Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    
    I'll bite
    
> 
>    ....  males' lack of choice in abortion decisions. 
> 

    As someone who is solidly pro-choice this is close to one that drives
    me nuts.
    
    I do not believe a spouse's approval should be needed but I do think a
    spouse (I like to see father .. spouse or not) should at least be
    informed before an abortion occurs.      
    
    I do not understand how anyone can believe it is fair for a man 
    
    1) to be repsonsible for 50% of the care of a child (if s/he is brought
       to term)  and at the same time
    
    2) not even have the right to know such a responsibility is on the horizon.
    
    
    My 2 cents,
    Greg
    

>	  Disenfranchised dads have been yelping for years about spawning 
>issues: unequal child custody, visitation, and support, the lack of safe 
>birth control for males, and males' lack of choice in abortion decisions. 
>But new groups are starting to look at the bigger picture.

    Custody and visitation as well as child support have long been 
    overlooked as a *child's* right as well as a man's right.  The 
    non_custodial_parent *should* pay child support.  The dead-beats
    hurt the ones who really *do* care by providing justification for
    unjustice against all.  The theft of a child's "support" by the
    custodial parent is wide spread and dispicable although no 
    "government studies" have been provided to provide those all
    important statistics.  Some form of accunting is needed, and a 
    method of determining child support amounts must be found that
    will allow the non-custodial parent to maintain a decent standard
    of living as well as provide the child a decent living.
    
    Only in the last year have I started seeing some cracks in the
    "the only thing fathers are good for is money" dogma, and
    have started seeing some recognition that fathers are indeed a 
    valuable and necessary part of a child's life and upbringing.
    
    I believe that "no-fault" divorce has been the biggest fraud
    perpetrated on men in this century.  This is a big area where
    some of the injustices agains women were removed while the 
    injustices agains men have been untouched or increased as a
    result.  The time when a man and his *children* could be separated
    from each other by force if necessary and most of his income confiscated
    and given to someone who has no acountability for the way that 
    the money is spent supposedly went out with the Emancipation 
    Proclimation.  Yes it is not *all* that way, but there *are*
    all too many cases of this for which absolutely nothing is done.
    
    fred();

    Greg,
    
    One simple solution to the problem is for no man to have sexual
    relations with a woman unless he personally uses a contraceptive
    or the two of them have become *very* clear about how both
    of them feel about the possibility of children.
    
    If a woman is violent anti abortion, then she should be able
    to support any child she conceives in reasonable comfort. Part of
    the responsibility for this support should be from the father.
    She is however, I think, morally obliged to be sure that said
    support goes to rent, clothing, food etc that supports the child
    (no more than 1/2 the rent for example).
    
    Bonnie
    
    Bonnie

>    I do not understand how anyone can believe it is fair for a man 
>    
>    1) to be repsonsible for 50% of the care of a child (if s/he is brought
>       to term)  and at the same time
>    
>    2) not even have the right to know such a responsibility is on the horizon.
    
    Theoretically, I tend to agree, but only because my pro-abortion stance
    borders on lunatic fringe. 
    
    Practically, as long as there are feelings against abortion as a means
    of birth control, the situation is inherently unfair, since a woman may
    come to term without having planned her pregnancy and without being
    able to support the child alone.
    
    A requirement to notify the probable father-to-be if known raises the
    question "What's the point?"  If he's for aborting the fetus and she's
    not, too bad, it's her body; if he's for forcing her to give birth, I
    can only hope that he doesn't have the power.  If they're not talking
    anyway, it doesn't matter much whether they agree on the proper course
    of action.
    
    This is a financial reason for men using birth control.  Women have
    both financial and health reasons, and I think theirs are harder to
    escape from, especially if they have problems choosing or obtaining an
    abortion.
    
    Ray

>    1) to be repsonsible for 50% of the care of a child (if s/he is brought
>       to term)  and at the same time
>    
>    2) not even have the right to know such a responsibility is on the horizon.
    
    If the woman's going to have the fetus aborted how is there any
    responsibility on the horizon?
    
    					- Vick

re .2

>    I believe that "no-fault" divorce has been the biggest fraud
>    perpetrated on men in this century.  This is a big area where
>    some of the injustices agains women were removed while the 
>    injustices agains men have been untouched or increased as a
>    result.  The time when a man and his *children* could be separated

You are hopeless confusing effects with causes.  Australian divorce law went 
no-fault in 1976.  Today, about 50% of men who contest for custody win.  
Ergo, no-fault divorce as such cannot be blamed for the peculiarities evident 
in the PRM.

    re .6
    
    In the good ol' USofA however, *contested* custody awards still
    go about 9-1 in favor of the woman.  Latest trump card--Accuse
    him of physical and/or sexual abuse.  The judge will usually take
    the "lets not take a chance that she's lying" approach. ( No Susan,
    I can't quote chapter and verse of the stats).  Most men don't even
    bother to try this very expensive legal adventure unless they have
    a *very* good case and can get past their lawyer's "advice".  Most
    lawyers will advise a man against going for custody, and the cases
    where a lawyer will stand up to the system happen only on TV.
    
