poverty in this country.

oh, well then maybe women should just keep their legs crossed their entire lives, since I know of plenty of women who had kids while married about in much the same boat.

I'm sorry, but I thought we were talking about laws here, we're talking about the realities of life? the realities that often laws are made up to change?

while I agree with you picture of reality, and hope that more young ladies will see this reality, it doesn't change the simple fact that if we start letting men off the legal hook of child support because they wanted an abortion, and she wouldn't do it will just make that reality much worse.

and it would be unjust, since that obligation is to the child, not either or the child's parents. unfortunately that obligation seem to have been kind of divided a little unfairly in the eyes of society. men should be footing the bills, moms should be taking care of raising and tending kids. then to suddenly say that women, unless they can shoulder the entire obligation (something most men couldn't do alone either) or abort the little darling, umm.....if this became policy any women with half a brain wouldn't be creating the little darlings! men would become sex starved nutcases....laws would probably be passed enforcing men's right to rule women, ect. ect.....lol!!

I have many men (some who were abusing) argue how well, their wives shouldn't have left them, if they couldn't support the kids. she left, so why should he have to support the kids she chose to take with them.

the two arguments seem too similar to me, the women chose an action, and that should relieve the men of all responsibility. but what promted the women's actions, was it actions made by the men, like abuse?

what I think the goal of both is might be to eliminate the women's independance from men. their freedom to leave the husband in the first place.....regardless of the reasons. this would lead to the "king of the castle"syndrome returning to the US.

As I read this thread I kept thinking about Robert Blake. He very likely killed his wife because she trapped him by intentionally impregnating herself.

Personally, I think there should be some support demanded of the father. I don't agree with the percentage that's currently assessed in most US states. There have been a lot of bankruptcies declared by men who simply can't afford what the laws dictate they have to pay. This is nothing less than punishing the man for having a child.

The assessed percentage should be lowered so that men can live without fear of permanent poverty.

On the other hand, if the mother takes the support, she must allow the father reasonable access to the child, which is also an issue. Women can be very malicious about this and I think the courts should take a firmer position in dealing with visitation violations by the mother.

The courts and social services should also stop assuming that the mother is always the best person to place the child with and that the mother is always telling the truth when there is a dispute between the parents.

My brother was a victim of the latter tactic. He was investigated three times by social services for disciplining his son and was exonerated all three times. The stress made him very ill, so he finally surrended all custody rights and hasn't seen his children in four years. His blood pressure has improved though.

Relative to my earlier points, he also had to declare bankruptcy because of his divorce. He has four children. Fortunately, two of them hit legal age before he had to declare a second time.

I know some of this is slightly OT, but it's background for my take on the issue.

Dawnstar my views about the law are just the same as your, you father a child yes is your child.

But also the point I am making is when the woman decides to have a child no matter what because after all is her right to chose.

You know how strong my believes are about abortion I am all for it, not questions about it.

No, I am not asking woman to cross their legs, but if they keep them cross it will be not pregnancy and not child.

I am all for sex because is a natural part of our beings and what makes us human, but you can have all the sex you want as long as you are responsible enough for your body and for somebody else body.

What the man is trying to do is to prove a point about pregnancy and the rights that a man have about parenthood.

So far it has been the woman choice and that is OK that is the way it should be, but it also bring abuses by many woman that uses pregnancy to get man.

The point is that Most single mothers are actually in the poor communities that chose to be impregnated by men that can not provide for them.

Now the argument about men abusing the system while is credible and true is by men that chose to have the children with their wives or partners they are bind to support the children that they fathered.

I agree that women should get independent but is not a very big number of single mothers that fall in the category of been financially stable to support themselves and their children.

Now taking about husbands and wive

That is another different matter is laws when it comes to divorces and separations.

My sister divorced after 5 years of an abusive marriage and two children.

Because she made three times what her husband did, guess who has the children and pays all the support?

Yes she does, he pays nothing and still have rights to visitation, and even dared to tried to contest the child support so he could keep the children and she would pay him.

Funny, he tried that because his lawyer was his own brother.

Yes we can go on and own, women with financial means that get out of bad marriages have not problem with forwarding the money to keep the ex out of their lives.

