RoR: Forum

You are right on target with this, D. The act itself should be accompanied by the knowledge and possibility that even if *all* precautions have been taken, a child may be born.

Only if a woman allows it to be born.

The ones who don't take responsibility are beneath contempt.

A woman who insists on carrying through with childbirth, and then insists on keeping the child, despite protests from the child's father, is neither responsible nor moral, John. Guilt trips won't work here.

Any woman who refuses to heed her lover's request to not become a father cannot, and should not, at the same time, earn the respect of the law, or of me.

Doing the right thing in a coerced circumstance earns the coercer nothing by way of respect or admiration. Those who commit the coercion are despicable to the core.

Post 41

Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 5:16pm

Right on, Teresa -- a woman of principle, thou art! :-)

Thank you for your forthright, staunch support of what is good and right in a very nasty, detail-tangled kind of situation. Whether courts will show the same wisdom in re the rights involved as you have is another matter, but we can hope!

REB

Post 42

Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 8:18pm

Are you pro-life? Or is your opinion simply that women can be as irresponsible as they wish, hold the stupidest ideas they can muster, because the law will protect them in their desire to enslave men?

" Makes me wanna hollar."
___________________________________________________________________________________________

Neither.

My opinion, restated for clarity, is that two people who get together and fuck need to take care of any babies conceived in the process.

And ch ild support is just one factor, one aspect (of many) of responsible parenting, not to mention commited and caring parenting.

I do not, in my post, co-sign irresponsibility or deceit on the part of women (nor do I imply any such foolishness)...

I make no mention of "laws"

and my post doesn't address "protecting women";

rather it expresses disappointment with a man who would attempt to come up with excuses as to why/how he rejects his own child(ren), that BASED on my concern for babies/children.

A MALE who feels "enslaved" by virtue of being ordered to pay child support in order to contribute to the health and well-being of his child, or who needs to be ordered to do so in the first place, is enslaved by his own lack of sense of responsibility and caring and needs to grow the hell up, do some serious soul searching, and/or seek professional help to deal with that dis-ease...so long as the fees for professional help don't interfere with his child support payments.

And, of course, a woman poking holes in a condoms, or whatever, to conceive a baby without a partner's knowledge or consent is despicable. (I figured that was a given...my bad.)

I feel sorry for the children of these two characters, especially if steps aren't taken by them to get their minds right.

Am I pro-life? No.

Yet I hope that any woman sitting in an abortion clinic waiting to get an abortion is doing so on further consideration or extenuating circumstance than her man's "protests"...

.

(Edited by Get to living! Donna Reed on 3/18, 10:53pm)

Post 43

Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 8:31pm

John, we agree.

Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 9:44pm

...two people who get together and fuck need to take care of any babies conceived in the process.

Not really. If they don't have the means, they can

1). Get an abortion
2). Put baby up for adoption.

PS. It is never a good idea to force unwilling parents. It is so much more likely that they won't take good care of the children that they don't want in the first place.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 3/18, 9:47pm)

Post 45

Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 10:23pm

Perhaps "conceived" is misleading you.

My comment is within the context of babies conceived (and born) then being rejected...

(see my other posts)

Not saying I'm dead set against options...(extenuating circumstances)

I AM against abortion as birth control

and I'll keep my perspective on having babies then giving them away to myself

BTW, I have no problem with child support enFORCEment

and

Of course, loving, caring parents cannot be forced.

(Edited by Get to living! Donna Reed on 3/18, 10:56pm)

Post 46

Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 10:43pm

I'm with Donna on this issue.

This utter nonsense that equates some 19-year-old girls assurance that she doesn't want a baby, as some sort of written contract with a judges signature, is just that: nonsense. Also, since when did the decision for a woman to have an abortion become the equivalent of taking two aspirins for a headache? Look, I am as pro-choice as they come, but lets not lose our perspective here.

My bottom line is this, she should not lie or mislead the man, that's immoral, but if she did, given that they did not have a contract specifying that any resulting pregnancy is her sole responsibility, and given that he chose not take precautions: if he still wants to play, he should be prepared to pay. If a man wants absolute certainty that he will not cause a pregnancy, then he shouldn't have sex. Otherwise, double wrap the rascal, and minimize your risks.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 3/19, 2:54am)

Post 47

Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 12:39am

If women want the 100% option not to have a child (abortion, adoption) then they should accept 100% responsibility. Period. Women can get pregnant, not men. If women don't want to get pregnant, then they shouldn't have sex. Men aren't responsible for something that happens to women, that is, pregnancy.