    Given the current divorce rate, in America, if you have children,
    you only have about a 49% chance of being there to see them grow up.
    
    There is absolutely *nothing* besides *her* good will that keeps
    you from being kicked out of your house, her moving her "SO" into
    your bed, and *you* being forced to finance the whole thing through 
    "child support".  Can you say Emancipation Proclamation??
    
    fred();

    re .6 -- about 50% of men who contest custody win....
    
    I dunno how Australia works, but I didn't even _think_ of contesting
    custody here in the US when I got my divorce!  Maybe 50% of contested
    cases could be won by men here, too, but that would be because only
    (I'm pulling a number out of the air here; don't ask for sources!) < 5%
    of divorce cases involve contested custody.  A man has to have a pretty
    ironclad case proving that the mother is unfit (NOT that he would be a
    better parent!) before he can even think of successfully contesting.
    
    	Can you provide some more info about the percentage of total
    custody cases that are contested?  I think it would shed a lot of light
    on the subject...thanks
    
    larry

    Again I can't quote this chaper and verse, but in the U.S.A. about
    50% of marriages end in divorce.  Most usually in the first 5 or 10
    years.  Of those cases only about 10% involve contested custody.
    Of the contested cases only about 10% are won by the father.  In
    the last couple of years, I have seen more cases where the mother 
    does not contest divorce, but I believe that that is still a
    *statistically* insignificant number.  So my .7 should have said
    51% instead of 49% chance of being around to watch your child
    grow up.
    
    fred();

    
>    
>    One simple solution to the problem is for no man to have sexual
>    relations with a woman unless he personally uses a contraceptive
>    or the two of them have become *very* clear about how both
>    of them feel about the possibility of children.
>
    
    Doesn't guarentee anything.  We could use 5 types of birth control
    simultaneously and have a legal contract signed with witnesses
    describing the outcome of an unplanned pregnancy (in my case I adopt
    the baby).
    
    If an unplanned pregnancy occurred the women *could* say ... forget it
    ... I'll get an abortion and I won't tell Greg.
    
    I'm not asking to choose; I'm asking to know.  The only way I can be
    sure to know is to abstain.  Which sounds a hell of a lot like a
    pro-life argument ... if you're not willing to risk the consequences
    then abstain; that is your choice.
    
    Greg
       
    

re .8 (Larry)

I don't know the percentage of cases in which men contest.  I strongly 
suspect that most of the time the men don't contest.  My point was simply to 
demonstrate that no-fault divorce per se is not to blame for the various 
inequities obvious in the PRM system.

    re .12
    
    My point about no-fault was that before no-fault, it was much harder
    for either party to cut-and-run.  If she did something really stupid,
    it was harder for her to come back on him for custody, support, etc.
    However, no-fault for all practical purposes means that woman has
    no-fault.  Now the man/father gets it stuck to him no matter who
    breaks up the marriage.  The only limiting factor is *her* ethics.
    If she takes a wild hair to take off or kick him out and move her
    boyfriend in, there isn't diddly he can do about it but get ready
    to start paying "child support" and/or "spousal support".
    
    I didn't say that no-fault was to blame.  I said that it was an
    example of how the "abuses" agains women were addressed while 
    the "abuses" against men were left untouched.
    
    fred();

    
    On second thought maybe no-fault *is* to balame to a certain extent.
    
    I am not talking about the really abusive cases here or cases 
    where he really *is* a <bleep>.  I'm thinking of the wild-hair-up-
    her-<bleep> cases, but I wonder how many cases there would be where 
    *she* was more willing to try to stay and work out the problems
    of the marriage if she knew that *she* may loose everything she 
    had worked for all her life and spend the next 18 or so years
    being forced to work then having most of her paycheck confiscated
    for "child support".
    
    Not much incentive to work things out if she can get the kids, the
    house, the car, the savings, and most of his future income and eat 
    her cake too.
    
    fred();

    in re .11
    
    A recent article about abortion mentioned that in over half of all
    abortions the couple involved used *no* birth control. It appears
    to me that consciencious use of birth control would seriously reduce
    the number of unwanted pregnancies. 
    
    I can recall went I was in college and it was nearly impossible to
    obtain contraceptives, (even condoms). I find it absolutely appalling
    that with contraceptives so easily available, and with STDs and
    AIDS such a serious problems that people don't use them.
    
    Bonnie

    On NPR's Sunday morning radio program I heard Gloria Steinham say the
    following:
    
    	"20 years ago (the leap forward) was to show that women can do what
    men can do, now the leap forward is to show that men can do what women
    can do."
    
    This was followed by a discussion on parenting.
    
    Perhaps making this leap forward would do a lot to help this problem.
    
    Rich