Conference quark::mennotes-v1

if a man truly doesn't want children he can prevent them...the keyword is
HE.  When a man depends upon a woman who wants a child to use birth control
because he doesn't like using a condom...well, a little silly, don't you
think???  If he has not prevented the pregnancy, and the woman does not
choose to abort, then he has put himself into the position of helping to
bring a dependent life into being and he must take his responsibility to
support that life.  If he fails to do so, the child suffers and that is
unacceptable.  

Women choose to have babies because they feel a need to be a mother.  In
most cases I've known, the woman doesn't want a child WITHOUT a life partner
to help her rear the offspring...she simply hasn't found a life partner and
she feels the pressure of the "biological clock" - so she chooses to have
her child without a partner.  Let us remember that men can reproduce as
long as they can ejaculate....women have a short reproductive life and
if they are going to make a contribution to the next generation, they
pretty much have to get it taken care of by the time they are 40...for
some women, the period of fertility can be even shorter.  If a woman finds
herself facing life childless or without a life partner, she will choose
whichever is most important to her.

Again, I wish to stress, a man NEVER has to have an unwanted child...all he
has to do is take responsibility for birth control himself.  A properly
used condom is so effective as to make pregnancy virtually impossible....
and they protect you from AIDS better than anything else going.  A very
good reason to use them, don't you think?

>Let us remember that men can reproduce as
>long as they can ejaculate....women have a short reproductive life and
    
    Ahem.  A few of us ejaculatory men here are permanently
    non-reproductive.  
    
    				- Vick

    
    This was beat to death a few notes back.  Basically there is no
    difference legally in the three options.  Once she gets pregnant,
    he is totally at her mercy as far as any decision to 1) have abortion,
    2) give baby up for adoption, 3) Keep baby and make him pay 
    "child support" for the next 20 years.
    
    fred();

    Re: .0
    
    By what leap of faith do you determine that a child has the RIGHT to
    two loving parents?  In most species, this is decidedly not the case;
    for many, the child's rights include NO loving parents.  Please don't
    foist your moral prejudgments off on others who don't necessarily agree
    with you.
    
    -dick

    re .4
    
>    Please don't
>    foist your moral prejudgments off on others who don't necessarily agree
>    with you.
    
    
    Then would you consider "child support" a "moral right" of the child?
    
    fred();
    

I consider all three cases in the base note the same as far as equal
responsibility goes.  As others have said, if a man doesn't want a child, he
must take measures to prevent conception.  The most foolproof, of course,
is to abstain from sex.  Other measures have differing degrees of effectiveness,
and therefore, risk.

I have no sympathy for the man who takes inadequate precautions and then
whines about being held responsible for the child he fathered.

			Steve

    Re: .5
    
    There is a vast difference between a legal right (child support) and a
    moral right (love).  The fact that the two often intersect is not
    really germane to the establishment of either.  But this begins to look
    like the definition of violence in the rape/violence topic; I think
    I'll withdraw from another such rathole.
    
    -dick

    
    re .7
    
    They're all "moral" issues.  From "murder one" right on down.
    Laws are just institutionalized morality.  If I expanded on your
    exmple in .3, then in some societies vengence-killing (which would
    get you murder-one in our society) is considered not only moral,
    but a "duty".
    
    I think what .0 was talking about is that, in our society, were
    both parents are alive and accessable, the the child has a right
    to access to both parents.  Is not "visitation" a legal right 
    of the child as well as the parent?
    
    fred();

    Thanks Fred. 
    RE: .1
    What gives a woman the right to bring children into the world against
    the wishes of the father. Children need a family to grow from. The last
    time I checked a family starts with mom and dad. Many married couples
    plan their families and attempt to avoid more children. Some statistics
    I've seen show about half of the abortions in the U.S. are married
    woman with kids. I'm assuming these woman understand the committment
    and resources necessary to raise kids and are not willing to bring them
    into a world without the committed love of two parents. Accidents
    happen to anyone. Do you truly think all married couples use condoms?
    
    		dan d
    
    
    

    re .9
    facriseaches
    
    that has already been beaten to death in 733

    RE: .10
    Didn't know about 733. Take a while to go through 300 replies but I'll
    browse through. 
    A freind of mine got stung bigtime. Had a notorized agreement from a
    woman who wanted to "keep the baby" basically releasing him from
    obligation to her. Three years later he's dragged into court under a
    paternity suite filed by the DOR. Judge threw the agreement out because
    the lawyer argued she signed it under duress. Nailed him with the
    standard 25%. This sort of thing just pisses me off! Especially when
    someone is forthright and gets screwed anyway. As I see it his rights
    where superceded by the state, the woman and the child. Don't get me
    wrong about kids. I love them dearly. There's just got to be a limit
    somewhere and I'm trying to get a feel for social concious.
    					dan d
    

>>    There's just got to be a limit
>>    somewhere and I'm trying to get a feel for social concious.

There IS a limit....don't participate in paternity and you won't get
"stung".  The only way to avoid getting "stung" (charming word for
being asked to support your offspring), is to NOT MAKE ANYONE
PREGNANT...or to donate your sperm to a sperm bank and then you
know you MAY have offspring out there somewhere - but, you'll
never see them.  If a man allows himself to be seduced/bought
into the process of creating life, then he must expect to be
"stung".  The laws are not written to give the WOMAN some advantage,
but to PROVIDE FOR THE CHILD.  If the woman intended to raise,
and pay for, the child herself and then found she was unable to
do a satisfactory job of it for any reason...the child STILL needs
support...and the father of the child is expected to pay that support.

The lesson remains the same...if you are not willing to pay, don't
play - certainly NOT without protection that YOU PROVIDE.

Children are dependent upon their parents - it isn't their "fault"
that someone gets "stung" for their support - it is the responsibility
of both parents to understand that once the child is born, there
are no "breaks" - the child's needs override any of the parents
preferences.

Your friend got nailed because he looked upon the "transaction"
as a business deal - something he could walk away from at will.
That was his SECOND mistake...

    I have a problem with telling men that ifthey want to play,
    it's up to them to make sure there is no resulting pregnancy.
    
    Assuming 2 mature adults in a relationship, at the beginning,
    neither wants kids.  THey agree to a method of birthcontrol and
    in this case, the woman chooses to take on that responsibility.
    Further down the line, she changes her mind about children and
    knows the mate hasn't.  She accidently gets pregnant,expecting
    that when it happens, he'll be different about it.  Thats a
    clear violation of trust in the relationship and frankly, I don't
    think that a father in such a case must be held responsible.  THe
    best thing to have done IMO, if she changed her mind,, but he 
    didn't, end the relationship and find someone who wants the same
    thing you do.  
    
    IN a case where the man does take the responsibility for BC, I
    would say that if it failed, he does have a responsibility to the
    child, but not in a situation where his trust of his partner was
    taken advantage of.

    Re: .14
    
    I can understand your point of view, but what it really comes down to
    is that if either member of the couple does not want children, they
    should take the necessary steps to make sure that a child is
    not conceived.  If they choose to do that by relying on the other
    partner, that's ok, but they have to understand that they no longer
    control the matter and must live with the consequences.
    
    				Steve

    re: .15
    
    Steve,
    
    I'll concede your point about relying on the other partner and thus
    living with the consequences of an *accident*, but even though it may 
    be rare, it sticks in my gut when one partner completely deceived the 
    other for the express purposes of going against agreed to wishes.  If 
    only this were a perfect world :-).

    re: .14
    IMO all relatioships are built on trust. I agree with you. I also agree
    with a lot of you folks about the childs needs and being dependent on
    the parents. 
    So, how do you handle the situation? 

    <A freind of mine got stung bigtime. Had a notorized agreement from a
    <woman who wanted to "keep the baby" basically releasing him from
    <obligation to her. Three years later he's dragged into court under a
    <paternity suite filed by the DOR. Judge threw the agreement out because
    <the lawyer argued she signed it under duress. 
    
    Without taking sides on this, it would strike me as very reasonable if
    the Judge had thrown out the agreement because his interpretation
    of the relevant laws was that society has a responsibility to defend
    the child; a responsibility that supercedes and transcends and makes
    moot any agreement reached between the birth father and birth mother.

.15> partner, that's ok, but they have to understand that they no longer
.15> control the matter and must live with the consequences.
    
    Steve, what of the case where the man is using birth control, but
    secretly wants children, and gets the woman pregnant?
    
    Must she "live with the consequences?"

    re:13
    
    That outlook is a bit one-sided.
    
    In the event of a pregnancy, regardless of the path that led there,
    the potential mother holds all the cards.  She can abort or not.  She
    can go after child support or not.
    
    The potential father's options are a bit more limited.  He can become
    a deadbeat dad or not.  Period.  Nice choices.

    There is no deterent for a woman other than her own concious and sense
    of responsibility.
    To create a deterent such as denying her acces to public assistance is
    to deny the child adequate care. To exempt the father from
    responsibility places the government in the role of caretaker. To
    offset cost the government creates a hierarchy of rights and defines
    the childs rights as primary. Thus the closed loop.
    I see no resolution, only damage control.
    Is there a humane deterent such as allowing the father a choice of
    custody or pay child support? Suggestions please.
    					dan d
    

    I back Steve up here.  If you really don't want kids, take your own
    birth control responsibility.  If you are a man and don't want kids,
    use a condom, insert your partner's diaphram, cap, foam, or what have
    you, or be sweet enough to hand her her pill every morning or evening,
    or when ever her schedule says to take it.  Better yet, if you are
    certain you never want children get a vasectomy and get your sperm
    count rechecked yearly.  If you have a maybe problem, you at least can
    bank your sperm before a vasectomy and keep it frozen in case you
    change your mind at a later date. 
    
