A Man Has a Right to Control HIs Own Wallet

[sweetnpetite]

No one should ever FORCE him to have to pay child support, or to raise his own kids. Why should he be responsible (punished) because he has money and his baby's momma didn't? She coulda just had an abortion anyway, a decision that he had no legal share of.

Why should he be punished for a kid he doenst' want just because he doesnt' have a womb? If she decides to keep the baby, that's her business and her problem. No one elses.

Child support is just woman's way of controling men, through there wallets. It controls there body's because they have to use there bodyies (work) to make money. It's repressive.

No one should be able to FORCE a man to take responsability when he doen't want it. Men should not be slaves to there biology, forced to work, breaking there bodies day after day and then hand over there hard earned money to someone else.

What about his dreams? What about his goals? Now he's tied down and he didnt' even have a say.

Ever sence the begining of time, women have been trying to cage men up and take there money, FORCING them against there will to pay the price for having sperm.

This has got to stop. Responsibily is just a fancy word for punishment and control. The Buck stops here.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

It looks like some guy has logged in through SnP's account.

 

[SnoopDog]

Now I think I shouldn't even bother answering to that, no matter if it is a woman or a guy who's said it.
Snoopy

 

[lewdandlicentious]

It looks like some guy has logged in through SnP's account.

Have to agree.

What are you on Sweet ???

 

[Guest]

Have to agree.

What are you on Sweet ???

A healthy dose of sarcasm?

 

[sweetnpetite]

It's tongue in cheek. I'll explain more later- I've got to go take care of my "punishments"

Its me though. I promise.

 

[shereads]

If your point is that there are too many unwanted children in the world, as illustrated by the fact that a lot of men have to be taken to court and forced to help support the ones they've fathered, I agree wholeheartedly.

Every child deserves to be wanted. There are, indeed, worse things than not being born.

 

[SeaCat]

Ouch

In some ways I ageww qith you on this post, but you may not agree with my reasons.
In many states in the United States a woman can get child support even though she may make more than her ex. This is because the court lean towards the support of the child. (This is not a bad thing, but should be thought out.) If the courts see that the man is eraning more than the woman at the time of the divorce or court proceedings they usualy assign child support. (Again this is not a bad thing in and of itself.) Unfortunately the courts don't research this enough, or follow up on it.
Take my brother for example. His wife left him for irreconilable differences. (This is what she filed for divorce under.) My brother makes $25.00 an hour as a Registered Nurse. What his ex didn't tell the courts was that she left him for another woman who happens to be a doctor making considerably more than he does. Because she wasn't living with the doctor at the time of the split she didn't have to claim her income in the courts. My brothers wife had recently quite her job at a law firm where she was making $24.00 an hour and started working part time in a local fast food restaraunt so she could now claim she was making minimum wage.
Because of the beliefe that it is better for the children to be with the mother, and it is usually the mans fault in the divorce she was was givin custody of the children and he was ordered to pay child support.
Even though he can provide a better home life than she can, he has to take on the financial responsibility of raising the kids while she can play. He now faces an uphill battle in the courts to reduce the amount of child support he has to pay.
Thankfully, due to his hiring a P.I. and her indescretions he might have a chance of gaining custody of the children, but it will still be an uphill battle on his part.

Cat.

 

[Seattle Zack]

... as illustrated by the fact that a lot of men have to be taken to court and forced to help support the ones they've fathered....

How about being taken to court and forced to support the ones they haven't fathered? I have a friend in this exact situation. Because he makes $120,000 a year, the woman he was living with is now dunning him for child support to the tune of over 25 grand yearly. Meanwhile, she's living with the biological father in a trailer park. My friend is not legally able to present DNA evidence (which he has) to show the child is not his ....

By Martin Kasindorf, USA TODAY
An acid sense of betrayal has been gnawing at Damon Adams since a DNA test showed that he is not the father of a 10-year-old girl born during his former marriage.
"Something changes in your heart," says Adams, 51, a dentist in Traverse City, Mich. "When she walks through the door, you're seeing the product of an affair."

But Michigan courts have spurned the DNA results Adams offered in his motions to stop paying $23,000 a year in child support. Now, Adams is lobbying the state Legislature for relief and joining other men in a national movement against what they call "paternity fraud."

In almost a dozen states, men have won the right to use conclusive genetic tests to end their financial obligations to children they didn't father. But women's groups and many public officials responsible for enforcing child support are battling the movement, which they say imperils children.

Most states design their family laws to protect what they call "the interests of the child." That means siding with the child's financial and emotional needs and against supposed fathers who want to avoid paying for tricycles and braces.

