Men's reproductive rights and responsibilities revisited

reply to post by joechip


It really boils down to this. If you have sex you run these risks. If you don't want children then don't engage in sex. Abstinence is the only way to not have children.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
There are people who are gonna argue to the contrary but these are the facts why the courts award money to the women:

Women still are not equal and they are not paid the same as men.

Women tend to do the sacrificing, promotes their husbands or SO's careers, they also risk or hold back their careers to raise the family, or have no career at all.

They are discriminated against more. They are discriminated against more for having children.

They live longer, but childbirth can also be risky.

They tend to be left with the children.

That is why they get awarded money. To make up for the discrepncies in society.

That's not the point.....In an alimony discussion you raise valid points. However, In your example above.....

You reference a woman with 3 children. Now if I told you that the father would pay child support equivalent to $2000 per child per month...Do you think that figure ($6,000 a month) is sufficient to properly raise 3 children?

The problem is........If the father was making $1m a year.....He would be forced to pay a lot more. The cost of raising the child does not change....only the financial obligation changes....

reply to post by Flighty


Really?

I know of lets count em... five women right now who have children whose fathers have abandoned them. Only one is actually getting child support through the system. The others are either working under the table or cannot be found.

The last time I heard of a woman abandoning the family was one, about 12 years ago.

reply to post by Masterpumpkin


Because you can't put a price on a child. And they deserve every advantage they can be given.

If you have a family that the father is actually making one million. And the family is intact, is he really only going to shell out 200 per month for the family?

Or would the family try to give them the best healthcare, education, and clothing and food for the family. If the father only makes 1200 a month. Then he pays what he would of provided for the family on that salary.

Good question though.

reply to post by shamhat


There is an amazing hinderance in sex education. And as much as there is sadly, it is amazing how kids are lacking.

If you don't believe me, go back and listen to LOVE LINE. It will make you shake your head the questions kids ask.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Masterpumpkin

 

Because you can't put a price on a child. And they deserve every advantage they can be given.

I agree....BUT that should be the choice of the parent NOT mandated by the Gov't. As for putting a price on a child....No you can't....But you can put a cost associated with raising that child in accordance with acceptable standards.

The choice of putting that child in Private School vs a Public School should be afforded to the parent......Not be an accepted expectation by the Gov't

Originally posted by Masterpumpkin

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Masterpumpkin

 

Because you can't put a price on a child. And they deserve every advantage they can be given.

I agree....BUT that should be the choice of the parent NOT mandated by the Gov't. As for putting a price on a child....No you can't....But you can put a cost associated with raising that child in accordance with acceptable standards.

The choice of putting that child in Private School vs a Public School should be afforded to the parent......Not be an accepted expectation by the Gov't

I see where you are coming from. It is almost like the government is telling you how to parent.
I was just using school as an example.

BUT if the father (or mother) chooses not to be involved in the child's life, and is even forced to have to pay child support, do you think they are gonna go out of their way to provide perks?

I am just speculating. But I also wonder too if it has to do with if a parent does walk out their children's lives, and choose to do so, paying the highest amount possible deters them from creating more children that they are not going to take care of.

If the parent choses not to provide for the child...then it's a shame and it has to do more with a lack of responsibilities.....This is where the Gov't should step in...instead of bailing out the Banks, Auto Industry etc....

In my situation.....I have a 5 year old daughter and I pay close to $1200 a month plus insurance....I have a good job (knock on wood) but I live in an apartment, have a car that everytime I put the key into the ignition I pray it starts.

The mother has married, lives in a $300k house - has a boat, a 2009 Minivan, and a Harley Davidson. My daughter goes to private school, has every Scooby Doo video ever made, and plays Wii.......I have a problem in thinking that if somehow I get a raise of let's say $30k....I will have to pay more and that somehow is going to make a difference of how my daughter is raised.

reply to post by Masterpumpkin


I understand. And I have seen these situations before. I do think that if the mother remarries, that the step parent's income should be considered as well. I know this isn't what you want to hear. But one, kudos for providing for your daughter!! and two, just be glad that your daughter is in such a good situation. Even if your not.

I work in a welfare office, front line. I see way to many crying parents these days, begging for help. And way to many children living in cars.

[edit on 12-9-2009 by nixie_nox]

Originally posted by A Fortiori
First, you are engaging in an at of sexual reproduction that just happens to feel good. Its evolutionary purpose wasn't for pleasure.

Yes, but we evolved the ability to gain pleasure from that act of reproduction. Therefore we can deduce that the pleasure has a function in of itself.

A recent study of primates, I can’t recall which, found that infanticide by the males was reduced using ‘social control mechanisms’ introduced by the females. As the males were most likely to kill the young that were not related to them, the females, when fertile, would mate with as many of the males as they could, thereby preventing a certain determination of fatherhood, and thereby protecting the next generation. The male therefore will kill any young that are not his as they represent a threat to his lineage and social position , the female will on the other hand ‘sleep around’ in order to protect hers. Pleasure holds a functional purpose for all concerned, if either side wasn’t having a good time they (and indeed we) would be extinct by now. The difference for us, is that we can have the pleasure that nature provided us while using our sapience to avoid the natural consequences.

reply to post by nixie_nox


Here's the flaw in your thinking, The child support is not for the woman![or man in that rare case] How about child support be backed by receipts! Show where the money goes. Too many woman use child support to pay for their own good times. I think that paying the child's share of housing and utilites is fair, buy your kid back to school clothed and that money spent is towards your obligation. Men get short changed on the whole custody and rights. A little accountability would go a long way!