    If you are female and don't want kids use your bc method of choice, and
    put his condom on for him if need be.  If he won't use one and that was
    an agreement before hand, don't continue to intercourse, stop right
    there and leave the area if possible.  when you both cool down, discuss
    why he doesn't want to use one any more.  
    
    In this way, accidental pregnancies will be only due to BC failure.  If
    this seems like too much trouble, go celibate, or solo.
    
    Meg  

I realize that part of my position was confusing.  I had meant to say that when
a child is conceived, it is the responsibility of BOTH the parents.  If you
want zero risk of conceiving a child, abstain from sex.  (Vasectomies are
not 100% effective in all cases, though they, along with tubal ligation are
close enough to 100% for most people.)  If you are willing to accept non-zero
risk then be prepared to take the responsibility if conception happens.

I suppose I should also point out that "responsibility" does not mean "control
over whether the child is brought to term", in my view.  The woman has (and
should have) that control.

As for signed agreements absolving one parent or the other of responsibility,
it's pretty clear that our legal system takes a dim view of such agreements,
especially if one parent starts asking for financial assistance from the state.

			Steve

    Steve,
    
    
    That is why I recommended having a sperm count done yearly.  This at
    least further minimizes the risk of an unplanned pregnancy due to
    vasectomy failure, (those tubes can grow back).
    
    meg

    Everything being said here is quite relevant and honorable. The advice
    regarding avoiding the potential problem is well taken.
    But..
    Married and unmarried couples do choose to use other birth control
    methods other than condoms. Even condoms slide off in the heat of
    passion. It does happen! Beleive it or not there are people who lie and
    deceive to attain selfish goals in life and I feel that there has to be
    a deterent to make woman think twice about "gene hunting" behavior.
    This argument about a woman choosing whether to carry a pregnancy to
    term is totally her decision because it's her body is ok only if the
    man has a right to choose whether he wants the child.
    If the woman decides to go forward without his consent then what
    recourse does the man have? Legal release of obligation is the only
    answer I can come up with under this circumstance. Ideas?
    

    
    
    Re provide your own protection:
    A major factor in "relationships" involves "trust".  Unless you
    have already had a vasectomy before the relationship started and
    if you start providing your own "protection" above what she
    says she is already providing, you are going to be in for some
    major "relationship" problems. (ie "Gee I don't think you really
    _trust_ me").
    
    re condoms:
    Unless you opt for the vasectomy, about your only choice is condoms.
    Maybe foam or jelly which are next best thing to nothing.  Condoms
    are also only about 80% effective by themselves.  Less if they've
    been carried around for a while.  Condoms and foam/jelly together
    are almost 100% effective, but then we get back to the "trust" thing.
    
    re vasectomy:
    If you are already married, in most states you need your wife's 
    consent to get a vasectomy.  She on the other hand can get
    her tubes tied or even an abortion without even letting you
    know that it happened.  Let alone consent.
    
    re abstinence:
    I brought up the idea a few notes back that this might be a 
    good idea for women too, and I got thoroughly trashed for it.
    
    fred();
    
    

look, guys, the way it is may not be "fair" by your interpretation, but
due to our physiology and the method by which the human animal reproduces,
this is the way it is....

women get pregnant.  Men don't.  once a woman is pregnant, HER body is
involved 100% with the process of bringing that life into the world...she
is the one who "pays" a real physical price for the pregnancy.  She is
the one who lactates - thereby creating the food the infant needs to
thrive.  Yes, the child can live without nursing on mother's milk, but
not as well.  So, she gets to decide if she is willing to commit her
body and LIFE to the process.  Fair? Maybe not, but unless women become
property again, it is the way it is.

Men make women pregnant.  If a man doesn't want to make a woman pregnant,
HE should take responsibility for making sure he doesn't.  Period.  Don't
leave it up to someone else and then cry "cheat!" when it doesn't happen
the way you want.  That is childish.  As a responsible adult, YOU take
responsibility for what you don't want to happen.  If she is also a
responsible, honest adult, then you BOTH take precautions...and thereby
reduce the possibility of mistakes even further.

Once a child is born...the needs of the child OVERRIDE your need to not
feel "cheated", the woman's need to feel independent, or anything else
you can name.  Once the child is born, you, the biological parents are
responsible for financial support...if you choose to cheat yourself and
the child of emotional support, it is your choice.  It is not, however,
your choice to fail to suppor the child.  It is not the woman's choice
to fail to take care of the child or insure that someone competent to
do so takes care of the child...obviously, if the man is unhappy about
paying support for the child and feels cheated by this, he isn't a 
real comforting candidate for custodian of the child.  That leaves the
woman as the custodian of the child.  

Or, perhaps, you would prefer for the man to be able to force the woman
to give the child up for adoption???  Not very likely scenario, given the
amount of physical, emotional (hormonal, for the scientists among us)
impact the child has had on the woman by the time the child is born.
That is a bond that can lead sane women to commit murder to protect
their offspring.  I doubt a legal court would mandate such an act
for anything short of criminal neglect or abuse.

It isn't "fair"?...probably not...but it IS.  If you don't want to be
"trapped", MAKE SURE YOU AREN'T.  IF you didn't "make sure"...be ready
to pay.

    Well, if you're really interested in being fair, we could allow the guy
    to relinquish any connections to the child, financial or otherwise, just
    like we already allow the mother to, by aborting.
    
    That is, if you want to be fair.
    
    If you want to be able to throw the guy in jail, then by all means, let's
    just keep it like it is now.

    re: .27
    The only way a man can "make a woman pregnant" is to rape her. All
    other sexuallity is by consent. 
    This attitude creates a sense of "victim" for the woman. "He made me
    pregnant so now it's up to me to decide what to do about being
    victimized. You bring an unwanted child into the world under the
    present system and you truly do victimize. 

    >re vasectomy:
    >If you are already married, in most states you need your wife's 
    >consent to get a vasectomy.  She on the other hand can get
    >her tubes tied or even an abortion without even letting you
    >know that it happened.  Let alone consent.
    
    This is most assuredly not true in New Hampshire.  In fact, there are
    statutes that say that a medical facility CANNOT require such consent
    or advisement of the spouse.
    
    					- Vick

    If people don't like condoms, I did add other alternatives.  You can
    make insetion of diaphrams, caps and/or foam into a part of foreplay. 
    You lovingly share the responsibility of the ritual of "the pill"
    every morning or everning, you can check for "the string" of an iud as
    a part of foreplay if you are fortunate enough to live in a country
    where iud's are still available.  
    
    As for the trust issue, well it isn't an issue.  If you don't want to
    risk being an involuntary parent, you take precautions.  "honey, we
    agreed that we don't want kids at this time and a condom decreases the
    chances that the method we are using will fail."  Simple loving and
    trusting.  Of course if you can't stand to use a condom correctly; yes,
    I do mean read the instructions and follow them; and you don't want to
    be sterilized, you are taking your chances.  Diaphrams are
    approximately 80% effective, which means of every 100 users, 20 are
    likely to get pregnant over the year, PROPER use of a condom in
    conjunction with a diaphram decreases that risk to less than 2% about
    the same risk as the pill without the dangers of the pill to our
    partner, you really do love her don't you?
    
    Meg

re: my comment about the man 'making' the woman pregnant...

in a biological sense, pregnancy is impossible without the contribution
of the sperm from a man.  The woman carries the ova with her at all
times, but she isn't pregnant until the man makes his contribution to
the process.  i was not implying that the woman is a VICTIM of
the process...however, she IS the primary carrier of the result.  Men
can contribute sperm and walk away....women don't have that option.
They must invest a great deal of their own physical health in the
process.  Their only other option, once pregnancy has occurred, is
abortion.  

The real problem here is that the man has a vastly different level of
emotional and physical committment demanded of him during this process.
There is an inequity built into the reproductive process for humans which
we cannot change (at least not until the gene-splicers get much better
at their jobs)....it is a hideous concept to give a man CONTROL of a
woman's body - that is tantamount to slavery and enlightened humans
simply won't tolerate that...yet, if a man is allowed to force a woman to
abort because he DOESN'T want a child, or to force a woman to carry a
pregnancy to term because he DOES want a child, that is what you have..slavery. 
So you are left with the fact that the woman must retain control of her
own body - and that means she, and only she, decides if she will invest
the physical commitment to bring a pregnancy to term.

The idea that a man can "sign-off" any obligation to the child, once born,
may sound wonderful to a man with an unwanted child bearing his genes, but
it certainly doesn't do the child any good.  That is really what is
happening here...the CHILD needs the money, not the woman.  The child
bears no guilt in this process.  Regardless of your feelings about the woman's
motives and behavior, you cannot punish the child for them.  The court
decided that once a man has contributed to the creation of this life,
he must take responsibility for maintenance of the child.  It isn't the
child's fault that the man contributed sperm when he really didn't mean it...
the man is an adult and he knows what he was doing.  The knowlege of 
risk is implicit in the choice to have sex.  Are you saying that even if
all precautions were taken and something failed - if the pregnancy was
truly a mistake (and i have only your word that it WASN'T an unplanned
accident), that the man shouldn't be obligated to pay because he didn't
INTEND to become a father?  Well, hey, maybe the woman didn't INTEND to
become a mother, but, upon finding herself pregnant, determined that she
could NOT bring herself to have an abortion....maybe, just maybe, she then
decided to do what she HAD to do within her own moral context and brought
the pregnancy to term...and became a mother....has that thought crossed
your mind?  And maybe, just maybe, she finds that she cannot get a good
job because mothers with young children are often NOT hired because they
will have to spend so much time taking care of childhood illnesses and
taking time off when the baby-sitter isn't coming, and....did that thought
ever cross your mind?  NO?  Well, maybe, just maybe, you should think a
little more....

