Men's-rights activists seek right to decline fatherhood in event of unplanned pregnancy

page: 6
55
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by joechip
Five pages and no one cares to discuss the legal aspects of this case? The constitutional implications? I'm surprised and disappointed with my favorite site. To deny ignorance is to also to embrace reason. If we won't ever examine the underlying "rights" that are (or are not) being infringed here, why so much hoo-haw about The Constitution here on ats?


Alright, I'll support you in this.
I hope this helps, but feel free to
redirect if it is not the subject or the
direction you would like the talk to go.


This is how to legitimize powers that are unconstitutional.
1. Bring up someone on deviate behavior allegations (polygamy)
2. Publicize in such a way that people condemn the accused just hearing the story.
    for instance, subconsciously most people think, 'I don't have 12 wives the police should stop him.'

3. Bring legal action into the state from a federal level in such a way that the public approves.
4. Profit. Errrr, I mean, Voila! America has just ratified Federal Authority to enter the family in any state.

In this particular case we have a stage 3 situation.
Notice how everyone either approves or doesn't,
but no one is commenting on the fact that
this is coming from a certain level
of government, and it feels like
the conclusion of a debate
we have been having for
years and years.


David Grouchy

edit on 16-9-2010 by davidgrouchy because: format




posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   
First, my apologies because this is going to be a long one..



Originally posted by joechip
The constitutional principles that Roe v. Wade are based upon, are for ALL citizens.


The principles, yes, as do all decisions that come from the Supreme Court. The decision they came to, no.


(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

Source (Emphasis added

They didn't leave the decision entirely up to the mother either. They left it to the medical judgment of her physician during the first trimester, and left regulation up to the State in subsequent trimesters based upon potential vested interest in the unborn child.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Stewart stated that:


As recently as last Term, in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453, we recognized "the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." That right necessarily includes the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

Same source as above.

The Court recognized that we, as individuals, have the right to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion when it comes to whether or not to have a child. Extrapolating from that, I have the right to be free from any governmental intrusion (i.e. laws) requiring me to carry a pregnancy to term and you have the right to be free from any requiring you to impregnate someone. The reverse, of course, is also held to be true. This does not, however, continue on into freedom from governmental intrusion requiring you to care for any children you do 'begat'.


This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. [...]

Same source as above.

The Supreme Court did not believe the right to privacy was founded in the 9th Amendment, they felt it was founded in the 14th which reads in part:


No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Same source as above.

It was the District Court who felt the 9th Amendment applied, and ultimately it had little to do with the Supreme Court's decision since they disagreed.

The Court also did not agree that the woman's right to terminate her pregnancy at any time for any reason was absolute, but that it was her right up until the point when "these respective interests [of the woman and the State's' interest in protecting potential life] become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision." According to Roe v. Wade, that point is after the first trimester.

One might wonder why the distinction is made between the first trimester versus the second and third. This distinction is made for several reasons. First, due to what is termed the "quickening", or that point in a pregnancy when a women can feel the movements of the child she carries in her womb. Secondly, the State has no vested interest in protecting women from the hazards of abortions during the first trimester due to the increase in safety since abortion laws were first written:


Modern medical techniques have altered this situation. Appellants and various amici refer to medical data indicating that abortion in early pregnancy, that is, prior to the end of the first trimester, although not without its risk, is now relatively safe. Mortality rates for women undergoing early abortions, where the procedure is legal, appear to be as low as or lower than the rates for normal childbirth.[44] Consequently, any interest of the State in protecting the woman from an inherently hazardous procedure, except when it would be equally dangerous for her to forgo it, has largely disappeared.

Same source as above.

When it comes to child support, which naturally includes the duty of care a parent has for their children, we have to look at the state level. All states have similar, yet varying, laws when it comes to child support and the duty of care. For simplicity, I'm just going to stick with the laws of my own state just remember yours may vary and the ones here were written for children of couples who had been married though they apply equally to those born out of wedlock. And for those who aren't aware of what "duty of care" means:


Duty Of Care

n. Obligation that a sensible person would use in the circumstances when acting towards others and the public. If the actions of a person are not made with watchfulness, attention, caution, and prudence, their actions are considered negligent. Consequently, the resulting damages may be claimed as negligence in a lawsuit.


First we have to look at when a man is considered the biological father. If he is not considered such he will have no rights or obligations in regards to that child by law.