But is usually the single mother that have children out of wed luck that gets the bad deal, but then they have not problem procreating and having more children.

Expecting a man to support them.

That is my point.

Now can you imagine is a man decides to go to court because he wants men to force women into carrying their child instead of a women choosing abortion.?

That is another issue.

brEaDITOR

Is always going to be men that will do anything to avoid child support.

I also agree that many women uses children to get back to their ex husbands.

Unfortunately you are right courts will always favor the mother in child custody cases, sad but truth.

I am sorry for your brother, but see what happen to my sister, funny how we can go on with different opinions and different scenarios.

my observations and experiences tend to lead me to this:

once child or child come into the picture, well, the male partner is still pretty much free to devout most of his time and energy into earning money, while the female partner has both cut into by the extra responsibility of care and nurturing this child much more than her male counterpart. this usually leads to less earning potential, which I still say leads to courts automatically assuming the mother is the best candidate for guardianship.

but, it also leads to something else. the male has the earning potential, thus he controls the purse strings, she might have her earning potential cut back to the point where she really has no way of earning money at all....I've been there. so, no she doesn't have the power of the decision weather or not there will be an abortion, her male partner has the decision as to weather his money will or will not go to funding that abortion.

although, he choses that their should be an abortion, and she doesn't wish one, well, at the moment, there is no way that he can force her to have one. change that one little factor, well, then, for at least some women, they has no say whatsoever weather or not that child will be born or not. the man can decide that there shouldn't be an abortion by withholding the money needed to get it, but then he if decides that there should be one, well, he can just decide that he shouldn't have to support that child after it is born....

with a 50% divorce rate, it's an error to assume that it's just single pregnant teens we are talking about here. many of those paying childsupport were married to the women who had their kids. and yes, many of these women are living in proverty also.

it's an error to assume that the women holds all the cards when it comes to the decision that once conception has occurred weather or not the child should be born, Marge you should know this if you are living in the south. I lived in TX for ten years!! they have this attitude, if given the choice between hiring a man or a women for any decent paying jobs, they will pick the male everytime, regardless of qualifications or job history. their attitude is that the women has a husband taking care of her, the man has a family to take care of. it was my experience in texas, that at least some of these women couldn't even get a haircut without the husband's permission (and $$$) let alone an abortion! things might have changed some since I left texas, but well, my husband would really like to move back....I won't, because of this little quirk in the ways. I also know of quite a few women that once a child was in the picture, well, their ability to hold a job flew out the window. dad didn't want any part with helping with the childcare, and she just couldn't make enough to pay someone else to do it! so, dad earned the money, and therefore had the right to decide what that money should be spent on.

as for some men getting suckered into having kids by girlfriends....ummm don't doubt that it happens, but well, there can't be that many stupid girls in the world, can there? and, if they have any a lick of since they would be targeting the robert blakes of the world....since there are so many other men out there, that well, the percentage of what they take out of their checks doesn't even come close to what the child is actually costing to raise...thus the social service system.

I tell you what here where I am at, single women don't only have one child but also many children.

That is why I talk the way I do.

Its many scenarios like I said before, but remember who are the ones living in poverty mostly women.

The problem is that is the assumption that the male will provided for an unwanted child or be forced by the court to do it.

But in the area where I live Dawnstar, men that are fathering kids around have not a penny to pay for the children.

Occurs the story will vary depending the area where they live at or the state and economical level.

No court will no do anything to grant men to have a choice at least not yet.

But things may change one day.

"The problem is that is the assumption that the male will provided for an unwanted child or be forced by the court to do it. "

---------------------------------------------

I agree with you....unfortunately you can't consider that one, unless you consider the other side of the coin, the women are God's designated choice to be caring and nurturing them. the "traditional family is embedded into our social thinking still, and that is where the problems stem from...that man will love then wife more than themselves, always provide for her and the little ones they create, and that the women will always love....and obey, since that obedience stems from her financial dependency on him...and be the caregivers and homemakers.

it's a nice fairy tale, but well, sometimes it just doesn't work out in real life.

