Whisky Tango Foxtrot?!

[Doc]

Words do not explain.

I just don't know what to say about this... Except there is some sort of logic to it.

[Occhidiangela]

Words do not explain.

I just don't know what to say about this... Except there is some sort of logic to it.
[right][snapback]103969[/snapback][/right]

Nice brokeback linkin' there, podner. :P Here is what it says.

Sorry, the page you requested was not found. The story or page you were trying to access may have expired.

If you are having trouble locating a destination on Yahoo! News, try visiting the Yahoo! News home page or browse through the News site index. Also, you may find what you're looking for if you try searching below.


Occhi

[Doc]

Stupid yahoo news links from Fark.

Here we go

If that fails, paste this Men's-Rights Group Eyes Child Support Stay in to Google news.

In short, women can opt out of pregnancy with abortion. Men would like the same option. If women can take the easy way out, it's only fair that men can do the same with child support.

[Count Duckula]

In short, women can opt out of pregnancy with abortion. Men would like the same option. If women can take the easy way out, it's only fair that men can do the same with child support.
[right][snapback]103973[/snapback][/right]

So, men are wanting off the hook when their girlfriend doesn't want to abort her pregnancy? The concepts of abortion rights and child support need serious fixing, but not to these drastic lengths.

Oh, this is gonna be a sticky wicket, both in the real world and on the Lounge.

[Doc]

Well, a woman can terminate the financial responsibily to her self at any time, with out the permission of the other party. Even if the man wants to keep the child, the woman can abort. It is a one sided protection. The woman has the right to choose, the man does not. There is no legal recourse for a man to keep a woman pregnant. She has the right to choose.

It should be a two way street. Men should have some right to choose. It takes two to tango. And as of right now, the situation favours the woman.

Also, women can lie about being on the pill... And women DO. Women do entrap men and then expect them to pay out. The whole "I own my baby's daddy" mindset where poor women bootstrap themselves out of poverty by raking in the child support. Condoms bust. Women even get pregnant while on the pill. And women have the options to protect themselves... Abortion. Men have no such option.

The more I think of this, the more fair I think it is. Allowing for situation, there should be means for the man to opt out. If a man refuses to pay, then a woman can go and use her hard won right to choose or offer the kid up for adoption.

It is a case of double standard, plain and simple. Hate to say it, but a lot of women expect certain rights completely unavailable to men. And in the case of consentual sex, if a woman has the right to opt out of the consequences, it is only right and fair that a man have the same options. If the man can't have it, take away the woman's ability to opt out as well.

[ShadowHM]

I am troubled by the ethics of your proposal, Doc.

Honesty is a much admired concept, but honesty in sexual relationships is not always there.

You correctly point out that some women do use child support as a means of collecting cash, not necessarily for 'child support' only. Some men have been just as firmly entrapped by unwanted pregnancies as all women used to be.

However, *if* a proposal such as you are suggesting were to go through, I would want the burden of proof be on the man to convince a court that he had been deliberately misled about the fertility of his partner.

I would not change the status quo at all for the results of failed but genuine attempts to prevent pregnancy.

[Doc]

Oh. And to add more fuel to the fire... Women expect special laws to protect them, but also make sure these laws do not apply to them.

Case in point. Where I live, there are some very strict deadbeat dad laws. If you are a man, and miss some child support payments, they can repo your car, seize your bank accounts, garnish your wage, and arrest you and toss you in jail.

However, these laws apply to men! There are no deadbeat mother laws for the women that lose custody of their kids to their husbands, but then refuse to pay child support, and very little is done to punish the women, because somehow, in spite of being deadbeat mothers, they are somehow made out to be the victim in these cases, and somehow it's never their fault they missed a few payments. The father is just being an "oppressive male" who is continuing to be abusive and controlling even though the relationship is over. There are even support groups for women who have lost custody of their kids and have to pay child support, support groups that fill the woman's head with garbage about why she shouldn't have to pay and why she shouldn't pay. But if men had these same organisations, oh dear God, we would never hear the end of it.

So, to sum it all up... When a woman asks for child support, it is because she is a woman... And she needs the money to take care of her kids. It is expected. It is her right... But a man asks for that same money, and he is being abusive and controlling and intruding on a woman's right to live her own life free of male tyranny.

Now that I think about it, it really is a whale of a double standard. The whole situation needs to be cleaned up.

[Doc]

I am troubled by the ethics of your proposal, Doc.