IC 31-14-7-1
Presumptions; child's biological father
Sec. 1. A man is presumed to be a child's biological father if:
(1) the:
(A) man and the child's biological mother are or have been married to each other; and
(B) child is born during the marriage or not later than three hundred (300) days after the marriage is terminated by death, annulment, or dissolution;
(2) the:
(A) man and the child's biological mother attempted to marry each other by a marriage solemnized in apparent compliance with the law, even though the marriage:
(i) is void under IC 31-11-8-2, IC 31-11-8-3, IC 31-11-8-4, or IC 31-11-8-6; or
(ii) is voidable under IC 31-11-9; and
(B) child is born during the attempted marriage or not later than three hundred (300) days after the attempted marriage is terminated by death, annulment, or dissolution; or
(3) the man undergoes a genetic test that indicates with at least a ninety-nine percent (99%) probability that the man is the child's biological father.

Source

If any of those are true, the man is presumed to be the biological father and becomes legally responsible for the care and well-being of the child and is given all parental rights due him as the father. What this means in the context of this thread is that he can decline fatherhood by not having been married to the woman and not undergoing a DNA test. As for the support itself, it is determined by the following:


Child support orders; relevant factors; account at financial institution
Sec. 1. (a) In an action for dissolution of marriage under IC 31-15-2, legal separation under IC 31-15-3, or child support under IC 31-16-2, the court may order either parent or both parents to pay any amount reasonable for support of a child, without regard to marital misconduct, after considering all relevant factors, including:
(1) the financial resources of the custodial parent;
(2) the standard of living the child would have enjoyed if:
(A) the marriage had not been dissolved; or
(B) the separation had not been ordered;
(3) the physical or mental condition of the child and the child's educational needs; and
(4) the financial resources and needs of the noncustodial parent.

Source

Once a legal duty to support a child is determined, the above factors determine how much the non-custodial parent pays in child support regardless of whether that parent is male or female. Women can, and do, pay child support if the father is the custodial parent. It's not too much to ask that a man do the same once paternity has been established.

I could continue, but I've taken up enough of the page with this post and I'm sure you're tired of reading this post-turned-essay.
I look forward to your response.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by AzoriaCorp
Well week 3 is when the cardiovascular system is developed.


The heartbeat isn't detectable until around the 9th-11th week. Otherwise known as the end of the first trimester.


What about people in hospitals that have machines pump their blood? Are they no longer human? Their rights now void?


Irrelevant and extreme take on my post. Do not put words in my mouth.


Its alive and just because it hasn't developed its heart YET doesn't mean its life is worthless.


Again putting words in my mouth. One in four pregnancies end in miscarriage, often before the woman even realizes she's pregnant. Thus the reason for my thoughts on the matter. Until the heartbeat is detectable a woman can miscarry and not have a clue that she was even pregnant to begin with. And even after making it past the first trimester you can still miscarry.


Um, yes, I DO prefer the alternative. I would much rather be alive than dead. Don't speak for me.


I said that a woman seeking an abortion was preferable to her abusing and torturing an unwanted and unborn child. Not that unwanted children are better off dead. Don't put words in my mouth.


Women don't need to abort their inconvenient pregnancies as there are plenty of willing people to adopt newborns.


Which means absolutely nothing to the millions of children who are too 'old' or too 'damaged' to be considered for adoption and didn't make it into the system when they qualified as a baby. You seem to be operating under the assumption that all children in the system make it there when they are newborns and that is simply not the case.


How is it an invasion of privacy?


Weekly blood tests to check for drugs in the system? Seriously? You weren't talking about tests the doctor runs for health reasons, you were talking about blood tests just to check for drugs. Major difference between the two. The former is part of a pregnant woman's care to ensure the woman is healthy and the pregnancy is progressing well. The latter was proposed with the intent to punish.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:44 PM
link   
I read through the first page of commentary, but didn't get to the rest, so if this was already brought up, my bad.
I'm all for personal responsibility as I think this has been lost in history; ie, example. "You're a poor worker, you're fired."" They harassed me, where's my lawsuit $$." BS, you sucked you got canned, cannot find a job, easier way
out as California will help you with it.

Meaningful relationships that harbor a child, the "man," if he calls himself such should step up to the plate. A one night fling with a bar whore I have trouble with cause more than often, "Oh ya baby, I'm on the pill." Should be the same as saying I don't have herpes when you know you do. It's BS. Getting into our pockets when we do not have a say in the matter. It takes 2 to create life, why is the male excluded in certain situations?