this is also the source of that attitude I spoke of that I encourtered in TX. the women really didn't need good paying jobs, since well, thay had a man providing for them or by God they should have!! only it kind of blocked out alot of opportunities to women who didn't have that imaginary man. thus, the proverty level is higher for women, and thus it is more extreme in TX. where by God, every women out there should have a man out there looking out for them and not relying on either employment or state programs to help them out!


but, are these single mothers single mothers because they chose to not have their kids out of wedlock, or are they divorcees from unsuccessful marriages, or both...
I think they are both. we just keep bringing up the pregnant teen because it helps to cloud the issue quite a bit, the actions that we take regarding the pregnant teen will also affect somewhere around 50% of the women in this country, who were married when they had their kids, but well, things for one reason or another didn't work out.
if the argument that well, I didn't want to have the kid but she refused to abort it, even after I offered to pay for it (had to, she certainly couldn't afford it) can get someone out of paying child support, well then how long will it take for them to start claiming well she chose to let me, I was taking care of the kids until then, but she chose to leave, so now I shouldn't have to pay child support! do we really want to lock women into unhappy, sometimes abusive marriages like this by so completely blocking her means to provide for her kids while living separately from her husband?

and, well, in a time when our economy is such that it is taking two parents working their tails off just to raise the kids.....ummm, can we say that unless one person, by themselves can support the future kids, well, maybe they shouldn't be having them??
do we want a future generation to take over when we are old?

Originally posted by dawnstar
---------------------------------------------

I agree with you....unfortunately you can't consider that one, unless you consider the other side of the coin, the women are God's designated choice to be caring and nurturing them.

Yes that is true we still engage our children into the role play of mommy and daddy sometimes unconsciously when we buy baby dolls for girls while getting toy trucks for boys.

Even mothers and fathers tend to treat their children differently but that is how we were brought up by our own parents.

And I agree that from there is where the problem arise.

Even I am guilty of this.

Hey even the wedding vows tells you so that the man will provide for the women.

And is a fairy tale but one that has it's root in Christianity, where the role of the woman in society is to serve the men.

this is also the source of that attitude I spoke of that I encourtered in TX. the women really didn't need good paying jobs, since well, thay had a man providing for them or by God they should have!!

Hey I am from the bible belt myself baptist rule country around here, but still single mothers and teen pregnancy is a big problem.

So much for the bible teachings.

See is a difference about the women that chose to have a child out of wed luck and a women that has to become a single mother do to a bad relationship.

At least in a marriage children are expected and care for it..

Another misconception that children born from homes with both parents will be all loved children.

Abortion that is another issue and you know how big has become now a days.

If women lose the right to abortion still men will or would not pay for child support and women still will lose but this time she has not choice then I see not problem with the courts forcing labor on men to support their out of wed luck children and the ex husbands than wants to bail out also.

But then again who is at fault if a women chose to become pregnant?

I tell you this whole issue can be spin and spin just like the thread on O'Connor comments right now Dawnstart.

Then your are Right also when you said that it takes now a days two parents to keep the home together and two incomes or more to keep certain happy standards of living.

My sister was challenged by her ex husband on the grounds that she was too busy to spend quality time with the children so while she was making the money the ex wanted her to support him and pay child support for him to take care of the kids.

The Irony, a completely different situation but it happens more than you imagine.

Then all this comes to the point. . . what will be necessary to control poverty and children been born out of wed luck?

Banning abortions? forcing fathers to labor so they can support children?

Ban women for having children out of wed luck and with not income?

Give men more rights when it comes to reproductive issues?

What next.

a simple shot, for men and women, that once given is 100% effective in sterilizing them until which time they and the gov't decides that they are worthy and ready to have children and then, and only then will the next shot be given that will allow them to have children again???

heck, we'd still end up with poor unwanted kids!

Originally posted by dawnstar
a simple shot, for men and women, that once given is 100% effective in sterilizing them until which time they and the gov't decides that they are worthy and ready to have children and then, and only then will the next shot be given that will allow them to have children again???

heck, we'd still end up with poor unwanted kids!

That will be the day dawnstar that will be the day because you know that religious rights are fighting very hard not only to stop abortions but also for taking away birth control methods from women.