This is not rocket science here.  We all know where babies come from.
Prevent them or take responsibility...and when a baby happens in SPITE
of you - well, thems the breaks!

    The issue here is how to create deterent to deception without punishing
    the child and/or the man.
    I have empathy for all mothers married or not because I am a single
    parent (divorced-widowed).
    The woman can say "NO" to sex as well as a man. 
    This can go on indefinately. 
    Is there a policy that can attain fairness?
    
    
    

    re .33
    
    Yeah, it was said in .32.
    
    Karen

    Re: .32
    
    A man is not biologically required to make a woman pregnant.  The fact
    that moral outrage would ensue if parthenogenesis were practiced by
    women does not negate the fact that parthenogenesis is a real thing.
    
    -dick

    
>    A man is not biologically required to make a woman pregnant.  The fact
>    that moral outrage would ensue if parthenogenesis were practiced by
>    women does not negate the fact that parthenogenesis is a real thing.
    
except in rare cases where a person carries reproductive organs from both
sexes, I have no idea what you can mean....sperm is required for reproduction.
Even Artificial Insemination uses sperm from the male of the species.....
In true cases where the person is biologically hermaphrodite, pregnancies
have occurred...however this is SO rare it isn't even a blip on the
charts of human evolution...so, I ask - without male sperm where else/how 
else is the ovum fertilized?  

FOR GENERAL INFORMATION:

one important fact concering the "theory of deception" being touted here...
are any of you aware that if a woman is taking certain antibiotics the
birth control pill is rendered ineffective???  I'd bet that most of you
are not aware of this...and most women are not informed of this.  However,
it is true.  Many cases of "she said she was using protection, but look now!"
are due to the fact that she WAS using protection - and taking the pills
her doctor prescribed to fight an infection.

    Yes, well, certain persons in here continue to dodge the original
    premise/question :  Does the male have responsibility if the woman
    deliberately becomes pregnant against his wishes ?  
    
    No fair saying "FIRST, he should've..."  
    
    YES or NO
    
    karl

.37>  Does the male have responsibility if the woman deliberately becomes
.37>  pregnant against his wishes ?  
    
    He does, but he shouldn't.

    
    re .33
    
    >is there a policy that can attain fairness?
    
    Each partner takes responsibility for birth control.  Seems
    pretty fair to me and far less likely chances for bc failure.
    I agree with some of the previous notes.  If a man does not
    want a child ONLY HE can be responsible for ensuring that.
    Same goes for the woman.  If she does not want a child ONLY SHE
    can be responsible for ensuring that.  Same action for 
    both partners seems pretty fair.    

    
    
     re. 37
    
    If a child is born BOTH parents have responsibility to care
    for it emotionally, physically and financially.  The manner
    in which the child was concieved is of no relevance once
    the child is born.  

>There is an inequity built into the reproductive process for humans which
>we cannot change

 Absolutely correct.

>it is a hideous concept to give a man CONTROL of a woman's body 

 Agreed.

>yet, if a man is allowed to force a woman to
>abort because he DOESN'T want a child, or to force a woman to carry a
>pregnancy to term because he DOES want a child, that is what you have..slavery. 

 Yep.

>So you are left with the fact that the woman must retain control of her
>own body - and that means she, and only she, decides if she will invest
>the physical commitment to bring a pregnancy to term.

 And having this control, she and only she must accept the responsibility
that this entails.

    re: -1
    
    Agreed.
    
    I think one aspect of the issue not being addressed here is when
    the man DOES  want the child and the woman doesnt'..there is an
    inherant unfairness in the reproductive process and I think while
    there are many men who agree with the idea of "woman's body, woman's
    choice", but in reality it's "woman's body, woman's choice, but we
    can force the man to to go along with whatever *our* choice is.
    
    Somebody made refernece to the slavery thing if we allow men control
    over our bodies, and I agree with that, but I see that it works both
    ways.  For instance, I'm married and I know my husband wants children.
    If I get pregnant, my choices are to not tell him and abort, tell him
    and abort, carry to term.  If we both want children, there's no prob.
    with carrying to term, but if I abort and don't tell him, well I guess,
    there's no prob if I don't get caught, but I think it's pretty shitty
    thing to do.  If I do get caught, I know he would be devestated and
    feel he would have every right to a divorce/annulment because I
    willfully broke a promise to him.  So, in essence, he's held
    accountable or is force to live with my decisions, even though they do
    effect him to, so that's where I see the slavery parallel.  Wish I had
    some real answers.

    Re: .36
    
    Since you don't understand what I said in .35, allow me to elaborate. 
    Parthenogenesis is a mechanism whereby an unfertilized gamete (ovum)
    can be stimulated so that it will develop and grow into a female baby
    with only half the usual number of chromosomes.  No sperm is required. 
    And an adult created in this way is perfectly capable of reproducing.
    
    The parthenogenetic process is the natural means of reproduction for
    certain species of lizards, of which there are NO male specimens in
    existence.  It has been induced in the laboratory in frogs and other
    amphibians, and there is nothing that prevents its application to the
    supposedly "higher" forms of life except human morality.
    
    -dick

should the man be held responsible for the child born to a woman who gets
pregnant even if he doesn't want her to?

Well, let me see....if he doesn't WANT to be a daddy, he gets off scott-free?
Hmmmmmm...so, if she cannot support the child for any reason, what do we
do - let the child starve??? or if she gets put out onto the street because
she cannot afford a home, do we let the child freeze to death????
No, we don't...because the child isn't at fault in this - and if the woman
cannot support the child, then someone has to - so, it's either ALL OF US
TAXPAYERS or it is the man responsible for the child's existence.  Now, what
do you think is fairer?  That you support the children of some stranger
whom you will never meet because he is busy fathering children he didn't
really WANT - or that he be dragged into court, if need be, and compelled to
support his own offspring?  Frankly, you may all be very nice people, but
I don't choose to support the children you create while you are "just having
fun"...so, I think you all should be held responsible for your own offspring.

It doesn't matter one whit whether the woman "promised" to avoid pregnancy
and then ended up pregnant...it doesn't matter one whit whether the woman
signed a paper saying she won't ask the man for support.  In the event that
the woman cannot afford to support the child, then someone has to - and that
"someone" should be the other parent....I am already supporting more than
enough children of men and women who cannot suport them...If either parent
CAN support a child, then I say, make them pay...and if it takes both
parents to keep the child healthy, warm, safe, and educated, then BOTH
parents have to pay.  Unfortunately, if jail is the only incentive that
will bring this about, then jail must remain an option.

Your premise that the man should somehow be absolved of this responsibilty
only works if you think of the child as simply a "punishment"...and it falls 
apart when you think of the child as a human being with needs that must be met.

Again, this isn't an issue of whether the woman was right or wrong...she may
have been terribly devious in her transaction with the man....she may not
have been.  It isn't even relevent...

    Well, I guess we must agree to disagree.  I do think the element
    of trust is relevent, period.  It can also be said that a woman
    who knows she cannot support a child by herself should make sure
    she never gets pregnant.  I know this is more than a man v woman
    issue, but I am personally aware of more situations where a child
    was brought about or denied on a matter of trust violations and I
    feel that the saying "your gonna play,, your gonna pay" applies
    specifically to the partner who violated the trust.  Also, even
    though not recognized by the courts, a signed agreement between
    parties absolving one of the other from responsiblity- well, I
    think it's rotten to agree to it at the time, then 2,3 whatever
    years down the road, when things are a little rough, chase down
    the person (male or female) for support.  If I don't want a 
    child, I'll make sure it doesn't happen.  If I have an accidenal
    pregnancy, it could very well be that I'd want the child, but not
    the father.  Bottom line for me is that whatever choice *I* make,
    *I* will be responsible for the consequences...

    re .44
    
>It doesn't matter one whit whether the woman "promised" to avoid pregnancy
>and then ended up pregnant...it doesn't matter one whit whether the woman
>signed a paper saying she won't ask the man for support.  In the event that
>the woman cannot afford to support the child, then someone has to - and that
>"someone" should be the other parent....I am already supporting more than
>enough children of men and women who cannot suport them...If either parent
>CAN support a child, then I say, make them pay...and if it takes both
>parents to keep the child healthy, warm, safe, and educated, then BOTH
>parents have to pay.  Unfortunately, if jail is the only incentive that
>will bring this about, then jail must remain an option.
    
    Then would you support the option of jail as an "incentive" to
    "welfare mothers" to get off the dole and get to work helping
    support the children they brought into the world.
    
    fred();

    RE: .45
    I couldn't agree more with how you've clarified the "real" issue.
    Thanks.
    RE. 44
    Just because the results of conception are gestated for 9 months within
    a female body does't make it right to impose a lifelong responsibility
    on someone. Men don't want to "enslave" womans bodies or "control"
    them. If a woman wants the child and the man doesn't then if she opts
    to have the child then she's gotta be willing to accept the full
    responsibility for her decision.
    About who pays. 
    If woman go to AFDC they get benefits. Welfare dollars subsidize what
    the state cannot make up through support collectios. If there was a
    "serious deterent" for woman to consider then maybe our taxes wouldn't
    be so high to begin with. The guy's already got the incentive to avoid
    having unwanted children. The man has to pay back 100% of all funds
    collected by the custodial mom. Why? Shouldn't he only have to pay
    half? 