Protection by the man is one step, but what if both decline? It's hearsay at that point and the female is ,almost as vindicated as the victory? It's "HER" baby. Really? Didn't know she was asexual to begin with.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Maybe you dont realize that the differance between a human fetus and a dog fetus is just a small bit of dna....

with weeks of maturation ALL mammal fetal development is identical. It is only the small changes in genetic information that allow for the deveoplement of a brain capable of the conciousness you deem magical and special.

It is amazingly stupid to see the delusional religious on ATS crying about a couple of cells dying. I could make a baby using just your skin cells.... grow up.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 12:41 AM
link   
If a women gets pregnant and the man decides he doesn't want the child but the women does ... the women should be financially responsible for the child as it was her choice to have it. Simple as that, if she wants it and he doesn't, she can finance it.

We all know that women who get child payments rarely spend it on the child but spend it on themselves, a lot of women make the decision to have the kids usually on a gold digging basis, but if it was their solo choice to have the child there is no way a man should be responsible for it at all.

edit on 17/9/10 by King Loki because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 12:58 AM
link   
In my opinion, in order for a women to get child support from the father, they should have to be married and separated, OR if the man is of a foreign relation, such as one night stand or an boyfriend or ex, she must legaly notify him she is pregnant and that he is requested to play his part as the father.

This legal notice would have to be made within the first several weeks of the pregnancy, or it's void. It is at this point that the man is obligated to choose between default of accepting, or filing a notice of refusal. If refused before the curtain time limit, reflecting to the maturity of the fetus, the mother then has the choice to carry on with the pregnancy or choose abortion.

This would give both potential parents equal opportunity. If abortion is a problem, yet she doesn't want the baby, then that's a mental maturity obstacle she will have to get over, and should of realized the risks before getting involved in sex.

There have been cases where men have been taken advantage of for their seed. "It's ok I'm not on the pill" or "just pull out" then *clamp in with legs*.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:33 AM
link   
I completely agree with this for a few reasons.........

(1) It would stop Woman from getting pregnant just to get a permanent, emotional or financial, attachment to a Man.

(2) In modern society... Getting pregnant and giving birth are two different things. Getting pregnant can be an accident. Giving birth is now a planned event. Woman already understand this is a choice, and actively use that choice. Men should have the exact same choice.

Just as a Man can not legally force a Woman to have a child or an abortion, vice-versa.

(3) While Men do not have the same convenient contraceptive choices as Woman ( by this I mean the pill ) the situation is lopsided.

I have personally been told by an ex-girlfriend that for 12 months she tried to get pregnant, lying to me she was on the pill the whole time. I would say this deceptive or selfish behavior happens far more than most Woman will ever admit.

Note: It actually made me go get tested and I found out I have "slow swimmers" So I have no chips in this game and never will. Just a balanced view.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


Excellent, well thought out post. Before responding, I'd like to really commend you for your research, your presentation, and most especially, your reasonable tone. I hope that others take note, and are inspired by your example of civil, reasonable debate.

First of all, I would argue that fundamentally, when discussing Roe v. Wade, the concept of state enforced paternity-based child support was most likely not even a fuzzy possibility in the minds of the Justices. The presumption of female responsibility for chastity, and the relatively sexist culture of the time, I believe, precluded any notion of the necessity for Constitutional protections for the "single man." Taking that into account, I believe we cannot, in fairness, merely look at the specific language used, but also the principles being espoused. Though, Justice Blackmun used the more general phrase "choose whether to have children," and that is certainly easier to parse than "bear and beget," I think its still instructive to take a closer look at your quote of Justice Stewart's consenting opinion.



As recently as last Term, in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453, we recognized "the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." That right necessarily includes the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.


You can see that in this argument the right "includes" the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy and as such is necessarily not limited to that right (abortion). The right is broader than its specific application. It unambiguously establishes "the individual" not only the "woman" to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into "matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." As I believe is abundantly clear, the intention here is to protect the individual from being forced into parenthood by governmental coercion. Again, keep in mind that single men were not at the time liable to encounter such coercion. In the majority opinion, Justice Blackmun specifically applied the general principle to "married couples" and "single women." in the case of abortion. However, that does in no way invalidate the general principle's application to single men and the issue at hand.