What a big mess reproduction rights and fights can be.

it stems from that "king of the castle" syndrome that I mentioned, and the desire to rule.....

they will never give women full equality, and they will never give up their servants. so, they will never make birth control as easy or regulated as I described it, since without those unplanned pregnacies, women can indeed obtain equality, and well, they will have no more servants....

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
But it's clear from what you said after this, that this statement is untrue; when the father did not choose to father the child, then you do not believe he should be responsible for its support.

Incorrect, I talk of the choices before birth and the responsibilities that are to be changed before birth. I totally agree with the need for child welfare but throttling the living for the sake of someone yet to live is not fair.
I believe that women should show greater judgement in their decision to bear children by respecting the rights of the father "after" procreation. Today, advances in contraceptives allow for this to happen, antediluvian ideals aside.

That would in effect place a penalty on refusing to abort a child. Since placing a penalty on not doing something is exactly the definition of "forcing" a person to do them, you ARE in support of forcing a mother into a medical procedure against her wishes.

Again Incorrect, a penalty would be to first pay the man for emotional trauma and the rights to use his sperm for a child and then bear the cost of the child’s welfare on her own. That would be a 'penalty'. But it still wouldn’t force her into abortion as she would still be able to put the baby up for adoption and breakeven financially. While it wouldn’t be the same for men, who one fine day would be informed of their responsibilities without any choice in the matter all the while allowing the woman to sponge off the man's commitment towards the child for her selfishness in satisfying her womanhood.
So by asking the man to pay for the child, the legal system would in effect be condoning the woman’s selfishness and punishing the man.
Let us also not be under some delusion that the woman takes no pleasure out of sex. As in most cases the woman, as has an equal if not greater share of the pleasure.

Nature does not; reasonable human response to natural conditions does. It was those natural conditions I was referring to.

Doesn’t reasonable human response to natural condition cover respecting the wishes of the father? OR is reasonable response only expected from men?

Let us not delude ourselves any longer by claiming that a woman would be little more than a silent spectator to the events of sexual union or she would in someway unaware of what she is getting into. Let us come to admit that today, sex is not mainly about procreation as nature would want it but rather a sensuous act that seeks to satisfy lust/love (call it what you will!) Than any other sanctimonious precept that we would like to believe. Though this is not to say that ultimately procreation is not desirable after a certain stage but to brand that all sex is simply meant for procreation would not only be naive but also exhibit that some of us would have only a selective equity that helps compensate for our disadvantages while giving up none of our advantages.
These are the natural conditions that we should be referring to.

By the nature of things, a woman has a bigger stake and so, by law, a bigger say in whether a child is born than a man does. That's reality. Can't help it. Our laws shouldn't try to deny it.

What bigger stake ? Again I pose the question; Does 9 months of gestation entitle a woman a greater claim over the child ? If so, will having an IVF on a surrogate mother make the woman give up her dominant claim ?
The reality of the situation is that women can give birth and being able to do so cannot take their partners hostage financially just so that they may be able to give into their womanly vanity.

Just as the law provides adequate safegaurd for women who have been 'deserted' by their partners, so too should the law take into account the potential of women to 'throttle' their partners into a 'forced' commitment through deception and misinformation.

What I'm saying is that the results of requiring fathers to support their children, whether they wanted to father children or not, are less cruel and inhumane than allowing them to deny such responsibility.

Cruel to whom? To the child, who was in the first place a mere pawn of a woman’s subterfuge to extort money/commitment from the father in the first place? Or is it cruel to the father who is thrust with the burden of providing a ridiculous sum as financial support and more importantly the emotional burden of having a child they will hardly get to see; while he knows he can never pay the support that is desired of him, forcing him steadily into penury and debt and ending abruptly with bankruptcy and finally with suicide?
Isn’t it cruel that the woman gets rewarded for destroying 2 lives for the sake of her own vanity?

It is much harder to support a child alone, than to provide a share in child support. And requiring that a person support a child alone, hurts the child. That's wrong, and should not be done.

True, the child is affected by single parenting. Isn’t this all the more reason for the not to be a child in the first place without a firm family set up? Isn’t it the duty of the woman to ensure that her child will have a father who is there for the child? Or does getting checks in the mail compensate for a father?
Because of this problem, I feel that a woman should be persuaded against pregnancy until she is fully sure of the child’s emotional and financial security. But as they seem to be incapable of doing so and respecting their partner’s wishes, I feel that legal guarantees should be enforced to deter woman from getting pregnant without the support of their partners.