    Well I guess reading some of these replies that there are an awfullot
    of men in this world that should never, ever, sleep with another woman. 
    Since men are currently an integral part of how babies get made, and
    yet it seems that a good number of you feel it is unfair that biology
    is unfair, why don't you all consider going "solo" or same sex, and
    leave women totally out of your gameplan, with the exception of
    professional, non-sexual interactions.  
    
    It may not be fair that women make a final decision, but that is and
    should be the right of someone who stands a 13 per 10000 chance of
    dying with complications related to pregnancy and/or childbirth.  I
    seriously doubt that there is a comparable statistic for men making
    babies.  
    
    I really would like to know why you all hate children so much,
    particularly those that you may have made.
    
    Meg

    Comeon Meg, Thats not it. I love woman and kids. This whole attitude
    about men "fathering" children infers that if we want sex then we have
    to take full responsibility for all the consequences. Don't woman
    "mother" kids too.

    re .49, of course, if you want sex you have to take full responsibility
    for all the consquences.  Both men and women do.
    
    Lorna
    

>>    Comeon Meg, Thats not it. I love woman and kids. This whole attitude
>>    about men "fathering" children infers that if we want sex then we have
>>    to take full responsibility for all the consequences. Don't woman
>>    "mother" kids too.

no, you come on - you seem firmly convinced that all the woman taking
support have some secret stash of money somewhere that they are hiding and
then forcing the poor mistreated man to pay support....where do you get
this information?  The fed. govt. has statistics that women spend an average
of 5 years on AFDC...that is only 5 years...just about long enough to get
the child grown up enough to go to school.  The custodial parent spends
the time and lives the restricted life that being a parent entails.  The
custodial parent may not have the skills to get a job that will pay enough
to pay child care costs and rent and food, etc....in fact, many don't.  Many
woman don't find jobs when they have small chidren because nobody wants
to hire someone who will be absent from work so much.  

WHO ELSE SHOULD SUPPORT THE CHILD IF THE MOTHER CANNOT????

If the mother is a non-custodial parent, then she should pay as much child
support as the non-custodial male parent would have to pay - percentage
of income calculations - it won't be the same amount as a male would pay
because he can earn more money (statistically speaking), but it should
be the same percentage.  The non-paying non-custodial parent should
be subject to the same penalties for non-payment.

When a child is born the parents support the child.  Period.  No
excuses.  The child NEEDS that support whether you wanted to be a daddy
or not.  If you don't want to be a daddy and the woman is raising the
child alone, and she can afford to let you get off without paying, fine.
But, if she gets to the point of needing the money to support the child,
then you have to pay....the child's needs don't go away because you don't
want to be a daddy.

    Women mother children and take it from oone who knows, working single
    parents work their tails off, at home and at whatever job, schooling
    etc they can get.  Most women take far more responsibility for their
    children than even men who live in the same household.  
    
    I just would like for men who father children to take their share of
    reponsibility too, and if they aren't willing to take the risk of
    spreading their genes around, do something to avoid it, instead of
    whining about how women manage to get themselves pregnant.  
    
    Meg  
    
    

re: contract between the parents

a case could be made that the parent who signs to release the other parent
from financial obligation is, in fact, signing away the child's birthright...
and that the child's needs override any such agreement.

    <a case could be made ...>

    as indeed it was (made) in 822.18
    and (remade) 	    in 822.23

    re .51
    
>WHO ELSE SHOULD SUPPORT THE CHILD IF THE MOTHER CANNOT????
>
>If the mother is a non-custodial parent, then she should pay as much child
>support as the non-custodial male parent would have to pay - percentage
>of income calculations - it won't be the same amount as a male would pay
>because he can earn more money (statistically speaking), but it should
>be the same percentage.  The non-paying non-custodial parent should
>be subject to the same penalties for non-payment.
    
    However, it's next to impossible for the father to get custody of 
    the child against the mother's wishes.  Especially in cases where 
    the parents are not married.  If the father is more able to care for 
    and provide for the child, if he wants custody, should he not be 
    afforded that opportunity?
    
    Should the CP be allowed to just sit and collect AFDC because it
    is inconvienent to work or because remaining on AFDC is more
    profitible?
    
    fred();

    IMHO children have the right and "need" of two loving and committed
    parents. This is the only birthright. With love and caring comes the
    support necessary to insure the childs healthy development. Modern day
    phsychologists such as Alice Miller, John Bradshaw and others talk about
    the subliminal communications during pregnancy and early in development
    relating to the receptivity of the parents to the child. Lack of
    unconditional love for the child has very negative impact on the childs
    self esteem and emotional development. In this context forcing a child
    onto someone is very detrimental to the child. I'm not just thinking of
    men but everyone. There are a lot of "shoulds" in this world but what
    I'm interested in is how to create DETERENT to creating this mess in
    the first place.   

    re .56, you mean like birth control?
    
    Lorna
    

    Birth control is not a deterent to deception or breach of trust.

    re .59, there is no way to eliminate the risk of deception or breach of
    trust when dealing with other human beings.  It's best to just accept
    that as part of life.  Only my opinion, of course.
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: .60
    You can't eliminate it but can you minimize it? 

>>>>    Birth control is not a deterent to deception or breach of trust.

so?.....birth control IS a deterrent to the unwanted pregnancy.  Are you
proposing that society pay for the child because the man chose an unworthy
sexual partner?????  I didn't TELL HIM TO HAVE SEX WITH HER...I should not
have to pay for his bad choices...if HE doesn't pay, and she can't pay,
then who does????

The deterrent to deception is to be VERRRRY careful about choosing a 
sexual partner.  To refuse to pay for the child because you didn't INTEND
to get her pregnant punishes the child....and punishes the tax payers
who have to pay for the child's support.  This isn't OUR problem...it
is yours.

    Allow me to point out the obvious fact that there is a very reliable
    deterrent to deception or breach of trust on the woman's part.  If the
    MAN refuses to have sex without a condom, he is pretty sure he's not
    going to father a child.  Not 100% sure, because condoms do fail, but
    if his refusal eliminates the willingness of a deceptive woman to have
    sex with him in the first place, then he's going to be far safer than
    merely the reliability percentage of condoms.
    
    -dick

    re: .62
    The premise is the woman willingly agreed to take full responsibility
    and then "changed her mind". Your argument about "who pays" is that we
    all pay in many ways other than monitary. If there was a valid deterent
    then there would be so few cases such as proposed that the financial
    impact on the welfare system would be far less.

    <proposing that society pay for the child>
    
    yup (as the supporter of last resort)
    
    As a practical matter that's what happens to unwanted kids, and kids who
    are born into hostile environments. American society does a pretty
    lousy job of it though.
    All of which is why abortion doesn't turn out to be such a terrible
    option(considering the alternatives) in my opinion. Sort of like a
    nuclear bomb. Horrible, horrible, horrible, horrible but the
    alternative was viewed to be an invasion of Japan (with one million
    dead?) and Russian troops moving much further south.

    re: society paying for the child.
    
    	The attitudes make an interesting contrast to here in France.
    France has a declining population, and the demographic trends give
    reasonable concern that at some time in the future there will not be
    enough working population to support those who have retired. 
    
    	Possible solutions could include compulsory euthanasia at a certain
    age, or restricting access to birth controls or abortions, but the
    French chose instead to provide financial incentives to have children.
    The next generation of children is regarded as an essential state
    asset, and the state is prepared to ensure that they are adequately fed
    and educated.
    
    	Of course this means higher taxes for non-custodial parents and
    others who choose not to have children, but this is a small price to
    pay to avoid a breakdown of society when you are too old to cope.
    
    	Even in the U.S. I believe you have to pay taxes to support schools
    whether or not you have children attending, so this is just society
    taking it one stage further by taking responsibility for a child's food
    and shelter as well as his education.
    
    	None of this guarantees the child love and affection of course, but
    it does mean that there is a strong tax incentive not to become a
    non-custodial parent, and I have known some families stay together for
    that reason.

    
    Are they really discussing compulsary euthanasia in France??
    

    	Of course they are not. Nor are they discussing mass-production of
    test tube babies in government laboratories. They have a demographic
    problem to solve, and I was just pointing out that most of the other
    possible solutions are more objectionable than treating children as a
    national asset for which the state is prepared to make a substantial
    financial contribution.

re: .44

 I noticed a curious lack of judgement of the behavior of a woman who is
unable to support a child, but who, having become pregnant, insists
on having it anyway. Inasmuch as you demand that the man behave responsibly
under any and all circumstances, your lack of comment about what is perhaps
as irresponsible a decision as one can make is decidedly curious. One might
conclude that you believe that women need not exercise any restraint or
common sense regarding reproduction, because it is a "right" to have
children, and if she should happen to become pregnant then ability to provide
for the child (emotionally, financially, logistically) should not even enter
into the equation because she (at least) has the man on the hook for the 
financial aspect.

 Your unwillingness to have society pay for children that are unwanted by
one partner or another is laudable, but I notice you made no mention about
women who insist upon having children regardless of the feelings of their 
partner. It's perfectly ok for a woman to make the choice she wants, and
she doesn't have to consider whether her partner wants the child or not because
she has society ready to toss the father's ass in jail at her behest if he
is unwilling to pay for the child SHE wants.

 Ah, you say, but if a man doesn't want to pay for unwanted children, he
should keep it in his knickers as even the most effective forms of birth
control sometimes fail (and then it's tough noogies for him). You don't
make the parallel. You don't say to women, "if you don't want to have to deal 
with a pregnancy on your own, make sure you know how your partner feels
_before_ you sleep with him." Nope, because that would imply a level of
responsibility for women that you are simply unwilling to allow.