I believe that's enough to chew on for the moment. It's late and I'm tired. I will do more research tomorrow and reread your post. (And finish examining the above quote) Please feel free to respond to what I have argued thus far, but with the understanding that I have not fully responded to your post yet. I believe this debate will prove productive, and I again commend you for an excellent post.

edit on 17-9-2010 by joechip because: spelling



edit on 17-9-2010 by joechip because: word substitution



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by King Loki
If a women gets pregnant and the man decides he doesn't want the child but the women does ... the women should be financially responsible for the child as it was her choice to have it. Simple as that, if she wants it and he doesn't, she can finance it.


But that makes too much sense.

We cannot start doing that - society is structured to avoid doing that. It would be calamitous.


Edit: I would add the caveat that this idea should only apply in circumstances where the couple was using prophylaxes which failed. The man can't try to have a kid then turn tail when it happens.


edit on 17-9-2010 by Exuberant1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by davidgrouchy
 


Excellent point. The Federal overreach is the underlying unconstitutionality at issue. And it's not merely an overreach in this specific area, as you point out. I also appreciate your observation about how labeling techniques and the national press are utilized to demonize a particular group before the Feds move in with their various apparatuses. I remember in the early 90's, before the mobilization of the Federal child support enforcement apparatus, and the Welfare Reform Act, you couldn't watch TV for an hour without hearing the newly coined term, "deadbeat dad." And the early "news" features invariably focused on rich, divorced men, who actually were quite easy to demonize, being as a rule, the worst examples of child abandoners imaginable. They had nothing at all in common with the poor, often black, unmarried men about to be shafted by a system that embraced yet another reason to criminalize them.
The rights we don't defend aren't rights. The ground we give up because its "not our problem" is far harder to reclaim when it becomes our problem than to defend in the first place.

edit on 17-9-2010 by joechip because: edit to add italics



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:12 AM
link   
gee....if mom and dad don't have to work their arses off to raise the kid, I don't see why little ole taxpayer me should be pitching in to support the little darling!!!

maybe we go back to being puritanical...
outlaw one night flings, make having sex (and therefore, becoming a parent) punishable with jailtime, unless there's a marriage certificate or a signed and notorized contract as to what the two have agreed upon in case of pregnacy!
and well, in no case, should a women be forced to carry a baby full term if there is a risk that it will negatively affects her ability to carry out her usual responsibilities, unless of course, the father wishes to carry out those responsibilities (or hire someone to) themselves...forever, if it permanently injury occurs. which would mean if a one night fling results in mom being bedridden for the latter trimester of her pregnacy, well, the father would take responsibility of caring for her the other children she has till she can function again, along with her!! if she is blinded permanantly, well, he takes care of her kids till they are 21, even if they aren't his, and takes care of her....forever!

of the men that I know who pays child support, they seem to be paying something like $70 a month....or maybe that is even biweekly....I think if you add up the cost of upgrading housing to provide a bedroom for the kid, food, healthcare, school supplies, clothing, childcare, extra electricity, extra water, and all the other goodies, it averages out to well over $300/mo.for half of that support...so don't see how one can say that the women is spending the money on herself...
the fact of the matter is, alot of parents now days are finding hard to raise a family together, under one roof, and well, they don't have enough resources to sustain two households even if they use every cent they earn on the necessities if they find out they can't get along under the same roof and the taxpayers are picking up the slack! our gov't is broke and going deeper into debt making sure that their buddies working in the loan sharking industry or I mean banking industry, get their million dollar bonuses.... and what some of the men are saying is that they want to throw their responsibility for the kid onto the taxpayers themselves! wonder how many of these men and women, who I assume liked their partner well enough to produce a kid with them, would find a way to live under the same roof, if the taxpayers weren't being coerced by uncle sam to take on the responsibility that they are now??
if you don't want a kid, don't have the sex! no birth control method is 100% effective, it is wrong to produce life just to kill it anyways, and well....crap happens!! the only time abortion is the right thing to do is when the carrying the child full term is gonna cause the mother major problems...and well, maybe if the sex was forced on her....
more men chose not to take responsibility for their kids than women do....the women at least keep the baby, raise it to the best of their ability.....throughout history, men have been more able and more likely to fly away scott free from any responsibility whatsoever. and, the only reason that the child support laws are now being enforced is because caring for all these fatherless kids is draining the funds out of the hands of our fine elected representatives in washington and there's so many bridges to no where that they want to build! sooner or later, they are gonna decide to say heck with the kids, the useless bridges (even the ones for fish and squirrels) are more important than the kids...and well, are you dads willing to let your kids suffer, simply because you can't get along with their mom???