Post 48

Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 12:44am

deleted

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 3/19, 12:51am)

Post 49

Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 8:30am

Let me back up a little.

When a woman (or man) wants to carry their conceived fetus to full term and let the child be born, I wonder what would be the reason(s) for them to make this decision? Simply because "this is what I always want it"? Or some careful consideration of their capability to raise the child without being a burden on others? For the life of me, I can't imagine how two 17 year olds possibly be able to make enough money to raise a child without the support of the welfare system.

I AM against abortion as birth control

Well, you are then in effect against abortion, since 99% of the abortion cases are for birth control, or as the last resort for failed birth control (I believe).

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 3/19, 2:05pm)

Post 50

Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 9:05am

"My bottom line is this, she should not lie or mislead the man, that's immoral, but if she did, given that they did not have a contract specifying that any resulting pregnancy is her sole responsibility, and given that he chose not take precautions: if he still wants to play, he should be prepared to pay."

Arguing that lack of an explicit signed contract makes a man financially bound is incredibly backwards, given that no explicit signed contract to pay for a child exists at all.

Post 51

Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 11:12am

Maybe Trojan should start including contracts in their packages of condoms.
Sexy, huh?

Post 52

Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 11:28am

The contract issue is actually quite simple, at least it is to me.

When there is a marriage, everything comes implicitly with the marriage contract: children, family, in-laws, etc., the whole work.

Nowadays, sex is separated from the marriage. Consensual sex should not automatically imply all that comes with the marriage contract. Though I realize that the law is somewhat ambiguous in this area.

Post 53

Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 11:31am

RE: For the life of me, I can't imagine how two 17 year olds possibly be able to make enough money to raise a child without the support of the welfare system.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

They can use whatever system they must, or come up with their own, to get by while acquiring training/skills/education whatever contributes to them bettering themselves and their knowledge and resources to care for their child.

What if a parent or both parents lose jobs?

What if a wealthy person goes bankrupt?

What do THEY do?

Here's what - get up off of their asses and make a way...even if it's out of no way.

Children can be, and most often are, very strong motivating forces in the lives of parents who love them.

Ideally, children are planned for, but parenting is not CONVENIENT...not for wealthy folk and/or those with the best laid plans.

The difference between a healthy developing child is NOT parents who are financially prepared and parents who are not, it's committed parents who are willing to do whatever it takes to LOVE, guide, nurture and protect their children
and children who are certain of their parents love FOR them.

Let's be real. There are children who live in tenements who are safer with their parents and more loved than some who live in mansions.
There are children of struggling minimum wage earning young people who feel safer and more loved than some with parents who are older, well-educated professionals.

YOU SAY: Well, you are then in effect against abortion, since 99% of the abortion cases are for birth control, or failed birth control (I believe).
______________________________________________________________________________________________

I wonder where you got that 99% from.

Birth control - I'm talking about preventive measures so that a woman does not GET pregnant
While none are 100%, they are effective and should be used by people who want to engage in sex but do not want pregnancy to occur, as opposed to not taking preventive measures because one can always just skip over to the local abortion clinic

or as opposed to men who think they can fuck Lottie, Dottie and ere'body and when somebody turns up pregnant, they can "protest" that they're not ready, don't wanna be bothered with no kids.

AT ANY RATE, for a man to have sex with a woman without using condoms and then whine and cry like like a bitch that he shouldn't have to be responsible is straight BS.

And he's a punk. I'd prolly meet him after work on his pay days and TAKE his money.

(give his bitch ass something to cry and whine about)

Okay, on to another topic...*s*
.

(Edited by Get to living! Donna Reed on 3/19, 11:39am)

Post 54

Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 11:54am

"They can use whatever system they must, ..."

Well, I guess that's where some of the tax I pay will end up...

Post 55

Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 1:19pm

or as opposed to men who think they can fuck Lottie, Dottie and ere'body and when somebody turns up pregnant, they can "protest" that they're not ready, don't wanna be bothered with no kids.

So, these turkey's need to be punished with forced responsibilities? As if the mommies had no idea what in the hell they were dealing with...please.

What if a parent or both parents lose jobs?

If they're married to each other, the law doesn't give a shit. If not, unemployed parents face jail, or at the very least, a "Big Daddy" system that forces them to ask permission to make any kind of change in their lives. It's bullshit. Women ought not have that kind of control over another's life.

Big daddy government is so adept at knowing whats best for people. Daddy knows all about conscription, social engineering and their applications.

AT ANY RATE, for a man to have sex with a woman without using condoms and then whine and cry like like a bitch that he shouldn't have to be responsible is straight BS.