Taxpayers also have a big stake in child support collections, which have grown to$18 billion annually and cover 20 million children. If men who are paying child support no longer have to and authorities can't find the real fathers, welfare agencies will get the bill for family assistance.

Many men who feel deceived by a woman are in no mood to accept a legal system that doesn't recognize DNA science in such cases. "It's like they are saying, 'Let your wife cheat on you, have children by other men, divorce you, and now you have to pay for it all,' " says Air Force Master Sgt. Raymond Jackson, 43. California judges won't consider tests he says prove that the three children of his former 10-year marriage were fathered by other men.

There are signs of substantial fraud or mistakes in identifying fathers in child support disputes. The American Association of Blood Banks says the 300,626 paternity tests it conducted on men in 2000 ruled out nearly 30% as the father.

The legal doctrines raising barriers to DNA testing on paternity questions are formidable. In 30 states, married men face a 500-year-old legal presumption that any child born during a marriage is the husband's. The concept, based in English law, is aimed at preventing children from being branded illegitimate. Nebraska's Supreme Court ruled last week that an ex-husband who is not a child's father cannot sue the mother to recover child support payments.

The law is more flexible for men who admit to fathering a child out of wedlock but then change their minds or who are named by the mother. But they have only brief opportunities to deny paternity. Florida allows a year after a child support order, California two years after a birth.

Many unwed fathers paying child support have never admitted paternity. A 1996 federal welfare law requires a woman to name a father — no questions asked — when she applies for public assistance. A court summons can be mailed to the man's last known address. Many men don't get the notice. The result: The paychecks of 527,224 men in California, for example, are being docked under "default" judgments of paternity that can't be contested after six months.

Men who urge use of DNA cite a precedent: DNA's increasing impact in murder and rape cases.

"Think of it. I can get out of jail for murder based on DNA evidence, but I can't get out of child support payments," says Bert Riddick, 42, a computing teacher in Carson, Calif.

Riddick is paying $1,400 a month for a teenage girl born out of wedlock whom he's never met. Strapped, he and his wife are living with in-laws. Their three children, ages 3 to 11, cram into one room. He lost his driver's license for missing support payments and rides a bus 75 minutes to work.

Gradually, legislators are reshaping paternity law. Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, Ohio and Virginia now permit ex-husbands and out-of-wedlock fathers to end child support through DNA. Maryland has made the same change via court decisions.

Colorado, Illinois and Louisiana grant relief only to ex-husbands, allowing them to offer genetic proof. Texas allows ex-husbands four years from a birth to disprove paternity and gives unwed fathers unlimited time. A sweeping bill that would authorize married and unmarried fathers to offer DNA evidence is working its way through the New Jersey State Assembly.

Carnell Smith, 41, an engineer in Decatur, Ga., who was getting nowhere in challenging a support decree, started a group called U.S. Citizens Against Paternity Fraud that lobbied for the law Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes signed in May. The slogan on the Web site of Smith's group (www.paternityfraud.com): "If the genes don't fit, you must acquit." Smith is back in court and says, "I fully intend to be one of the first people to be released."

Pending in Vermont is the toughest bill of all. It would make a mother's knowingly false allegation of fatherhood a felony that could put her behind bars for up to two years and fine her up to $5,000. "A woman almost always knows who the father is, and if she puts down the wrong person knowingly and it's costing him money, it's just plain fraud," says state Rep. Leo Valliere, a Republican, the bill's sponsor.

Men's rights groups aren't advancing everywhere. California Gov. Gray Davis vetoed a bill in September that was opposed by women's organizations. It would have given men two years after discovering they weren't the father to produce the DNA evidence to prove it. Florida paternity fraud bills died this year. A package of bills passed the Michigan House 102-0 but is stalled in the Senate.

Supporters of current law say the interests of the child should trump a man's concern for his wallet. "The other guy is somewhere over the hill and long gone," says Jenny Skoble, an attorney at the Harriet Buhai Center for Family Law in Los Angeles. "If it comes down to whether the only (available) father is going to be on the hook to pay money or this kid is going to be in the situation of having no father, I'd say we have to put the child first."

Men who want relief say it's a matter of equity. "DNA equals truth," says Patrick McCarthy, 41, a Hillsborough, N.J., package courier. After paying for 13 years to support a girl he denies fathering, McCarthy co-founded New Jersey Citizens Against Paternity Fraud. The group has put up nine billboards supporting the pending bill in New Jersey. The ads depict a pregnant woman and ask, "Is it yours? If not, you still have to pay!"