I only wanted one kid, I ended up with three....birth control didn't work for two...my husband and me....(which if you've read some of my posts, you know have issues), well we stuck it out, raised them to the best of our ability....even if those kids in the neighborhood who had hud paying their rent, heap paying for the electricity, and foodstamps were picking on them for their hand me down clothes! we paid taxes that provided those kids with decent medical care, while ours went without.... a few of those mothers had husbands who were playing the disability scam....never paid a cent for their kids! a few had dad living in the house...but shhh...dont' tell anyone. and well, if dad shouldn't have to pitch in to raise the kids...neither should I.... I had nothing to do with their conception to begin with!



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:13 AM
link   
When you put money into the candy machine, then wonder why you should take the candy, one must ponder your common sense.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:15 AM
link   
Don't want kids? Use a rubber. Afraid the rubber will break? Learn how to put it on and use it properly.

That's the male right of refusal to reproduce.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:19 AM
link   
These entrapment games these sick females play using "unborn children" needs to stop...This lawsuit needs to pass...just on the plain fact that it would make both parties responsible, so no more crazy females sleeping around and trying to entrap a male at least, since they will have a equal chance in being forced to pay and go through the system. Hence it will force them to take it more seriously, and not sleep around so much, there needs to be consequence for both parties involved...Yes you dam females, yes all of you, need to quit sleeping around then when you land a so called "computer programmer" all of a sudden oh I forgot my pill, oh he should of worn a condom..... Take some responsibility and plan # out before you sleep with anyone......Same goes for male's keep it in your pants unless 100% sure your willing to commit to bringing a child into this word.....#ing idiots, need to implament the shotgun to the face rule again, maybe then you all will get the picture, because like mnemeth1 said can't count on the state and lawyers, to much money concentrated, in this system for some =much corruption.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:31 AM
link   
and I suppose that if you saw a cobra in your back yard, you'd run right over and start playing with it? if you know that the game is being played....and know the end result....
why play?? look up the word self-protection.....USE IT!!
you can whine all you want after the fact....
but, well, in our world...no one gives a darn! no one cares about your life more than you yourself do....no one is gonna go out of their way for you...it's up to you to take care of yourself... and well, most people are out to just get what they can from you, and well...when they can't get anymore, they will be on their way to take from someone else....
we live in a crappy world....it's good to have a little foresight and be cautious!



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:35 AM
link   
" ...must not have read my book, YOUR MOUTH CAN'T GET PREGNANT " Tina Fey, on SNL's Weekend Update.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:19 AM
link   
Ok, first off yes this is my first post, I have been a lurker for years, and this thread hits so close to home, I felt the need to reply, even if I know it will be either flamed or flat out ignored. After I state my opinion on this I will post my personal story so the readers can see where I have came to my conclusions.

Now while this is a hot topic issue, it can be said that it all boils down to an issue of taking responsibility for ones own actions. I believe that both parties should be held accountable for their actions, i.e. if you have sex, you are responsible for the outcome (no abortion, pay the child support etc). now the issue arises when one of the parties is in essence given a "get out of jail free card" and the other party is not. In other words, one party is able to not have to face the possible consequences of their actions, while the other party isnt. This is plain wrong. Equal protections under the law, remember. The only reason I agree on this is because one party is able to legally get away the second party should have the same options. No 2 wrongs do not make a right, I do not mean to imply that, but if we are going to push equality then that is how it should be, that way all parties have their "get out of jail free cards" or can choose to accept responsibility. .

Now on to my story it is the short version, so as to not bore people..

