RoR: Forum

"The only solution to the problem we men may find ourselves in, is the exercise of self-control,and self-management."

Or legalizing prostitution?

Post 81

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 1:47pm

There is NO reason, no excuse, no rationalization and no justification for a man to abandon, reject, and/or neglect his own child.

But I'd still want to first hear what is the woman's justification for bringing the "non-child" (early embryo) into being a real child and what is her justification for attaching herself (through the child) to the man other than that they had sex.

It is quite obvious to me that this kind of case is never about the child. Otherwise, what is wrong with adoption? Wouldn't it be the best for the child?

Post 82

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 2:07pm

Joe I understand where you are coming from. Let me just say this. By self-management I don't mean repression, I mean know what you are getting into, and protect yourself. I do not want *more* Govt involvement. I don't know that I want any Govt involvement at all.

Perhaps this issue is too close to home for me, to be objective. Not to worry, I won't be submitting *that* story as an article. But I am going to bow out of this thread for now.

regards

John

Post 83

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 2:10pm

Donna,

"There is NO reason, no excuse, no rationalization and no justification for a man to abandon, reject, and/or neglect his own child."

I'm afraid that this kind of emotional appeal statement does nothing for the argument. Joe had the right of it with his statement about the error in equivicating the choice to have sex with the choice to have a child. One doesn't imply the other. What this requires is responsibility. If a man has sex with a woman whom he doesn't want to have a child with, and doesn't make arrangements ahead of time (e.g. some sort of contract or agreement), he should be able to go to court prior to the birth of the child and make his desires known. If the woman hides her pregnancy from him or chooses to have the child despite his objections, then it would be entirely up to him whether or not to support the child. Yep, entirely up to him.

But lets get real for a moment. Most of these problems arrise from bad premises to begin with. let's assume that their is no law stating that the man must support any child of his. First of all, most will support their children. Now lets further suppose there is no governemnt program designed to support people in this situation. Hence there is no encouragment through proffered support to proceed with the preganancy, and indeed no encouragment to act irresponsibly at all. All you have to rely on is private charities and your family if you decide to have a child and the father doesn't want to support it. See where I'm going?

The thing is, all these arguemnts arrise from situtaions that are encouraged by the underlying philosophy and legal system in our society. Fixes aimed at dealing with symptoms are usuless. The disease isn't the symptom.

Ethan

Post 84

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 3:17pm

Under current Statist intervention, you can argue that he turned his destiny over to her. But I think the most fundamental part of this discussion is whether that is justified or not. The only reason his destiny is in her hands is because people are putting a gun to his head. The question is whether that should be the case.

Damn brilliant observation.

No...the only solution to this problem is to abolish those unjust laws. We have the choice to stand up and make a moral case for men's rights. We have the choice to denounce the primitive arguments and superstitions that are just as often used to argue against abortion. We have the choice to uphold individual rights against conservative social engineering. The only solution to this is a consistent defense of rights.

Anything less is surrender.

Yes!

Post 85

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 3:37pm

"The only solution to the problem we men may find ourselves in, is the exercise of self-control,and self-management."

Or legalizing prostitution?

_________________________________________________________________________________________

There's same sex sex

and masturbation...

By the way, Hong, I just don't know, or know OF, many women who are okay with having babies and giving them away...

for ANY reason, much less because the FATHER doesn't want it.

Perhaps that would be an option, for that reason, for you...but not one, I think, that should be suggested to others

At least, I would never want responsibility for encouraging anybody to do that.

(Edited by Get to living! Donna Reed on 3/21, 4:13pm)

Post 86

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 4:06pm

YOU SAY: I'm afraid that this kind of emotional appeal statement does nothing for the argument.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Emotion is what family court cases, child support and divorce settlements in particular, are usually all about...when you get right down to it, and as far as the couples are concerned.

There are two people who are pissed at each other and are unable, unwilling to come together and agree on what they need to do in the best interests of their children. A whole bunch of whining and bitching and crying and finger pointing about what the other one did wrong.

Me and my "emotional appeal" take the position that, in the final analysis, there IS no argument...

the child has two parents and both need to be responsible...*banging her gavel*

.

YOU SAY: But lets get real for a moment. Most of these problems arrise from bad premises to begin with. let's assume that their is no law stating that the man must support any child of his. First of all, most will support their children..."
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

I would assume, once we assume that there is no law stating that the man must support any child of his,
that very many children would go without the support they need from their fathers (and if there were no child support laws, without the support from absentee mothers as well).

You guys are arguing about the mother and father, proceed...

From my perspective, BOTH parents can suffer as they will...and hopefully learn and grow

However, the child should NOT be made to suffer.

I'm not taking the position that the system --the courts and the laws-- can be counted on to be fair and just

but hopefully, they'll order something in the interest of the baby more than the father is/has.

Post 87

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 5:01pm

Hi Donna,
By the way, Hong, I just don't know, or know OF, many women who are okay with having babies and giving them away...

Yes, you are of course right. However, although abortion is not like a drink of water, it is much much easier than carrying the fetus to full-term, having a child-birth and then giving it a way. I'd prefer abortion over being a parasite on anybody. Well, if the family is willing to help, that's another matter. And I do know many women who would use abortion as the last resort.