 The ability for a woman to haul a man into court and get the judge to order
the man to support offspring is a direct descendant of patriarchical male 
attitudes about women. Women need to be taken care of (because they are
incapable of taking care of themselves.) Women must be treated differently
as they are apt to break under typical male handling. Etc. This legacy which
you embrace is a result of females being considered inferior beings. I don't
believe for a second that if men had children that they would be able to
haul a woman into court and get her to pay. And even if they could, it would
be considered to be shameful and humiliating. Men would just NOT have children
they weren't prepared for. End of story.

 I think that the attitude that a woman can have kids anytime she wants because
there will always be a man on the hook to pay for it all prevents equality
just as surely as the glass ceiling...

 The Doctah

    Doctah,
    
    this is why I keep harping on men using birth control as well as women. 
    I really think that men are capable of preventing having decisions made
    for them, by using a condom, vasectomy and helping a partner with her
    methods of BC as well.  I like to believe that men are not such slaves
    to their hormones, that they can't take 20 seconds to use a condom
    correctly.  
    
    Also encouraging partners to get training, education, etc, to increase
    one's ability  to make it in this economy may help end the idea that
    women are in need of care.
    
    However, children whether concieved on purpose or not need the support
    of two parents.  If you feel that supporting a child financially and
    emotionally is not in your cards, take steps to prevent it.  If you
    haven't and a partner winds up with a bun in the oven, then you own
    part of the responsibility for that child.  I really like to think that
    pride of not having one's offspring on the public system would be
    enough to have both parents supporting a child, but from the sounds of
    people in here, that is a far better solution than taking personal
    responsibility.  (Just like my ex)   I still think that men who feel
    that women are inherently deceptive creatures should never go to bed
    with one.
    
    Meg

    RE: .69  The Doctah
    
    > I don't believe for a second that if men had children that they would 
    > be able to haul a woman into court and get her to pay. And even if they 
    > could, it would be considered to be shameful and humiliating. Men would 
    > just NOT have children they weren't prepared for. End of story.
    
    This is pretty funny.  I wonder if you think that men never over-extend
    themselves financially or mismanage their resources (by buying new
    cars, boats, or high-tech toys they can't really afford.)  I wonder
    if you think men never make poor economic/financial decisions.
    
    Is it that men have more affection for cars, boats, and high-tech toys
    than they would have for an impending new family member (so the same
    guy who buys the car/boat/high-tech_toy and says "I'll manage it
    somehow" would find it easier to resist bringing a new child into
    the world)?

    re: .71
    I fail to understand how you can compare a material object with a
    living human being. The level of committment and responsibility towards
    children is unrivaled in my life experience.
    Thanks "DOCTAH" for seeing the true issue.
    Meg, most of your response in this note continue to stress the man must
    be the one to "ultimately avoid" pregnancy and live with the decision
    of the woman. If both partners are taking the necessary precautions
    then this must imply a conciuos attempt to not want kids at that time.
    Why should one person be allowed to impose their desires on someone
    else? Your arguments continue to state once the "bun" is in my oven
    then it's my bun. Children are not possesions. What gives a woman the
    right to make this decision?
    

>    I really think that men are capable of preventing having decisions made
>    for them,

 The only reason that men can "have decisions made for them" is because
we as a society have granted women this power. It is just as easy to take
this power away as it was to grant it. Doing this would then shift the
burden of the reponsibility for the uterus to the person who owns it.

>    Also encouraging partners to get training, education, etc, to increase
>    one's ability  to make it in this economy may help end the idea that
>    women are in need of care.

 Absolutely. Parents need to take responsibility for educating their female
children as well as their male children to preclude their daughters being
incapable of supporting themselves without a partner (male or female).

>    However, children whether concieved on purpose or not need the support
>    of two parents.

 I agree. Why a woman would choose to have a child that is not going to have
the support of a father is beyond me.

 I don't think the answer is to force a recalcitrant father to support his
unwanted offspring. The kid will rarely get the sort of support needed in
that scenario. Children should be _wanted_ by both parents. I truly believe
that if unwanted children were not brought into this world, there'd be less
child abuse, less poverty, and a better world.

    RE: .72
    
    > I fail to understand how you can compare a material object with a
    > living human being. The level of committment and responsibility towards
    > children is unrivaled in my life experience.
    
    Do you think that men manage their finances PERFECTLY once they become
    fathers (so that no child is ever adversely affected by a man's bad
    personal planning or financial management?)
    
    The Doctah's claim (that if men became pregnant, they would NOT bring
    children they couldn't afford into the world) is absurd.  Men *do*
    make mistakes in judgment in financial matters (and some of these
    mistakes *do* affect the children they support.)
    
    > If both partners are taking the necessary precautions then this must 
    > imply a conciuos attempt to not want kids at that time.
    
    In cases where the man gets "caught," he wasn't taking precautions.
    He left it to the woman.  If the man took his own precautions (while
    the woman was also taking precautions,) then they'd both face a LOT
    less risk of accidental pregnancy.  Most men don't want to take this
    responsibility, though.
    
    It appears that most men want the freedom to have as much sex (with
    as many different women) as they care to have - WITHOUT A SINGLE OUNCE
    OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR BIRTH CONTROL - and the freedom to walk away if
    they get women pregnant.
    
    I could see the complaint if women were putting holes in a man's
    condoms or something, but it's rarely the situation.  It appears
    that many/most men simply don't want ANY responsibility when it
    comes to sex (beyond their own enjoyment.)

    re .74, unfortunately, it seems that way to me, too.  Re men wanting
    enjoyment without responsibility regarding sex.
    
    I think that if a child is accidentally conceived, when birth control
    is being used, that both parents share an equal responsibility in
    financially supporting that child.  
    
    If the man doesn't want the child, and the woman discovers, that once
    finding herself pregnant, she can't bring herself to have an abortion
    (perhaps a pro-choice woman suddenly sees abortion as killing her own
    baby, when the fetus in question is hers?), I think it would take a
    very cold hearted man to suggest that a woman have an abortion, anyway,
    even though it may break her heart, and ruin her life.  It really
    saddens me to think that the average man could turn out to be so cold
    hearted.
    
    Lorna
    

    Lorna,
    Why is the fetus "hers"?. Isn't the fetus "Theirs"? 

    I think it's fairly obvious that the fetus is hers because it is in her
    body.  If and when technology advances to the point that we can bring a
    fetus to term in an artificial womb then the whole question of rights
    will remain lopsided, and if that's unfair then tough.  If, through
    fault on one or both sides, the women becomes pregnant then right now
    the decisions are hers and there is no realistic way around that.

    re: .77
    I disagree. That fetus is the result of an interaction between two
    consenting individuals. Both contribute to the creation. Just because
    the results of conception gestate for nine months in the female womb
    doesn't make the fetus "female property". Once that fetus is brought to
    term both the mother and father are held responsible for it. Where are
    the fathers rights in your context? 

    reply .75
    
    
>    re .74, unfortunately, it seems that way to me, too.  Re men wanting
>    enjoyment without responsibility regarding sex.
    
    	Unfortunateley I see a lot of women with this same attitude.
    	Especially teenagers with the attituce of "oh well, if I
    	get pregnant I'll get an abortion or get AFDC or get child 
    	support".
    
>    I think that if a child is accidentally conceived, when birth control
>    is being used, that both parents share an equal responsibility in
>    financially supporting that child.  
    
    And the mother goes on AFDC while the father goes to the poor house.
    Is this "equal".  While the only "fatherly" connection that the
    father is allowedd with the child is the monthly "child support" check.
    
>    If the man doesn't want the child, and the woman discovers, that once
    >    finding herself pregnant, she can't bring herself to have an abortion
>    (perhaps a pro-choice woman suddenly sees abortion as killing her own
>    baby, when the fetus in question is hers?), I think it would take a
>    very cold hearted man to suggest that a woman have an abortion, anyway,
>    even though it may break her heart, and ruin her life.  It really
>    saddens me to think that the average man could turn out to be so cold
>    hearted.
    
    Is it not just as cold hearted that if she wants the abortion and he
    doesn't that there isn't one &^%$ thing *he* can do but stand and
    watch his child be butchered.
    
    I think your line of argument is utterly hypocritical.
    
    fred();

    RE: .76
    
    > Lorna,
    > Why is the fetus "hers"?. Isn't the fetus "Theirs"? 
    
    In the context of her reply, IMO, she was distinguishing between a
    fetus in someone else's body and a fetus in her body (and the possible
    difference in her feelings about the situation when she's personally
    involved.)  She wasn't talking about "her" vs. "their" or "his"
    fetus.

    re .78
    
>    the results of conception gestate for nine months in the female womb
>    doesn't make the fetus "female property". Once that fetus is brought to
    
    Oh, yes it does.  The fetus is in the woman's body and she decides
    whether she wants to carry the parasite to term or not.  This may be
    lopsided, as I said, but it is reality until and if we get to the point
    where we can sustain the fetus outside her womb.

Mark, you argue an interesting case, but your rhetoric goes overboard
along the way.  Do you really imagine that the 'responsibility for the
uterus' currently rests anywhere other than with 'the one who owns it'?
The laws are as draconian wrt fathers and child support, need I remind
you, only because the society has learned over many generations that a
father will often cut and run, leaving all that responsibility where?

Why, outside the bounds of your rhetoric, obviously.

DougO

.82>Do you really imagine that the 'responsibility for the
.82>uterus' currently rests anywhere other than with 'the one who owns it'?
    
    A large portion of the financial responsibilty does.
    
    Just because some dads split and are never found, that doesn't mean
    they're not responsible.  We both know they are.  And when they're
    found, so do the courts.

    RE: .79 Fred
    
    >> re .74, unfortunately, it seems that way to me, too.  Re men wanting
    >> enjoyment without responsibility regarding sex.
    