The purpose of government is to provide for national security, oversee the monetary system (Not to be confused with the economy), and Provide for the General advancement of society.

The government is not your Parent, or your children's parent.

The governmet does not have the responsibility to maintain your children, or to enforce relationships, or child care services.

That is what Courtship is all about.

To find someone who ACTUALLY WILL HELP YOU RAISE YOUR CHILDREN.


IT is called taking responsibility for your own actions, as opposed to mandating the government into the perpetual role of your Parent.


Do you really want to live in a "Big Brother" society? or a "Nanny State"


Because if that is what you want.... then that is what you will get.


A woman who choses to "Keep the Baby" has made a choice for herself.

She has chosen to take responsability for the child's welfare.

You cannot ask a man (Even if it is the father) to pay for *Your* choice.


That is called Slavery.


-Edrick

reply to post by nixie_nox

It really boils down to this. If you have sex you run these risks. If you don't want children then don't engage in sex. Abstinence is the only way to not have children.

Clearly what you're saying is: "If you're a man, It really boils down to this..."

This thread is about equal rights. If you are claiming that equal rights don't apply in this situation, fine, say so. We can argue that point. Let's be clear. A woman's choice doesn't end with the sex. It doesn't even end with the pregnancy. I will point out that the main focus of the thread is dismissed with another "that's just the way it is" type statement. Let's at least state our position here. You would, I presume insure a woman's right to "choose", and force parental responsibilities upon an unwilling man in the same breath. Correct me if I'm wrong. If not, I find your position morally bankrupt and intellectually indefensible.

reply to post by shamhat


Yes, I agree with you.

The key, in my opinion, is to look at sex logically and clinically. When sex is seen as recreational only then people will forget that there are consequences, just as people forget that with drugs and alcohol.

I know plenty of drug users who are quite clinical about the drugs they take and have actually not developed an addiction, conversely, I know those that use them as party drugs and they are now living back at home as sponges off their parents.

Same thing with sex. The media shows you only consequence free sex. Spontaneous, consequence free sex.

Using a condom with warming jelly inside and out(yes, graphic) feels just as good as quick sex on a washer without a condom. You can think about sex intelligently and still have fun.

It is when you forget, when you feel it has no consequences that you get into trouble.

reply to post by nixie_nox

Really?

I know of lets count em... five women right now who have children whose fathers have abandoned them. Only one is actually getting child support through the system. The others are either working under the table or cannot be found.

The last time I heard of a woman abandoning the family was one, about 12 years ago.

Do you know of anyone that ever had an abortion, or gave her child up for adoption? I'm pretty sure that happens quite alot, everywhere, everyday. At any rate, whether its extremely uncommon or commonplace, it remains a constitutionally protected right as interpreted by the Supreme Court. So when a woman chooses to give up her child for adoption, would you consider that "abandonment"? The choice to be a parent or not! That is the basic point. Your language leaves some question of the status of the men involved, but if we are talking about unmarried men, then I believe the women in question bear some responsibility for their children not having active committed fathers. I would argue they have the primary responsibility for this situation, as they had the "choice". Think about it.

reply to post by Masterpumpkin

The OP is off.

The "unmarried" non custodial male does have a choice. That choice is called contraceptives. Lack of planning is no defense. It's not as if condoms are not available on nearly every corner of this country.

Again, this is not "choice", unless we define this as "choice" for women. Of course we don't define "choice" as contraception for women. Take your argument back a step and see the presumption that underlies it. Simply put, the presumption is that motherhood is a choice and fatherhood is a biological fact. Two orders of reality here. You are undeniably denying the man choice, and the question is, why? I am very interested in your reasons. Please flesh out your position a bit for me.

edit for clarification

[edit on 12-9-2009 by joechip]

reply to post by nixie_nox


The mother of my children abandoned our children for a period of about 3 months til I managed to get it through her head what she was doing and what she stood to lose. So it does happen......

Originally posted by A Fortiori
The key, in my opinion, is to look at sex logically and clinically. When sex is seen as recreational only then people will forget that there are consequences, just as people forget that with drugs and alcohol.

I agree, although, when I say fun, I don't necessarily mean that in the recreational/pass-time sense, for me it is about two people enjoying each other in a physical expression. I could never enjoy myself with a random stranger.

Originally posted by A Fortiori
I know plenty of drug users who are quite clinical about the drugs they take and have actually not developed an addiction, conversely, I know those that use them as party drugs and they are now living back at home as sponges off their parents.

I'm not sure I like the comparison though I see what you are saying. If sex becomes so important to you that it dominates all your thoughts and actions, leads to repetitive mulitple partners/promiscuity, then to me, that is suggestive of a much deeper deficit that needs to be met.