In the older times or in some other countries still, where abortion was not an option, and where there was no welfare or any safety net under neither the women nor child, women did choose to give away their new born child. When faced with death for two or giving up the child so both can live, what would you choose? I've heard many such stories from my parents' and grandparents' generations. Selling one of the children so the rest of the family could live was also not uncommon in old China.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 3/21, 6:13pm)

Post 88

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 6:13pm

By the way, Hong, I just don't know, or know OF, many women who are okay with having babies and giving them away...

This reminds me of the kind of people who bring home some form of pet, which then is made to suffer due to the ignorance of it's owners.

I've known several women who have made this decision, encouraged by their families and friends. Young women now have the incredible opportunity to hand pick their babies new families. Some of these families are even perfectly willing to allow visits by the child's natural mother. Adoption is very different than it was 30-60 years ago, but there were exceptions.

My husband, Jon is Hispanic. His natural parents were Mexican immigrants back in the early 40's. Jon's father never married his mother, Chena, for whom she bore two sons, my husband being the oldest, and inflicted with polio. Everyone in her family was poor, and her parents were dead. Chena gave him up for adoption to a white German couple in 1948 she knew from church. Chena latter married and had more children, seven total. Jon's adoptive parents were very religious, but culturally conscious for that time, insisting he keep in touch with his heritage by visiting his mother, siblings, aunts, uncles, and cousins, every summer and over holiday breaks.

There is no doubt in my mind my husband's polio would have killed him, or at the very least, crippled him, had his mother not had the good sense to give him to someone who could afford his care. Jon's adoptive parents sent birthday and Christmas gifts to all of Chena's children through out the years.

It has got to be a special kind of ignorance that would encourage a young poor woman to keep a child she cannot care for, whether it's financially, emotionally or psychologically. I'm not "okay" with encouraging her instead to grab the opportunity to enslaving an equally irresponsible young man. It only helps to solidify my judgement of both as unfit to raise a human being to productive maturity.

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 3/21, 6:15pm)

Post 89

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 6:14pm

Donna,

I don't think we are talking about the same thing.

Ethan

Post 90

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 8:14pm

Hong,

I hear you. I think back to a time when Black folks' children were taken away to be sold into slavery, literally wrenched from screaming, crying mothers' arms and when Black slaves were forced to engage in sex for the purposes of "making more babies" to be sold.

Then there were stories told by my elders, when I was a child, of the importance of family, kinfolk, and of how extended families and all the members of close-knit, post-slavery southern communities looked out for one another and for one another's children.

And I think of all the history that took place from that time to my first year of teaching, when 25% of my students were in the foster care system. As well, I think of the program I assistant direct today, an academic and behavior modification program for foster children (created and implemented by me and a friend of mine) - so many youngsters who have been shuffled from group home to group home and foster home to foster home. Many have been neglected and/or abused. No, I am not against abortion.

On the other hand, I encounter very many single women, in my courses at a public university within which I teach, "poor" women with limited education and little to no marketable skills, who overcome seemingly insurmountable obstacles, who set and achieve goals that they never thought they would or could and who go on to make wonderful lives for themselves and their children.

While I'm certainly in favor of abstinence (far too many people living to get their freak on and carelessly so ) AND in favor of birth control, and I'm certainly NOT in favor of women and/or men bringing babies into the world when they don't even have themselves and their own lives together, I am in disagreement with those who say women should abort babies or give them up for the reasons that the mother doesn't have money or because the father doesn't want the baby.

A mother who wants her baby, in my opinion, should keep it and do all and everything she can to provide the best life possible for it. Where you and I disagree, primarily, here is that I don't have a problem with my tax dollars assisting her to that end.

Finally, I will simply never buy the notion that a man who has a baby in this universe should live and enjoy his life not knowing, caring about or contributing to the health and well-being of his child. Nor could I ever respect that.

YOU ASK: When faced with death for two or giving up the child so both can live, what would you choose?

I can't say, Hong. It's not much of a choice.

Post 91

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 8:16pm

Donna,

I don't think we are talking about the same thing.

Ethan

_________________________________________________________________________

Yeah, Ethan

that's what I said...

(Edited by Get to living! Donna Reed on 3/22, 12:23pm)

Post 92

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 5:53am

Donna,

I'm a parent, so I know about wanting the well being of my child. That's not the issue here. Beyond the immediate emotional reaction to dead-beat parents there are serious issues with responsibility, choice, and what not. I am right behind Joe when he notes that the choice to have sex and the choice to have a child are two different ones.

Those who want to equivicate the two are setting up a package deal that is irrational. I'm for responsibility. Responsibility for men and women to choose there sex partners, contraception, etc carefully. A women who is pregnant and who chooses to have the child when her partner does not want it is not a victim. She has no right to proceed with having that child and then force the father to support it if he does not want it.

I'm not supporting the right for men to be jerks and dead-beats. I think we simply need to look at this issue logically and encourage people to make intelligent choices. If that means signing a contract efore engaging in sex, then whatever. I'm against package deals, victimology, and slavery.