"Obviously, there's more to fatherhood than genes," McCarthy acknowledges. "However, to pay support on a non-biological offspring should be an individual choice, not ordered by the courts." Adams says he's willing to directly aid the child he'd thought was his but doesn't want to give his ex-wife any more cash.

Trouble could be minimized if all children were DNA-tested at birth or at the time of divorce, says Geraldine Jensen, president of the Association for Children for Enforcement of Support. She says maternity wards should distribute pamphlets telling men, "Get tested now if you have any questions, because doing it later will disrupt this child's life."

 

[Weird Harold]

No one should ever FORCE him to have to pay child support, or to raise his own kids. Why should he be responsible (punished) because he has money and his baby's momma didn't? She coulda just had an abortion anyway, a decision that he had no legal share of.

As a way of diverting attention from your position on abortion, this is a VERY feeble and irrelevant attempt.

Men should be required to take responsibility for their actions -- for some men, that means paying child support.

The rules and laws regarding who and how child support should be paid to are in serious need of review and revision, but they have no bearing, relationship, or parallel to a woman's right to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term.

 

[Boxlicker101]

No one should ever FORCE him to have to pay child support, or to raise his own kids. Why should he be responsible (punished) because he has money and his baby's momma didn't? She coulda just had an abortion anyway, a decision that he had no legal share of.

Why should he be punished for a kid he doenst' want just because he doesnt' have a womb? If she decides to keep the baby, that's her business and her problem. No one elses.

Child support is just woman's way of controling men, through there wallets. It controls there body's because they have to use there bodyies (work) to make money. It's repressive.

No one should be able to FORCE a man to take responsability when he doen't want it. Men should not be slaves to there biology, forced to work, breaking there bodies day after day and then hand over there hard earned money to someone else.

What about his dreams? What about his goals? Now he's tied down and he didnt' even have a say.

Ever sence the begining of time, women have been trying to cage men up and take there money, FORCING them against there will to pay the price for having sperm.

This has got to stop. Responsibily is just a fancy word for punishment and control. The Buck stops here.

I just barely started reading this and I knew you weren't serious but I finished reading it anyhow. If you had been serious I would disagree with most of it but not all. In the past, as described in some of the other posts, child support payments have been collected fraudently by women. If they didn't know who was the father they would name whoever was the richest man who might have been the one, because she could collect more from him. Fortunately, science has started to catch up with the swindlers.

Almost all men have no problem with having to support their own children and some even knowingly support children that they know are not theirs.

I know your tongue was in your cheek when you said "Child support is just woman's way of controling men, through there wallets. It controls there body's because they have to use there bodyies (work) to make money. It's repressive." There is a lot of truth in that, though Seacat posted an example and there are many others. Even if a woman doesn't need the money she will force her ex-husband to pay child support just for revenge or just out of meanness.

There are deadbeat moms also, you know. If the father is granted custody, which is rather rare if it is contested, mothers should be required to pay child support also. How many of them do? If a woman does not pay support, does she go to jail like a man does?

In case you are interested, I have never had any children but I am currently supporting four. That's not a complaint, by the way, because they are my wife's grandchildren and I have to objection to the two of us supporting them.

 

[gauchecritic]

Ok, all well and good, not wanting to pay for children that aren't yours. What about IVF, donor sperm or adopted kids?

Are miserable, whining blokes who want to sow but not reap a good arguement for communism?

Gauche

 

[Guest]

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Re: A Man Has a Right to Control HIs Own Wallet

As a way of diverting attention from your position on abortion, this is a VERY feeble and irrelevant attempt.

Men should be required to take responsibility for their actions -- for some men, that means paying child support.

The rules and laws regarding who and how child support should be paid to are in serious need of review and revision, but they have no bearing, relationship, or parallel to a woman's right to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term.

A man should be required to take resposibilty for his actions- but a woman shouldn't?

Mention RESPONSIBILITY on the Roe vs. Wade thread -I did- and you are told that responsibilty equals punishment- punishing a woman for having a womb. Told about all the instances that she might not have been in control of the situation before she became pregnant (why then, if women 'have the right to control her own body' these circomstances aren't formost on the agenda, rather than the end result, I don't quite understand either) How she is being punished for 'having a womb' Yet a man has no say after the child is in the womb, so isn't he punished for not having one?

Why is it reasonable to say that *she* has the right to decide weather or not *she* wants the responsablity of children, but not reasonable to him. INdeed, after the sex act he is responsible- while she has an 'out'

Most people would think that what I said was pretty crazy, yet the same people would often accept the same ideas coming from a woman about her body and her life being effected. I think that they are both equally week arguments.

this thread was not ment to refute the entire pro-life argument, just that particular argument.