Honesty is a much admired concept, but honesty in sexual relationships is not always there.

You correctly point out that some women do use child support as a means of collecting cash, not necessarily for 'child support' only.  Some men have been just as firmly entrapped by unwanted pregnancies as all women used to be.

However, *if* a proposal such as you are suggesting were to go through, I would want the burden of proof be on the man to convince a court that he had been deliberately misled about the fertility of his partner.

I would not change the status quo at all for the results of failed but genuine attempts to prevent pregnancy.
[right][snapback]103979[/snapback][/right]

Ok, so toss the ethics part out.

Is it fair that a woman can escape the financial burdon of having a child but a man has no such right? Though abortion, a woman can opt out at any time, and does not need the man's permission. He has no say. She can relieve her self of any financial responsibility for consentual sex at any time. The man has no such option. Shouldn't a man have the same rights as a woman? Yes or no... Women have the right to choose... And men and women are equal yes? So where is the man's right? It does not exist.

I am not trying to say any of this is right or wrong, I am just saying that there is a glaring double standard that needs to be addressed. It's hypocracy.

[Rinnhart]

I see your fuel and raise a tactical nuke.

[Mithrandir]

This is very dangerous ground to be treading upon, and there are very convincing arguments on both sides of the issue. However, I think this fact (quoted form the article) will be the deciding factor:

State courts have ruled in the past that any inequity experienced by men like Dubay is outweighed by society's interest in ensuring that children get financial support from two parents.

Obviously the system can be abused by women who specifically target certain men in order to rake in the child support, but I'm just uneasy about taking the system to the other extreme. In this case, if the woman did indeed dupe him by claiming she had a medical condition that prevented her from getting pregnant, then he should be able to opt out of the child support (and Child Services should take a hard, long look into this woman if she is indeed attempting to leverage children as a monthly payment). On the other hand, I get quesy thinking about a man getting a woman pregnant, she decides to keep the baby for moral/religious reasons and then the man washes his hands of the situation and leaves never to be seen again. Asking people to put their ethics (whether you agree with abortion or not, some people do not) on the block against additional financial burden is a big 'ol mess. Many won't be satisfied when you say "Well, you could have betrayed your beliefs. But you didn't. Your fault."

I think there's a whole lot wrong with gender dynamics in this country - the aforementioned lack of "dead-beat mommy" laws by Doc being a prime example - but this is one case where men are just going to have to suck it up and accept the fact that the system isn't 100% fair all the time. I don't like it (especially since I'm a bleeding heart idealist), but the greater good demands that the children always have enough money to be adequately cared for.

Here's a simple fix that will help 99.99% of these unfortunate situations: wear a condom unless you're 110% sure that she is medically unable to be pregnant, she's on the pill (even then it's still a good idea to wear one), etc.

[Munkay]

Words do not explain.

I just don't know what to say about this... Except there is some sort of logic to it.
[right][snapback]103969[/snapback][/right]

After reading the article, its all a bunch of hot air. It reminds me of other publicity stupidity, like the 18 year old that filed a lawsuit against his high school - which said that the High School was 'obviously biased against males' since it enforced rules upon its students, the rules which 'females naturally follow, and men naturally defy'.

I have a question for the rest of the LL members, since my understanding of adoption laws is lacking. In a sidecomment, Mr. Feit said a woman can put her child up for adoption under the pretense she can not afford to take care of her child, which implying men should be able to 'give up' the rights too. But doesn't adoption require both parents to sign over custody of the child?

Cheers,

Munk

Edit: Fixed a few minor mistakes

[Munkay]

Oh. And to add more fuel to the fire... Women expect special laws to protect them, but also make sure these laws do not apply to them.

Case in point. Where I live, there are some very strict deadbeat dad laws. If you are a man, and miss some child support payments, they can repo your car, seize your bank accounts, garnish your wage, and arrest you and toss you in jail.

However, these laws apply to men! There are no deadbeat mother laws for the women that lose custody of their kids to their husbands, but then refuse to pay child support, and very little is done to punish the women, because somehow, in spite of being deadbeat mothers, they are somehow made out to be the victim in these cases, and somehow it's never their fault they missed a few payments. The father is just being an "oppressive male" who is continuing to be abusive and controlling even though the relationship is over. There are even support groups for women who have lost custody of their kids and have to pay child support, support groups that fill the woman's head with garbage about why she shouldn't have to pay and why she shouldn't pay. But if men had these same organisations, oh dear God, we would never hear the end of it.