Those who want to spin this with an "ick" factor appeal to emotion aren't doing anyone any favors, and are in fact encouraging a situation that will lead to more unsupported kids that they claim to want to defend.

Ethan

Post 93

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 1:44am

Rowlands said : We have the choice to stand up and make a moral case for men's rights. We have the choice to denounce the primitive arguments and superstitions that are just as often used to argue against abortion. We have the choice to uphold individual rights against conservative social engineering. The only solution to this is a consistent defense of rights.

-A man's sperm does not have constitutional rights.
-There is no equivalent relationship between what a woman chooses to do with her BODY and what a man chooses to do with his MONEY.
-Contraception is not entirely or mostly the woman�s responsibility, and the failure of contraception is not entirely or mostly the woman�s fault. If you don�t have foolproof, non-intrusive, reversible options for contraception, take it up with Pfizer, not with women.

The kind of parent who doesn�t want to pay child support is the kind of parent who probably shouldn�t have regular contact with their kids.

In the meantime, people, get yourself a plan for preventing pregnancies you don't want, so you don�t get mixed up with messed up assholes who won�t be supportive should something happen you didn�t explicitly plan. Call it preventive medicine.

Then again, the guys advocating this case are also advocating a pre-sex contract to rule out any of their responsibilities to any unplanned pregnancies they may have with you � pass the word along and tell your friends to stay away from dudes who bring a contract and a pen into bed.

Post 94

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 6:09am

And capitalis2's response above is a prime example of package dealing.

Ethan

Post 95

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 7:11am

On the other hand, I encounter very many single women, in my courses at a public university within which I teach, "poor" women with limited education and little to no marketable skills, who overcome seemingly insurmountable obstacles, who set and achieve goals that they never thought they would or could and who go on to make wonderful lives for themselves and their children.

No offense is meant by this inquiry, but how much motivation is there to continue these programs by grant money supplied to them? Does this motivation encourage those in charge to in turn encourage the destructive cycles these programs appear to remedy, or seek to end them outright?

Donna, you've made very clear that it's is the former. I do not hold you at fault for maintaining a common error. But I do fault you for not at least trying to understand a more rational alternative. Bad ideas don't have to linger for years and years, generation after generation. I don't know how to make it any clearer that the premises you hold are indeed errors, that they don't square with reality, or do anything to promote rational goals or ends in human life.

Holding on to emotional baggage from 200 years ago, using it promote even more contemporary baggage is beneath you. I know the tremendous pull identity from guilt can have on an individual. Breaking away from historical chains can be difficult, but to use those chains as justification for even more wrong doing is so egregious an error, it can't be overlooked. It means those bound by the past can never overcome it.

Looking at the histories of other maligned and oppressed peoples in America, European Jews, Chinese, Japanese, and others, isn't it clear that the values they maintained led to their successes, and not their failures? A value that leads to failure isn't a value at all.

Respectfully -

Lovee

Post 96

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 8:20am

I get so frustrated reading posts like these from Donna that I want to scream. But then I read posts like those in this thread from Teresa, Joe, and Hong and I realize: flowers need fertilizer.

Post 97

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 12:16pm

Teresa, Teresa, Teresa,

I haven't responded to any of your posts, commenting on mine, thus far, because I don't want to offend you.
I've been reading them just kind of shaking my head thinking, "Damn, she's got it bad." -

Ignorance, arrogance, lack of respect, and no perspective...ISM.

I'll engage you, but only for a few seconds...and I'll be nice.

College courses, education, credentials, college programs encourage destructive cycles?
No dear. In fact, they can contribute to the destruction of oppression, suppression, repression, depression...etc.

I don't know what programs you're talking about...

But don't hate folks who complete college studies and are out and about interacting with people, living, learning and actually contributing to change instead of spending their days sitting at a computer typing bout it...*s*

YOU SAY: Holding on to emotional baggage from 200 years ago, using it promote even more contemporary baggage is beneath you. I know the tremendous pull identity from guilt can have on an individual. Breaking away from historical chains can be difficult, but to use those chains as justification for even more wrong doing is so egregious an error, it can't be overlooked. It means those bound by the past can never overcome it.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

What is this foolishness - emotional baggage, historical chains, bound by the past, and what's beneath me?

I'm a mover and a shaker, girl, ain't nothing weighing me down.

Are you projecting?

Do I make you feel insecure?

YOU SAY: Looking at the histories of other maligned and oppressed peoples in America, European Jews, Chinese, Japanese, and others, isn't it clear that the values they maintained led to their successes, and not their failures? A value that leads to failure isn't a value at all.

"they, huh?...

Which group do you belong to?

Or are you the expert or self-proclaimed authority on the lives, histories, failures and achievements of others?

Cause you sure ain't no expert on values... yours ain't sounding too kosher up in here.

Mayhaps you should take a good LOOK at yourself.

*s*

(Edited by Get to living! Donna Reed on 3/22, 1:32pm)

Post 98

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 12:20pm

I get so frustrated reading posts like these from Donna that I want to scream...

___________________________________________________________________________________________

*s*

(Edited by Get to living! Donna Reed on 3/22, 1:35pm)

Post 99

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 1:23pm