I am a 33 year old male. I am also a father to 4 kids. 2 (1 from the ex, and one with my current wife) biological, 1 step child, and 1 who isn't my current wife or mine biologically. I have full custody of the 2 boys from my previous marriage, my oldest (1 biological), and the non bio one. I also am a Marine Corps veteran with two western pacific deployments (leave my family for a 6 month period on a naval ship). i was married to my first wife during my entire time in the Corps. My oldest son was born about 2 years into my 5 1/2 years in. before I left on my second deployment, my ex was pregnant with my chlld. Just before the halfway point of this deployment, my ex decided to get an abortion so she could pursue a relationship with another man. When I got back we tried to reconcile, and she got pregnant again. From what she told me it was my child again so I was there for his birth, and have since been there as dad. Around 6 months of age, I could tell that he wasn't truly mine, but it did not matter because I loved him no matter what. We ended up staying together for about 2 1/2 years after he was born. I finally decided I did not want to stay in the relationship with her because of the signifigant physical, emotional, financial abuse, as well as her meth aabuse problem. It wasn't fair to me, not my kids. So while we were seperated, and in the process of filing the paperwork, the kids would stay with me, wether it was because she was more intererested in getting high or not wanting to be a parent, it didn't matter. Well one day she decided she wanted to keep them after a visit and since there was no paperwork present there was nothing I could do. The next day, I get a call from her asking if she is going to go to jail and nothing else. I drive to her house and the kids were not there, nor was she. The cops were there, and in speaking to them, I found out that the boys have been taken to foster care because they were left alone. Through the preceding social services case that was brought, she told them, that i wasn't my youngest sons father and another man was. So I had to do a dna test.
Not his bio dad. They contacted his bio dad, said wanted nothing to do with him, but does pay his child support on time. Since the ex was found unfit for not completing her treatment plan and the bio dad didnt want to be involoved I got custody of him also. I couldnt be happier. 6The ex was given supervised visitation, to which she went to sporadically, and eventually moved to another city, got married again, and had another child. The visits became less and less, and even more random. Unfortunately, the boys never had any stability because they didnt understand what was going on with their mom saying she was going to come see them and not show, or call and not call. Eventually, I made the decision to stop her visits completly, after she called social services attemtping to stir up trouble, trying to alienate the boys, by saying my wife and I are bad parents. Since then, she has done the same with her daughter from her now finished 2nd marriage. he has custody of their daughter, and no doubt will have to deal with the same issues I ha ve with the boys.
Might I also add, that she owes almost 10k in back child support,and in the 6 years, I have had custody of them, has paid maybe 3 months of child support (mostly when they grab her income tax refund). It has now been almost a year since we have heard from her, and luckily with the love and support my wife and I give, as well as their therapists, and my ex's family, the boys are learning to live with the fact that their mom, will not accept responsibility for her actions,and prolly never will. If no one beleives this or it doesnt suit your logic, and thats fine also, it is a free world after all.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:35 AM
link   
Forgetting the 'pro-life/pro-choice' arguments, once a woman is pregnant, it is her decision and hers alone, if she wishes to carry the fetus to term or have a termination...frankly, the man who impregnated her, hasn't and shouldn't have a say in the matter, unless in the context of a happy couple, planning their futures obviously.

But all said and done, ultimately the fetus is inside the woman's body, and what she decides to do or have done to her body is her choice in law.

NOW, if the man who is a would be father, or someone who really and truly does not wish to become a father, then the in those circumstances the onus falls to him, and him alone to ensure impregnation does not occur.

Personal responsibility is the key phrase here. Ensuring condoms are worn, and not simply relying on "She said she was on the pill" arguments after the fact is the order of the day.

Failing that, abstinence from vaginal, penetrative sexual intercourse is always a sure fire method of not becoming a father until the man is ready to accept the responsibilities of fatherhood, both emotionally and financially.

'Dipping your wick' then whining about an unwanted pregnancy doesn't cut the mustard in my book.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by KilrathiLG
reply to post by Becoming
 


if you go to the link you find out the core issue of the case at hand had nothing to do with a couple what the court was decideing is if a guy who had not planned on having the child but the woman he impregnated decided to keep it and then SHE died and he is fighting his dead babys mommas sister(she was refered to as his aunt) who wants HIM to pay for child support for the baby he didnt want and wasent married to that hes not allowed to see because of the aunt i problay didnt make much sense so ill come back with the quote i was talking about

www.nationalcenterformen.org... bottom of page i think cites part of it

www.nationalcenterformen.org...
www.nationalcenterformen.org... This is it i think?
maby some one can make more sense of the links of that page as im having comp isses at the moment

edit on 16-9-2010 by KilrathiLG because: to add links

Well, shouldn't this young man have thought of those aspects BEFORE he went willy nilly into sex? It takes a really dumb dude to not know putting your penis in a vagina may end up with a baby to support down the road. I do not care what the circumstances are, it is very clear cut for me.

Sex = Possible Human Life Forming

Sex doesnt just = getting rocks off and never looking back





top topics
 
55
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join


ATS Live Reality Remix is on-air in 20 minutes.
ATS Live Radio Presents - Reality Remix Live SE6 EP6

atslive.com

hi-def

low-def