 

[shereads]

Re: Re: Re: A Man Has a Right to Control HIs Own Wallet

Mention RESPONSIBILITY on the Roe vs. Wade thread -I did- and you are told that responsibilty equals punishment- punishing a woman for having a womb. hat particular argument.

You continue to ignore the possibility that having a child can be irreponsible. This is not a matter of who is responsible and who is not; it's that your definition of responsibility equals "do what I would do; it worked for me, it ought to work for every woman."

What about the basic human right to be born into a responsible, loving family?

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Re: A Man Has a Right to Control HIs Own Wallet

[B
There are deadbeat moms also, you know. If the father is granted custody, which is rather rare if it is contested, mothers should be required to pay child support also. How many of them do? If a woman does not pay support, does she go to jail like a man does?

[/B]

Yes, they do get ordered to pay and they do go to jail, just like a man does.

I dont' want to get into a debate about child custody- that wasnt my point- but women actually usually get custody because it's usually not contested. ANd very often loos it when it is. Its actually pretty hard to prove that your a "fit" mother, when your single, you either have to work (makeing you bad for not being there like a good mother should) or stay home (making you unfit as you now can't support the little one)

I realize that many men have no problem taking responsibiliy for there children. I was actually trying to show how rediculous it sounds for a guy to say that responsibiliy is punishment. [as some pro-lifers claim in the case of a woman who is then forced to have a child (if abortion were illegal), thereby being punsished for having a womb, wereas the man apparently gets off scotfree just cause he's a man.]

 

[sweetnpetite]

Ok, all well and good, not wanting to pay for children that aren't yours. What about IVF, donor sperm or adopted kids?

Are miserable, whining blokes who want to sow but not reap a good arguement for communism?

Gauche

no, but I like the 'reaping what you sow' analogy.

When a woman is pregnant you can say that the seed has been sown (literally) YOu can't unsow it. A man is expected to reap what he sows, but a woman demands a choice.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Ouch

In many states in the United States a woman can get child support even though she may make more than her ex.

Thankfully, due to his hiring a P.I. and her indescretions he might have a chance of gaining custody of the children, but it will still be an uphill battle on his part.

Cat.

Child support is for the support of the child. It shouldn't matter if the woman makes more money than her ex, that's beside the point.

I also don't think that a mothers sex life (unless it involves her abusing the child) or matters between husband and wife should have any bearing on custody matters. (But that's a whole other debate I suspect.)

 

[shereads]

Since you maintain that the pro-life issue is about responsibility, let's not stop at making women continue their pregnancies. Let's have a panel of people monitor the way everyone raises their children, so that every parent will be proven responsible. I have a suspicion that parents won't like the idea. They'll think it's intrusive; but that's because they don't care about what's best for their children.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Re: Re: Re: A Man Has a Right to Control HIs Own Wallet

You continue to ignore the possibility that having a child can be irreponsible. This is not a matter of who is responsible and who is not; it's that your definition of responsibility equals "do what I would do; it worked for me, it ought to work for every woman."

What about the basic human right to be born into a responsible, loving family?

Having a child is not irrisponsible. Once you are pregnant, the seed is sown- you can't unmake toast, you can't unscramble an egg, and you can't seperate the sperm and the ovum, what's done is done. You are now responsible for what happens next. If you are not a responsible person as of yet- get responsible, rather than getting excuses. Either take care of the child or find someone who will. If there is no one else, sorry that leaves you. It's not a punshiment, it just is. If you decide NOT to be responsible (child abuse, neglect, ect.), that's when you will see punsishment. Just as a man who chooses not to be responsible will find himself being punished. It sounds so harsh to say to a woman, yet it dosn't sound harsh to say to a man

Basic human right to be born into a responsible loving family? Can I add to that the basic human right to be born into a family that will take care of you until you reach the legal age of majority? That will make sure you get fed three ballanced meals a day? That will know the right way to stimulate your brain growth and encourage your tallents?

These are not basic human rights. They are a nice idea. In fact, they are the ideal (according to our present day standards and culture), but they are not a basic human right.

Basic human rights are something that are there until someone takes them away, they are not garanteed by law, they occure naturally. Life, liberty and the persuit of happiness are things that we all have until they are denied in some way. We don't have a basic human right to "happiness" or a lot of us would be talking to the ACLU about suing- we have the right to persue happiness. You don't have any basic human right to be born into a specific type of family.

 

[shereads]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Man Has a Right to Control HIs Own Wallet

Having a child is not irrisponsible.