And you think that would decrease if you placed sole responsibility for support on the mother? It would not. It would increase.

I would disagree. Women would refrain from getting pregnant unilaterally, i.e. without the support of their partners, as they would realize that if they go through with it, the onus to look after the child would lie with them alone and thus unless they were fully prepared to care for the child, they wouldn’t be too eager to get pregnant. It would discourage single parenting and promote the number of family units.
You could argue that men could then shirk responsibility but responsibility goes both ways and today with contraceptives and modern medicine pregnancy is always optional.

Abortions would also increase, and while I am certainly in favor of abortion rights, anything that increases pressure on pregnant women to actually have an abortion is a bad idea.

Again, women wouldnt need to get an abortion if they were disinclined to do so. They can always give the child up for adoption if they are unable to care for it themselves, thereby giving the child a better chance and future.
This is traumatic I agree but as the interest of the child comes first, it would only be proper to let the child have a good home rather than one where the child lives with a single parent and lives of child support.

That's because there is nothing in the biological nature of women that prevents them from being able to vote intelligently,................ to serve in the military,..........., etc.

Vote intelligently yes but how would you explain women in the military if they were prone to menstruational cramps and such? Can you postpone war because all your pilots are on maternity leave? Or how would you explain women construction workers who though physically weaker still get work there despite there being better qualified men to do this?
It is because of legislation and the understanding of society to integrate women into the workplace despite their shortcomings that such things are allowed. Similarly we must not ignore their advantages and today, with the emphasis on total equity of the sexes, I would think the inequity with respect to men couldn’t be ignored.

Originally posted by maria_stardust
The sperm belongs to the man, there is no doubt about that. However, he does control where he sperm ends up. He decides whether or not to use a condom. If he chooses not to use a condom, or elects the "strategic withdrawl" method, then shame on him.

So you are saying that every time a woman has sex she explicitly agrees to have a baby with the man ? In that case the US should be the most populous nation on the planet ! And every time a man has sex with a woman he should be able to demand a child from her ! Will women agree to this ? I dont think so.
If it were possible to get fertile eggs out of a woman during intercourse as it is to get sperm out of a man then through an artificial womb a child is born would the woman readily pay child support for the child ? I doubt this would happen!

Just as you argue that the man controls his sperm then so does the woman control his sperm with contraceptive pills. I dont know exactly what you mean by the 'strategic withdrawl' but if I understand correctly, such withdrawl doesnt prevent pregnancy !

The safe sex arguement runs both ways. If he chooses to have unsafe sex, then the burden falls on him to help support any child he may have sired.

If a man chooses to have unsafe sex then doesnt this mean that the woman allows him to have unsafe sex? And if this is true than doesnt it mean that the woman should produce a child for the man ! But more often than not this is not the case. The woman finally gets to choose all the time if and when she wants to become pregnant and the man has little say in the matter.

If a man has sex, and a child is conceived, he has a financial and ethical responsibility to support that child.

Agreed but I am refering to the period after sex and before the confirmation of pergnancy. The period where the woman has the choice whether to have a child or not. Also I would like to add that isnt the mother ethicaly responsible to the child to see that the child has a stable and credible family support stucture ? By having a child disregarding her partners wishes, she not only disregards this responsibilty but also deceives the father. Isnt then letting the woman have the child plus the child support a reward for her duplicity ?
Are you saying that women should be allowed to deceive while men shouldnt?

End point: There is no such thing as, "all of the fun, and none of the responsibility."

Are you telling me that women dont have fun during sex ? From my personal experience I find this incredibly hard to believe !

Originally posted by dawnstar
why are you messing around with someone you don't know enough about that you can't figure out that she is decieving you???

I'd like to know why he's having sex with someone who he has no intention of commiting to. I'm guessing men like these must be just using women for sex as obviously they do not respect or love the woman if the only choices he's going to give her are 'abort or abandon'. Thats just callous.