So, to sum it all up... When a woman asks for child support, it is because she is a woman... And she needs the money to take care of her kids. It is expected. It is her right... But a man asks for that same money, and he is being abusive and controlling and intruding on a woman's right to live her own life free of male tyranny.

Now that I think about it, it really is a whale of a double standard. The whole situation needs to be cleaned up.
[right][snapback]103980[/snapback][/right]

That would be a strong point if women were paid the same wages as men in America. I don't want to come off as some screaming liberal about the issue, but the difference is a real problem. And its not only in the high end executive jobs that women make less money than their male counterparts. In fact, the pay descrepency is greater with 'low income' jobs than it is at the higher end.

Now, are deadbeat moms a problem? Yes. And do they deserve to be punished? Yes. But until women have a fair shot at making the same money as men, its unfair to hold them to the same strict payment standard.

Cheers,

Munk

[Munkay]

Here's a simple fix that will help 99.99% of these unfortunate situations: wear a condom unless you're 110% sure that she is medically unable to be pregnant, she's on the pill (even then it's still a good idea to wear one), etc.
[right][snapback]103988[/snapback][/right]

Quoted for agreement. Too bad some of the simplest things in life are the quickest to be forgotten.

Cheers,

Munk

[Drasca]

Makes me wonder: How reversible is a vasectomy?

[Walkiry]

Makes me wonder: How reversible is a vasectomy?
[right][snapback]103994[/snapback][/right]

If your original surgeon is decent, the odds are pretty good. Even if not, artificial insemination would still be an option, since your testicles are fine.

Anyway, as far as this whole abortion and child support debate goes, we haven't seen anything yet. Just wait until Artificial Wombs start to show up...

[ShadowHM]

Ok, so toss the ethics part out.

Let's not. :) If ethics are not part of our legal system, then there is no point to having a legal system.

Is it fair that a woman can escape the financial burdon of having a child but a man has no such right? Though abortion, a woman can opt out at any time, and does not need the man's permission. He has no say. She can relieve her self of any financial responsibility for consentual sex at any time. The man has no such option. Shouldn't a man have the same rights as a woman? Yes or no... Women have the right to choose... And men and women are equal yes? So where is the man's right? It does not exist.

[right][snapback]103981[/snapback][/right]

I can conceive. You cannot. That is unfair. Neither of us can change that.

Women carry (pun intended) the burden of child-bearing responsibility. There are health consequences to all aspects of that responsibility. Abortion, pregnancy and child-birth all can have serious health consequences to the woman, both physical and emotional. There are no such consquences for a man.

We are not equal in this matter.

[Griselda]

I think that the very last sentence has the most convincing argument for me:

"But most courts say it's not about what he did or didn't do or what she did or didn't do. It's about the rights of the child."

There are all kinds of situations where deception and other unfortunate things can result in a pregnancy. However, once a child is born, you need to look at what's best for the child, regardless of the circumstances that led to pregnancy.

[Doc]

Let's not.  :)  If ethics are not part of our legal system, then there is no point to having a legal system.
I can conceive.  You cannot.  That is unfair.  Neither of us can change that.

Women carry (pun intended) the burden of child-bearing responsibility.  There are health consequences to all aspects of that responsibility.  Abortion, pregnancy and child-birth all can have serious health consequences to the woman, both physical and emotional.  There are no such consquences for a man.

We are not equal in this matter.
[right][snapback]104011[/snapback][/right]

Ma'am, I respectfully beg to differ. Men do, in fact, have consequences. Women have the memory of elephants. Childbirth, sickness during pregnancy, all those things, men are nagged to death hearing endlessly about them. We have our own emotional load to bear.

[Griselda]

Ma'am, I respectfully beg to differ. Men do, in fact, have consequences. Women have the memory of elephants. Childbirth, sickness during pregnancy, all those things, men are nagged to death hearing endlessly about them. We have our own emotional load to bear.
[right][snapback]104014[/snapback][/right]

Sorry, but that's no comparison.

[Doc]

Sorry, but that's no comparison.
[right][snapback]104015[/snapback][/right]

Ok.

What about the proud man that looks forward to being a daddy, and has his hopes and dreams dashed when a woman uses her right to choose? Think that doesn't hurt?

It simply isn't fair saying that men have no emotional stake in this. We do.