Wow. No arguing with that.

So it's acceptable for an unwanted child to suffer through whatever misery his parents might inflict on him for the next 18 years or so - or until they receive their "punishment" - which we all know is inevitable; the law protects children beautifully, as we see in Florida, where if you abusive dad doesn't kill you, the department of family services will.

What a strange thing to hear from someone who purports to care about children.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Since you maintain that the pro-life issue is about responsibility, let's not stop at making women continue their pregnancies. Let's have a panel of people monitor the way everyone raises their children, so that every parent will be proven responsible. I have a suspicion that parents won't like the idea. They'll think it's intrusive; but that's because they don't care about what's best for their children.

I guess your right. There is nothing in between toltarianism and anarchy.

We have laws to protect the born. We can have laws to protect without being intrusive.

Allowing a natural process to proceed along it's natural course is not intrusive, interfereing with it is. I know that 'natural' doens't equal good. I'm simply showing the difference between intrusive and not intrusive.

 

[shereads]

If you really believe what you've just said, then this is no different than discussing abortion rights with the most extreme religious fundamentalist. The unborn are pure and precious; the born are on their own. Kid, it's a tough world. Too bad you were born HIV-positive or with fetal alcohol syndrome, or that your mother just frankly doesn't want you. That's your problem. We're about fetal rights here.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Man Has a Right to Control HIs Own Wallet

Having a child is not irrisponsible. Once you are pregnant, the seed is sown- you can't unmake toast, you can't unscramble an egg, and you can't seperate the sperm and the ovum, what's done is done. You are now responsible for what happens next. If you are not a responsible person as of yet- get responsible, rather than getting excuses. Either take care of the child or find someone who will. If there is no one else, sorry that leaves you. It's not a punshiment, it just is. If you decide NOT to be responsible (child abuse, neglect, ect.), that's when you will see punsishment. Just as a man who chooses not to be responsible will find himself being punished. It sounds so harsh to say to a woman, yet it dosn't sound harsh to say to a man

Basic human right to be born into a responsible loving family? Can I add to that the basic human right to be born into a family that will take care of you until you reach the legal age of majority? That will make sure you get fed three ballanced meals a day? That will know the right way to stimulate your brain growth and encourage your tallents?

These are not basic human rights. They are a nice idea. In fact, they are the ideal (according to our present day standards and culture), but they are not a basic human right.

Basic human rights are something that are there until someone takes them away, they are not garanteed by law, they occure naturally. Life, liberty and the persuit of happiness are things that we all have until they are denied in some way. We don't have a basic human right to "happiness" or a lot of us would be talking to the ACLU about suing- we have the right to persue happiness. You don't have any basic human right to be born into a specific type of family.

HOLY COW!! Do you ever go through and read your posts? Just curious. How can you say that wanting three balanced meals a day is not a basic human right? You want to know what human rights are, go to prison. Criminals eat better than many children in this country, I guarantee it. They also get a roof over their head and a bed to sleep in every night which is often times more than I can say for the unwanted children in this country.

Basic rights do not occur naturally or we wouldn't have a piece of paper backed by a government and law enforcement to say that we are granted such things.

So, if I understand you correctly, the only right we are granted is the right to that first breath. Everything after that is just our pursuit of happiness? And you say even that is not guaranteed? WTF?

~lucky

Also, the word punishment came up in Roe v. Wade because the issue of accidental/unplanned pregnancy often times falls squarely on the woman's shoulders. You don't see many men, (teenagers, rapists or abusive husbands/boyfriends) having to decide whether or not they'll carry an unwanted child to term.

So the fuck what if a man has to pay some child support. I have a very good friend right now whose husband pays child support for two children that he rarely ever sees. I see their mother doing absolutely everything for them and him galavanting to titty bars and gambling halls while she's at home crying herself to sleep over the injustice of being a single parent with a little more income. Would she have aborted those babies? Probably not. But that's not the point. The responsibilities of giving birth and actually raising a child are far more intricate and weighty than writing a check at the end of each month. And to women that didn't want the pregnancy in the first place, being forced to have one can be looked at as a helluva punishment. It might make some stronger and more responsible, but I know a great deal more that fall away from all reaches of normal life and take their kids down with them.

 

[shereads]

no, but I like the 'reaping what you sow' analogy.

When a woman is pregnant you can say that the seed has been sown (literally) YOu can't unsow it. A man is expected to reap what he sows, but a woman demands a choice.

You don't see a teensy bit of "she's getting what she deserves" in your view? Not even a little? And no irony in your defense of the rights of the unborn, and your disregard for what happens afterward?