And he's a punk. I'd prolly meet him after work on his pay days and TAKE his money.

Oh, boo hoo, it's all the asshole's fault! We all know how helpless women are to their sexual desires, right? Shoot. I couldn't help it! He got me pregnant! Please....

Why fall for the "women have no control" syndrome? I say women are the one's that have to be more responsible. If Lottie Dottie thinks it's perfectly okay to have sex with a man who won't use protection, she's the punk bitch for dragging him down with a kid. No sob story about being against abortion or adoption is going to work on me. It's irrational and emotion driven. Don't bother me with it.

When big daddy government places the same importance on visitation as it does on money support, it'll get more respect from me. Until then, this system that is set up to to encourage the use of children as weapons by mothers (and fathers) to use against each other.

When a mother refuses visitation by a father, I want to see her end up in court, and threatened with jail, for "non-support" just as easily.

Let's be real. There are children who live in tenements who are safer with their parents and more loved than some who live in mansions.
There are children of struggling minimum wage earning young people who feel safer and more loved than some with parents who are older, well-educated professionals.

That's extremely romantic, but irrelevant, as well as statistically barren. Bah!

Post 56

Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 5:50pm

YOU SAY: So, these turkey's need to be punished with forced responsibilities? As if the mommies had no idea what in the hell they were dealing with...please.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Child support isn't punishment. It's a parent's contribution to help feed, clothe and shelter a child

so Hong's tax dollars don't have to!

Believe it or not, there are men who pay child support without being ordered to do so...and of those who are ordered to, some (even if they think it's too much or aren't particularly happy about it), in the final analysis, take the position that as long as their children are well-cared for that's the most important thing.

A close friend of mine was recently taken to court by a bitter ex-wife for child support payments, and he ended up being orderd to pay less than he was already paying on his own accord. He got a good laugh about it but still does what's best for his child.
Sometimes it works the other way around, the mother just wants the father to contribute something and had the father offered to pay child support of some kind, she would have been willing to take less than a court ordered amount.

YOU SAY:..When a mother refuses visitation by a father, I want to see her end up in court, and threatened with jail, for "non-support" just as easily.
___________________________________________________________________________________________

When a mother refuses visitation, the father can absolutely go to court and petition and get court-ordered visitation.
If it's already ordered, the mother would be wise not to violate that order.

The problem is not the courts as much as parents who can't be civil to one another and work out the best arrangments for their child(ren).

YOU SAY: That's extremely romantic, but irrelevant, as well as statistically barren. Bah!
_______________________________________________________________________________________

Children and their lives and healthy development are relevant and very important to me.

So, Bah!

back at cha, lovee

*s*

Post 57

Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 6:46pm

When a mother refuses visitation, the father can absolutely go to court and petition and get court-ordered visitation.
If it's already ordered, the mother would be wise not to violate that order.

These orders have zero teeth. Nobody goes to jail for refusing visitation, unless they leave the state without "permission" of the court, and even then they don't go to jail.
Begging big daddy for visitation is about as easy firing a member of the UAW.

Custodial parents don't have to do anything to collect support. It's on auto pilot, and you're tracked down like an animal, subject to police raids, and constant humiliation. Miss support payments and you're hauled in to court without the custodial lifting a finger to make it happen. Auto pilot system. Want to move? Gotta call big daddy. Got fired? Gotta call big daddy. Get a new job? Gotta call big daddy. Make less money? Gotta call (and beg) big daddy. Wanna see your kids? Gotta call (and beg) big daddy. The system arbitrarily raises your support? Gotta call (and beg) big daddy.

Not so with visitation. You have to beg this soul-less "machine" to spend any time with your kids. It doesn't keep track of visitation because non custodial parents are second class citizens with fewer rights, and they ARE being punished. The law could care less about them. But that's really not the issue, which you're conveniently ignoring:

Why should women have more rights then men? How can women wipe out the rights of men without recourse? It's a rights issue, born from sexual activity, but sexual activity is not it's focus.

Post 58

Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 7:07pm

Child support, yes, when two people had wanted children and had agreed to raise their children together, and when the man still wants to be be the father of his children (and thus visitations), yes, he should share the burden of raising the children. I believe any decent men will do that for their kids. Of course, the women should do their part as well.

However, for an unmarried guy who never wants the child in the first place and will never claim his parental right, I am not sure that he should be obliged to support the child that he has decidedly given up from the very beginning.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 3/19, 7:08pm)

Post 59

Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 8:36pm