    > Unfortunateley I see a lot of women with this same attitude.
    > Especially teenagers with the attituce of "oh well, if I
    > get pregnant I'll get an abortion or get AFDC or get child 
    > support".
    
    Try, "Oh well, it's only surgery on my body while I'm awake and can
    feel excrutiating pain" or "Oh well, it's only the next 21 years of 
    my life (during which I'll most likely be stuck in poverty, even if 
    the guy or AFDC DOES provide some amount of child support.)"
    
    > And the mother goes on AFDC while the father goes to the poor house.
    
    And you think living on AFDC is *not* the poor house???  These women
    are living on a lot less than 40 hours per week minimum wage would
    pay (so they're definitely living on less than the Dad makes, if he's
    working at all.)
    
    > Is this "equal".  While the only "fatherly" connection that the
    > father is allowedd with the child is the monthly "child support" check.
    
    Denying men ALL visitation rights is not the standard situation (unless
    the guy had to be hunted down to pay child support, in which case he'd
    already abandoned his "fatherly connection" by taking off.)
    
    > Is it not just as cold hearted that if she wants the abortion and he
    > doesn't that there isn't one &^%$ thing *he* can do but stand and
    > watch his child be butchered.
    
    If the mother doesn't wish to put her life/health at possible risk by
    carrying a pregnancy to term, he can't demand that she do this.  It's
    unfortunate if he wanted the child, but he can't force her to take a
    health risk (against her will) that he doesn't also face.

    re. 84
    
    I think that your reply is a perfect example your idea of "equality".
    
    fred();

    re: .81
    Just because the fetus resides in the female body doesn't make it "her
    property". She has the power to allow the fetus to continue to develop
    or not. This doesn't give her "property rights". She just controls the
    destiny of the fetus. 
    This is the crux of the arguments that continue to cross back and forth 
    along who decides. No one is arguing that a woman has the ultimate
    decision, just after the decision is made will society recognize the
    release of obligation if the decision is against a mans desires. To
    argue about who's responsible for pregnancy just distracts from the
    core issue. How do you handle disent between the parties?
    

    RE: .85  Fred
    
    > I think that your reply is a perfect example your idea of "equality".
    
    Fred, cut the crap.  Let's just stick to the discussion at hand, ok?
    

    re.87
    
>    Fred, cut the crap.  Let's just stick to the discussion at hand, ok?
    
    It seems to me, Suzanne, that your side of the argument depends
    a lot on "the descussion at hand".
    
    It makes me question your credibility and sincerity when you talk
    about "equality" in other nothes such as:
    
            <<< QUARK::NOTES_DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MENNOTES.NOTE;2 >>>
                         -< Topics Pertaining to Men >-
================================================================================
Note 819.4               Don't FATHER's Have ANY Rights?                 4 of 75
MOUTNS::CONLON                                       18 lines  12-AUG-1992 15:24
     -< Men are stuck with the bills 'cause men (as a group) have the $$ >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fathers are expected to pay so much for child support because our
    society still regards men as breadwinners and women as nurturers
    (and because men still get paid most of the money in our society.)
    
    If the people who make most of the money in our society (men) don't
    use it to support their children, then the rest of the people who
    make most of the money in our society (men) pay taxes to support
    some other men's children.  (Women pay these taxes, too, of course.)
    
    As long as men are recognized as making most of the money in our
    society, they will get stuck with big bills for child support.
    When the pay scales are more equal, men will be relieved of much
    of this burden (as well as the unfair burden of having to run so
    much of society without women's capable help.)
    
    Men need a rest from all this responsibility - when more men are
    willing to share it with women, they'll get the rest they so richly
    deserve.
    

    RE: .88  Fred
    
    >> Fred, cut the crap.  Let's just stick to the discussion at hand, ok?
    
    > It seems to me, Suzanne, that your side of the argument depends
    > a lot on "the descussion at hand".
    
    Yes, I'd prefer that we discuss the issues rather than take personal shots
    at each other.  Ok?
    
    If you have something to say about the discussion, get on with it.
    
    If you're looking for a fight, forget it.

> Do you really imagine that the 'responsibility for the
>uterus' currently rests anywhere other than with 'the one who owns it'?

 It has nothing to do with imagination, Doug. It's the law. If the uterus
becomes full, the responsibility for it is then shared by the man and
woman involved. True, only one party has any decision making ability,
but the simple fact is that currently both parties are held legally
responsible dependent on the results of the decision.

    Doctah,
    
    Let's try this again.  I am a woman and at this time I don't care to
    have more children.  I use my BC method responsibly to avoid an
    unplanned pregnancy.  It may  not be 100% effective, but it is the
    safest method for me, and Frank and I may decide we want another child at
    some point in time.   Becuase it is a barrier method it is inconvenient
    at times and messy most of the time, but I am male centered as far as
    my sexual orientation, and I will take the inconvenience and risk over 
    celibacy. 
    
    If I were a man and did not want children at this time, I have the
    option of using birthcontrol to protect myself from an unplanned
    pregnancy.  it may not be 100% effective, but it is a safe method, if a
    little inconvenient and non-spontaneous.  It also may protect me from
    several other potential problems, such as a certain incurable and fatal
    STD that is wandering around in our population.  I could further protect
    myself and my partner by insisting on spermicidal jelly, creme or foam
    used in conjunction with a condom.  I have other choices if a am female
    centered on my sexual orientation, such as celibacy as well.
      
    If I refuse as a woman or a man to use birth-control of some form, then
    I have abdicated my part in the decision making process, and leaving it
    in the hands of the Universe, which sseems to have a perverse desire to
    increase the human population.  At that time, I own the fact that a
    lack of responsibility in the decision making process, leaves me with
    no choice but to participate in whatever the results of my lack of
    responsibility become.         
    
    If I am male I can only vicariously share in the "joys" of pregnancy,
    such as morning sickness, elevated BP, bouncing blood sugar,
    migraines, backache, increased carpal tunneling in my wrists, emotional
    swings, and several other little nasties that can cause liver and/or
    kidny failure, and possibly result in death.  I can support my partner
    in labor, or not, and I don't have the scars left over from childbirth,
    (physical and possibly emotional).  I can only support my partner if
    whe chooses an abortion, (routinely done without anesthetic as
    anesthesia is far more dangerous than the procedure) and both of us
    share the joys and pains of either decision.
    
    I can also cut and run as men have been famous for doing for centuries. 
    This is why support laws have become draconion.  
    
    Meg 

    RE: .91
    There is one more factor to be considered. The childs need for two
    "supportive and committed" parents. Anything less than total
    committment is not "in the best interest of the child". Full term
    pregnancy does incur major risk to the mother and child. Terminating
    pregnancy in the first trimester may be potentially uncomfortable but
    weighed agaist the monumental problems facing the mother, father and
    child seems to be a momentary discomfort worth enduring. IMHO.

    RE: .92
    
    > Terminating pregnancy in the first trimester may be potentially 
    > uncomfortable but weighed agaist the monumental problems facing 
    > the mother, father and child seems to be a momentary discomfort 
    > worth enduring. IMHO.
    
    "Worth enduring" is a personal call that can only be made by the
    individual who is facing the surgery (and the risks) you've described.
    

    >There is one more factor to be considered. The childs need for two
    >"supportive and committed" parents. Anything less than total
    >committment is not "in the best interest of the child". 
    
    Says who?

    re: .93
    So to the crux of all this dancing, If the woman decides against
    termination should the ensuing responsibility be imposed upon the man?
    

    RE: .95
    
    > So to the crux of all this dancing, If the woman decides against
    > termination should the ensuing responsibility be imposed upon the man?
    
    If the woman decides against termination (and against adoption,) then
    the responsibility for the child's well-being rests on her shoulders.
    She may (or may not) ask the father to share part of the financial
    burden of this responsibility.
    

    Because the man is part of the genetic material involved.  Because
    presumably a man wants the very best for a piece of his future.  
    
    (How unrealistic of me)
    
    Meg

    re: .94
    An increasing body of evidence is forming around the dynamics of family
    systems and "normal" emotional development. Anything less than
    a mom-dad-child relationship is sub-par and IMHO be avoided at all
    costs. Single parent households from divorced families still provide a
    potentially committed father to the childs developmental needs IMHO.
    Yes there are surrogate relationships to help fill the gaps but there
    is only "damage control" and hope for the child.

Mark, I'm disappointed.  You neglected to address the 'whys' of the
present situation, though they were indicated in my note.  But while 
'responsibility' may be a legal concept, we both know that legalisms 
represent only the shadow of the problem.  Once we develop a society 
wherein the men don't abandon their young, I suspect we'll see fairer 
legislation.

DougO

    RE: .98
    
    > Anything less than a mom-dad-child relationship is sub-par and IMHO 
    > be avoided at all costs.
    
    Again, this sounds like a good personal guideline, but others may
    choose to follow a different guideline.
    

     re -1
    
    >anything less than a mom-dad-child relationship is sub-par
    
    bull!!!  as long as the child is loved and provided for it doesnt
    matter just who it is that does the raising!!!  If you truly
    believe that the mom-dad-child relationship is sub-par then
    don't have children.  Because you never know just how life
    is going to turn out.  

    RE: 101
    BEFORE YOU JUMP ON ME RE-READ THE TEXT OF MY REPLY. I said anything
    less than a mom-dad-child relationship is "less than optimum. I then
    said surrogate relationships can attempt tp approach the childs needs
    but may or may not be effective. granted even nuclear families create
    dysfunction to one degree or another but the most potential for
    providing for the child resides in a nuclear family. IMHO.
    

    re .101, fortunately the rest of the world has no obligation to live
    their lives according to your opinion.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .103, that was for Dan (not Michelle - obviously).
    