[edit on 20-3-2006 by riley]

Originally posted by dawnstar
meanwhile......the rent is more for a two bedroom than it would be for a one bedroom, I think we could knock off about $100 if we could do with just a one bedroom. and, I sure would like to know where they found a place providing half way decent childcare for $100/mo.....lol!! then there's clothes.....you don't want to know how much that other part of social service, foster care, would allocate for clothing. food, school supplies and lunches, ect. ect. ect.......

Despite what is written on the link, in real life the man would be paying $500+ as not only would he have to pay the basic child care but he would also have to pay for the childs medical bills, health insurance, split or shared custody differences and deviation costs etc. There are a lot of hidden costs that are not factored into the models that the states use and these additional costs are compounded with the growth of the child.

All the sundry expenses aside, the main point would be for the mother to not have the child in the first place if she finds that the father is not willing to support the child and nor does she have the ability to do so. But legally she can impose on the father irrespective of his ability to provide. Also it is important to note that $400 of $2000 is 20%. Add to this the man has his own apartment's rent, family expenses, utility bills, taxes, credit cards etc and sometimes even an alimony. That leaves him to a hand to mouth exsistence at the end of the month with no help from the government or social services like the mother!

the fact is....in some cases, weather or not a women has an abortion is very much in the hands of the father, since he holds the financial power and the purse strings!!

An abortion would only be required if the woman didnt take a contraceptive pill in the first place which is actually covered by some insurance companies or even get a months worth for less than $30. Can a woman not mobilize $20 a month ? even a social security check could easily cover this !

there are also male rapists and abusers out their also!

So are there female rapists and abusers.

isn't the father equally responsible?
decieves the father?? how, by lying and saying she is using birth control?

That is a circular argument. My quoted text is with respect to the same question. The father can be blamed for a child lacking a family structure etc only when he would have consented to the child in the first place and then deserted the family. But that is not what is being discussed here.

Legally, both parents are expected to share responsibility but the nature of legislation is such that the mother has greater liberty when compared to the man in matters regarding the child while they share the same responsibility. This is still not equall as there should ideally be equal rights and equal responsibilites.

why are you taking her word for it? why are you placing your faith in it working? why are you messing around with someone you don't know enough about that you can't figure out that she is decieving you???

This seems like a personal question directed at me but if its not then; similarly
If the man shows enough trust in her to have sex then the man would also expect her to be honest about contraceptive use and the pill has an effectiveness of nearly 100%. Why would the woman place her faith in the man; to be able to support her; and decide to get pregnant even thought she knows that he cant support her or the child ?
Why is she deceiving her partner just to satisfy her urge to become a mother and in the process ruin both the fathers and the childs life ? Why are the courts rewarding her behaviour by letting her have both the child and child support?

Though your argument tends to move only from abstinence to financial commitment, my argument lies in the middle ground, which today represents the major bulk of the problems.

"An abortion would only be required if the woman didnt take a contraceptive pill in the first place which is actually covered by some insurance companies or even get a months worth for less than $30. Can a woman not mobilize $20 a month ? even a social security check could easily cover this ! "


---------------------------------------


.....................

yes.......and umm...the birth control pill can and does occasionally backfire, and ummm.....many women are advise not to take it because of health reasons, others are advised to get off it around 30 years of age....and ummm......you are taking to someone who has been in the financial bind that I've been describing here.....it would have only taken me $30 to come up with the clothing for my kids to continue on with school, my husband refused to let go of it, I couldn't work at the time, and well, he dropped out of school.....so, yes, depending on the circumstances, coming up with the money might be rather difficult..

but tell me something, since you think it seems so natural, if the women doesn't want the kid, she can use contraceptives (I wanted one, ended up with three.....contraceptives don't always work!!) or abort the child....okay, should the women also have the right, if after being married 20 or so years, and she reaches the magical age of 30 and told that she shouldn't take the pill anymore, well, can she force her husband to get sterilized, since he is the one with the purse strings, and it's cheaper for him, and less invasive a proceedure?

didn't think so....



[edit on 20-3-2006 by dawnstar]

i have been bitching on this issue for years..there are plenty of women out there that are lying to there mates and telling them they are taking there birth controll when they are not...if i ruled the world,you would have to get a license to have a child,because there are to many people having kids that cant even take care of themselves..