Originally posted by A Fortiori
Same thing with sex. The media shows you only consequence free sex. Spontaneous, consequence free sex.

There is no such thing of course. I have once in my whole life had unprotected sex, and I didn't enjoy it. I regret that instead of leaving it a day or two and it being better for doing so, I allowed the moment to flow 'spontaneously'. I hasten to add, that I went straight to the family planning clinic the next day for the morning after pill and could not relax until I had done so.

Originally posted by A Fortiori
Using a condom with warming jelly inside and out(yes, graphic) feels just as good as quick sex on a washer without a condom. You can think about sex intelligently and still have fun.

Hmmm? Is the washer on spin cycle at the time? But yes, I agree.

Originally posted by A Fortiori
It is when you forget, when you feel it has no consequences that you get into trouble.

Do you forget, or do you chose 'to hell with it'...but that is exactly your point, unless pregnancy, STD knowledge is drilled into the consciousness, it can always be ignored or ignorance pled... The problem I suppose comes when either party caught out or caught short doesn't accept responsibility for their own actions as an adult. What is required is for both parties to think of the consequences first and not in retrospect once the horse has bolted.

Personally, this balance, between clinical and pleasure, is programmed into my thinking. For me it is only a pleasure when all other concerns are dealt with, I don't want to get pregnant and will not enjoy myself if I am worried about that. A few hours of fun is not worth 9 months of gestation and 18 years of upbringing because should I get pregnant I would take that responsibility seriously, planned or otherwise. So I would not, ever again, say to hell with it, or that I'll deal with it later by other means. Knowing yourself and your limits helps, it makes it easier both to say, no, when you are unprepared, and yes please, when you are.

All this, though, for me has come with maturity. Which takes us back to sex education and to you once again being quite correct. The eduation, clinical, has to take place before sex is even thought of at that level. Perhaps even prior to puberty for it to have a programming impact. That way the when those hormones kick in, the natural thought is that 'I am now a fertile', not that 'I am now horny'.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


I am not saying it doesn't happen. But the ratio is pretty skewed. It is far less common for a woman to take off then it is for a man.

Originally posted by joechip
reply to post by nixie_nox

 

Really?

I know of lets count em... five women right now who have children whose fathers have abandoned them. Only one is actually getting child support through the system. The others are either working under the table or cannot be found.

The last time I heard of a woman abandoning the family was one, about 12 years ago.

Do you know of anyone that ever had an abortion, or gave her child up for adoption? I'm pretty sure that happens quite alot, everywhere, everyday.

Yes and it does. But none of the decisions were ever made lightly, and usually the mother is in the position of not being able to raise a child. Both choices are an emotional nightmare. Nobody makes it lightly, and usually out of necessity.

At any rate, whether its extremely uncommon or commonplace, it remains a constitutionally protected right as interpreted by the Supreme Court. So when a woman chooses to give up her child for adoption, would you consider that "abandonment"?

Yes it is abandonment, but usually made out of necessity, not lack of responsibility.

The choice to be a parent or not! That is the basic point. Your language leaves some question of the status of the men involved, but if we are talking about unmarried men, then I believe the women in question bear some responsibility for their children not having active committed fathers.

Every single mother I know who is fighting for child support fully wants the father to be involved. Most of them were married, or in a relationship. Where they expected the father to remain.



Most women I know who got pregnant in one night stands, didn't pursue it, and take care of the kids on their own. Knowing full well it was their decision.

I would argue they have the primary responsibility for this situation, as they had the "choice". Think about it.

So lets say the male has the ability to make a choice, and he forces a woman to carry through the pregnancy. What if he walks away at the fourth month? Then you now have a woman who is carrying a child that she neither can take care of or wants. What if there are major complications? And it happens. I have a friend who had to submitted to the hospital at 4.5 months. through the remainder of her pregnancy. She now has 150,000$ in hospital bills. Who would be responsible for that?

And it basically comes down to nature. Pregnancy is risky business. And mostly a permanant one. With health effects on your body you can't get rid of. It may even leave you sterile so you can't have any more children. Unfortunately, men can't share in these risks. And they can walk away at any time. And they do. Is it fair? No. If your looking for an answer to whether it is fair or not. It isn't.

But that is why I am trying to say, if male truly doesn't want to be in that position, don't get yourself in that position. I am not trying to be mean, just trying to give a preventive measure.

If you want choice as a parent, the only sure choice is to not have sex. Unless your ready to be or not be a parent with someone. And you have that discussion beforehand, so you know where both partners stand.

There is a reason nature created infatuation between couples. And they "fall in love" because it is to help cement a relationship for pregnancy, and for that couple to raise a child.

That is why humans are so successful as a species, because both parents raise a child for long periods of time.

I am not demeaning the father's involvement in anyway. The father is an equally important role in a child's life. In fact, the actual ramifications of not having a father around have higher effects then if a mother leaves. The effects are more accute. Probably because before modern medicine, mothers were often lost during pregnancy.