    Lorna
    

    re .98, WRT 94: 
    
    In .94, you stated your opinions as "truth."  I appreciate your
    acknowledging that they are your opinions.  A few thoughts:
    
    Two-parent "nuclear" families are a very recent phenomenon in society;
    much more common in previous generations were multi-generational
    extended families.  In situations like these, the "parenting" was done
    by many adults, not just the genetic parents, and the loss of a parent
    (for whatever reason) was often less overwhelming.
    
    On the other side of the coin, mom-dad-kids relationships aren't
    necessarily ideal.  There are lots of families out there that look
    good on the outside, but are actually horrifc situations, for any
    number of reasons: alcoholism, abuse, incest, workaholism, religious
    regidity, and so on.  In cases like these, removing one of the parents
    improves, rather than diminishes, the quality of life in the family.
    
    					andrew

    re: 105
    In my fervor to respond and defend I forgot to include the most
    powerful of all resources for raising kids - The extended family.
    Thanks for bringing that to the table.
    
    re: FANGS
    I find it intriguing that because I have opinions some wish to assume I
    intend to impose them as "rules to live by" for all. My purpose in
    these notes is to explore solutions, not impose them. Attack my ideas
    all you want but please don't try to minimize the power of ideas by
    attempting to diminish the source.
    				respectfully yours,
    					dan d

> I noticed a curious lack of judgement of the behavior of a woman who is
>unable to support a child, but who, having become pregnant, insists
>on having it anyway. Inasmuch as you demand that the man behave responsibly
>under any and all circumstances, your lack of comment about what is perhaps
>as irresponsible a decision as one can make is decidedly curious. One might
>conclude that you believe that women need not exercise any restraint or
>common sense regarding reproduction, because it is a "right" to have
>children, and if she should happen to become pregnant then ability to provide
>for the child (emotionally, financially, logistically) should not even enter
>into the equation because she (at least) has the man on the hook for the 
>financial aspect.

as has been mentioned, even the best forms of birth control can fail...and
if a pregnancy occurs, the woman must carry the child or have an abortion.
To many, the choice of abortion is simply not an option.  At that point,
she has the child because she has not other choice.  Lack of common-sense,
yes, perhaps, in that she has obviously chosen a partner who does not
have any intention of taking the responsiblity of the pregnancy should
one occur.  Should she have chosen to have a child if she knew she wasn't
able to support it?  Of course not.  How do you know she planned to have
a child, first, and how do you know she wasn't able to support the child
at the time the choice was made - if it was?  Children do not disappear
just because someone gets fired from a job or because the landlord suddenly
forces the family to move out or because someone gets laid-off and cannot
find another job.  NOBODY knows if they can support a child for the full
infancy and adolesence of the child...and sometimes, even with the best
of intentions, they end up unable to.  

FYI:  If a woman with a dependent child goes to get help from the AFDC, she
is not given a choice to tap the biological father of the child or not...the
AFDC provides the lawyer and the action is required of the woman in order
for her to get aid.  Period.  No exceptions.  You don't even know that the
woman in question WANTED to negate her contract - she may very well have
had no choice in the matter.

> Your unwillingness to have society pay for children that are unwanted by
>one partner or another is laudable, but I notice you made no mention about
>women who insist upon having children regardless of the feelings of their 
>partner. It's perfectly ok for a woman to make the choice she wants, and
>she doesn't have to consider whether her partner wants the child or not because
>she has society ready to toss the father's ass in jail at her behest if he
>is unwilling to pay for the child SHE wants.

I said that if a woman has a job and can pay she SHOULD pay - what more do
you need from me?  I also said that if she was non-custodial parent and
refused to pay, she should be subject to the same penalties as a male
non-custodial parent.  If she is the custodial parent, then we gain nothing
by imprisoning her for not working...we then must provide shelter for
her children - and we still have no support for them.  If the man is
the custodial parent, I also believe that jail is not an option.  What is
unfair about that?  I don't believe, however, that it is necessarily a
good idea whip the chidren away from the custodial parent if that parent
is in a financial bind for a short time...the children need stability.
If the custodial and non-custodial parents agree to the transfer, and the
children KNOW the non-custodial parent, it might be fine.  However, I
would be very reluctant to pass the chidren into the care of a parent
who had to be dragged into court in order to get support from him/her...
how involved can that person be???

> Ah, you say, but if a man doesn't want to pay for unwanted children, he
>should keep it in his knickers as even the most effective forms of birth
>control sometimes fail (and then it's tough noogies for him). You don't
>make the parallel. You don't say to women, "if you don't want to have to deal 
>with a pregnancy on your own, make sure you know how your partner feels
>_before_ you sleep with him." Nope, because that would imply a level of
>responsibility for women that you are simply unwilling to allow.

Doctah, the woman has the risk of pregnancy before her ALL the time.  I know
there are women out there who abuse the system - and they are a mess we
all have to deal with - however, the vast majority of woman ARE as careful
as they can be...they don't choose to get pregnant by some dude who skips
out at the idea of fatherhood...however, they have the same lapses of
judgement as the men do - and when the accidental pregnancy arrives, she
has to either REALLY put up - pregnancy and parenthood - or she has to
get an abortion...you cannot seriously be suggesting that we have laws
compelling women to abort if the man wants the "problem" to go away?
Of course, she should have been better at choosing her partner!!!!  BUT,
once the pregnancy occurrs, she doesn't have the CHOICE of signing off
her responsiblity to the pregnancy - either way, she has to deal with it.

> The ability for a woman to haul a man into court and get the judge to order
>the man to support offspring is a direct descendant of patriarchical male 
>attitudes about women. Women need to be taken care of (because they are
>incapable of taking care of themselves.) Women must be treated differently
>as they are apt to break under typical male handling. Etc. This legacy which
>you embrace is a result of females being considered inferior beings. I don't
>believe for a second that if men had children that they would be able to
>haul a woman into court and get her to pay. And even if they could, it would
>be considered to be shameful and humiliating. Men would just NOT have children
>they weren't prepared for. End of story.

you are right.  However, as said before, when woman must get aid, they don't
get a choice whether to go to court - the state does it for them.  It is
also more often that a woman has to get aid because of inequities in salaries
and job opportunities for woman - especially for woman of small chidren -
and these inequities are the result of the patriarchial social views on
chid rearing....so, it still means little when a child is hungry and needs
a place to sleep and food to eat.  I would like to see the system more equal.
However, I do not believe that equality equates to allowing a man to walk
away from his offspring just because he didn't want to be a parent.  The
child needs the support and the child should get it.  Every adult who is
responsible for a child must learn to take that responsibility seriously.
If they cannot, between the two of them, support the child adequately, then
we, the tax-payers must make up the rest of the cost - and I agree to that
willingly in order to protect the child...but, BOTH parents are responsible
for the child and both parents must live up to that responsibility...How
else are we ever going to teach them to really be responsible adults?

> I think that the attitude that a woman can have kids anytime she wants because
>there will always be a man on the hook to pay for it all prevents equality
>just as surely as the glass ceiling...

I think that any society that would let a child go hungry or without shelter
in order to punish the mother of that child for having the child even though
the father didn't want it is a barbaric society.  I am not willing to
promote such an idea, nor do I feel that any other sane adult would do so...
the fact that our society is so close to this insanity right now is a
blight on our souls.  I think that the solution to these kinds of problems
lies in the availability of cheap, effective birth control, education about
our bodies and reproductive systems, and education about the responsibilities
of parenthood.  And, as said before, the woman doesn't have a choice about
taking the man to court - the choice is made when she goes for aid...if he
has a job, he will pay.  That is the law - at least in my state.

    re: 107
    I don't see anyone wanting to "punish the child". Blame and it's cruel
    ways have no place in a humane system. The system should support the
    mother and child without "going after the biological dad". The system
    should honor the agreements between the parties. 
    Restating for the umpteenth time. How do you structure a system that
    deters "entrappment" and allows a woman to have children against a mans
    desires? 

    RE: .108
    
    > I don't see anyone wanting to "punish the child". Blame and it's cruel
    > ways have no place in a humane system. The system should support the
    > mother and child without "going after the biological dad". The system
    > should honor the agreements between the parties. 
    
    If the system doesn't get the support money back from the dad (ever
    again,) are you willing to pay more taxes to put this policy in place?
    (I presume that the point of "going after" the Dads is to save all us
    taxpayers from having to foot the entire bills for their kids.)

    re: .109
    This is the dilema hardest to grapple IMHO. A deterent to entrappment
    is tough to find without depriving the child and mother benefits. It
    seems to be a catch 22. 
    Denying benefits will deter some but those that still have the kids
    would  be deprived. I don't like this because it punishes the innocent
    child.
    Giving the dad a chance at custody would deter woman from accessing 
    benefits for fear of losing the child. Again this could punish the innocent
    kids by not getting them the aid they need. 
    I see out-of-wedlock births the primary source of the problem IMO.
    Possibly registering the chid as such at the birthplace could allow
    on-going counseling of the mother and father to avoid re-occurence.
    Just a thought.
     
    

>===============================================================================
>Note 822.98               Where Do You Draw The Line?                 98 of 110
>CCAD::DINGELDEIN "PHOENIX"                          8 lines  24-AUG-1992 14:51
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   re: .94
>   An increasing body of evidence is forming around the dynamics of family
>   systems and "normal" emotional development. Anything less than
>   a mom-dad-child relationship is sub-par and IMHO be avoided at all
>   costs. 
>
>===============================================================================
>Note 822.106              Where Do You Draw The Line?                106 of 110
>PCCAD::DINGELDEIN "PHOENIX"                         13 lines  24-AUG-1992 15:39
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>   re: 105
>   In my fervor to respond and defend I forgot to include the most
>   powerful of all resources for raising kids - The extended family.
    
    These two statements are in direct contradiction to each other.
    
    					andrew

    RE: 111
    Not contradictory but serial in nature. Through parents come
    relationship to the extended family. The extended family or other
    surrogate source can substitute for but not replace the father. Do you
    prefer an original or are you satisfied with a copy?
    The point is the original parents and their extended family are the
    best "potential" source of nurturing but not necessarily the only
    source. 
    re: Andrew
    My reference to John Bradshaw is to acknowledge the realities of
    Dysfunctioal families and the need to in certain situations intervene
    in existing nuclear families to protect the child. But if the abusing
    parent/parents are able to be rehabilitated then they become the
    "primary choice" for the kids IMHO.
     

    RE: .110  
    
    > This is the dilema hardest to grapple IMHO. A deterent to entrappment
    > is tough to find without depriving the child and mother benefits. It
    > seems to be a catch 22. 
    
    Meanwhile, nearly all of the men who are getting "caught" (not to mention
    the ones who get away) are *not* taking responsibility for using birth 
    control to prevent this situation.  If this is such a scary thing for
    many/most men, why doesn't the threat of "entrapment" work to deter
    these men from having sexual contact without taking this responsibility?
    
    > Giving the dad a chance at custody would deter woman from accessing 
    > benefits for fear of losing the child. Again this could punish the 
    > innocent kids by not getting them the aid they need. 
    
    Again, where are your suggestions for ways to deter the dads from
    having sex without taking responsibility for birth control?  Is there
    some reason why men should have zero birth control responsibility *and*
    zero financial responsibilities for any seeds they hoped someone else
    would keep them from planting?

    >The extended family or other surrogate source can substitute for but
    >not replace the father. Do you prefer an original or are you satisfied
    >with a copy?
    
    Depends.  Just because someone provided half the genetic material
    doesn't mean he (or she) has the capabilites to be a parent.  If a
    "copy" can raise the child better, I prefer the copy.
    
    A digression:  I listened to the Republicans talk about "family values"
    then, a few days later, I saw a Bradshaw special talking about
    dysfunctional families, and their prevalence in this country.  I know
    from personal experience that the kind of family that Bradshaw talks
    about is much more common than the family the Republicans talk about.
    
    I also know from personal experience that people (not just parents)
    can recover and rehabilitate -- I also know that most of 'em don't.
                                      

    re: 113
    I know the prospect of relinquishing 40% of my take-home pay is quite
    sufficient of a deterent. Some guys just don't think with their brains
    and will blindly trust "It's ok honey, I won't get pregnant". I've got
    a 19 year old son jet-propelled by testosterone and I constantly remind
    him of the potential consequences of un-protected sex. I pray he
    doesn't give in to poor judgement.
    

I find the idea of society taking over the responsibility for supporting
the infant in order for the biological father of the infant to walk away
with no expense because "she promised she wouldn't get pregnant" to be
repugnant.  I, as a member of said society, do not choose to be 
responsible for your or anyone else's lack of maturity and care to the 
point where you or the original source of the "problem" walk away with
no responsibility....it is fair that the biological, non-custodial parent
of the child pay child support.  It is also a GIVEN that the custodial
parent, whether mother or father, is also providing child
support - if not financially, then by the simple fact that the custodial
parent is the primary care-giver of the child - a job that would cost
a pretty penny if you hired someone to do it 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Consider how much child care 9 hours a day, 5 days a week costs - and figure
in the other hours, holidays, week-ends, etc..  It is also repugnant to suggest
that a pregnant woman is some kind of criminal because she doesn't
agree to terminate a pregnancy at the man's insistance.  The whole premise
of personal autonomy is that I cannot make you do something with your body
that you do not choose to do - yet, I hear a clear undercurrent here that
you men feel that you should be able to tell a woman that, because you do
not choose to be a parent, she must abort...or, because you choose to be
a parent, she must carry a pregnancy to term.  This amounts to ownership of
her reproductive system - and that is slavery.

I also find it quite interesting that the men in this string do not consider
for even a minute that the woman in the original case discussed herein might
NOT have been bent on deception, but rather, a victim of circumstance just
as the man is - that the pregnancy was not planned at all.  You are all
quite willing to assume that she got pregnant ON PURPOSE, it seems ONLY
to coerce money from the man to support the child.  Doesn't it strike you
that if a woman wanted to force a man to give her money, she might find
another method - one that did not force profound change in her lifestyle
for the next 18 or so years?  Perhaps she could just get him into a
situation where she could blackmail him or something?  The male attitude 
expressed in this string of notes is appalling.....you totally negated
the possibility that the woman might have simply not been able to
accept an abortion within her moral context - nor did you grant her even
a shred of genuine need when she was forced to go to court to get child
support for her child.  Yet, I hear you all protest loud and clear that a
man can lose his job or fall into hard times and not be able to pay child
support...doesn't this strike you as a bit lop-sided?  Why is it that you
see sinister intent when the woman has to come to the man and ask for
support for his and her child???  Isn't it possible that she lost her job
or needs medical care - or even needs to spend time with the child due
to his/her special needs?  And none of you addressed that fact that the AFDC
FORCES the court action - that the woman has no choice in the matter....or
doesn't that little fact fit into your scenario of the predatory woman looking
to get preggers so she can live in the lap of luxury on her $200.00/week...
if that much?  When was the last time you tried to pay rent and feed and
clothe a child on $200.00/week.  Guys, really, let me tell ya, if the woman
is so venal as to choose to get pregnant just to rip off a man for money...
she is going to marry a very rich man and she is going to stay married to
him long enough to walk away with a hell of a lot more money than you
working stiffs will earn in your lifetimes.  I think it is safe to assume
that the woman who gets pregnant while assuming the position with you is
NOT planning her permanent vacation - she is a woman who has to make some
very heavy decisions and live by them.  It won't be fun for her.  

The simply fact is - if a woman just wants to get pregnant, she can go to
a clinic and get the sperm of rocket scientists or nobel prize winners or
at the very least, doctors.  She can assure herself that her child packs
the genetic material of geniuses or great artists.  Why in the hell do
you thing she would intentionally get pregnant by you???  Oh, I forgot,
so she could collect that $200.00/week....wow.  What a concept.

Lord, I hope that the attitudes expressed in this string are not your
genuine feelings about women...if so, I don't give your relationships with
women any chance of long-term survival.

.116>I find the idea of society taking over the responsibility for supporting
.116>the infant in order for the biological father of the infant to walk away
.116>with no expense because "she promised she wouldn't get pregnant" to be
.116>repugnant.
    
    And just what do you think of aborting the pregnancy in order for the
    biologocial mother of the infant to walk away with no expense because
    "she didn't want to be pregnant?"

>Should she have chosen to have a child if she knew she wasn't
>able to support it?  Of course not.  How do you know she planned to have
>a child, first, and how do you know she wasn't able to support the child
>at the time the choice was made - if it was? 

 Whether she planned to have the child or simply chose to continue an
unexpected pregnancy is immaterial. She ought to know what her capacity
is for supporting a child at the point she decides to have the baby and
keep it. And as far as having something happen that makes her no longer able
to support a child or children after having been able to before, well,
obviously there are no guarantees. And that's not what I am talking about at all.

>you cannot seriously be suggesting that we have laws
>compelling women to abort if the man wants the "problem" to go away?

 Of course not. But a woman should realize that's legally speaking she's
on her own. She gets to decide how to deal with her pregnancy, but she also 
bears the full responsibility for whatever outcome she chooses. Of course,
this does not prevent the man from stepping in and rendering assistance
if he should choose.

>It is
>also more often that a woman has to get aid because of inequities in salaries
>and job opportunities for woman - especially for woman of small chidren -
>and these inequities are the result of the patriarchial social views on
>chid rearing...

 I agree 100%.

>However, I do not believe that equality equates to allowing a man to walk
>away from his offspring just because he didn't want to be a parent.

 Wait a minute. I am not talking about offspring; I am talking about zygotes.
If a man and a woman have children and he decides he doesn't feel like
being a daddy anymore, that's tough beans for him. I am talking about
fertilized eggs, the kind that aren't people, remember from the abortion
note?

 BTW, what do you think would happen to the birthrate of unwed mothers
if they knew they were on their own financially from the outset? Do you
think it would go up, go down, or stay the same?

>Anything less than
>   a mom-dad-child relationship is sub-par

>   In my fervor to respond and defend I forgot to include the most
>   powerful of all resources for raising kids - The extended family.


>>>    These two statements are in direct contradiction to each other.

 No they aren't, Andrew. An extended family is better than a mom-dad-child
relationship. No contradiction at all.

 Imagine the following heirarchy:

 extended family

 mom-dad-child

 singe parent-child

 ward of the state

    I am just curious,
    
    Who do you all think wrote those"draconion" child support laws, voted
    them through legilatures, and signed them into law?  I dont know about
    anyone elses state, but less than 10% of the legislaters in Colorado
    are women.
    
    Meg

>    Who do you all think wrote those"draconion" child support laws, voted
    
    Spineless politicians who were more concerned with appeasing the
    demands of the self-appointed politically correct and agenda motivated
    vocal minority than they were concerned with justice.
    

    Each state has their own guidlines for child support. From the
    information I've seen Mass is the "most draconian". There was a panel
    convened back in the mid-eighties consisting of the BAR, Dept. of
    Social Servises, The Judicial, Welfare etc. Not one representative of
    Non-Custodial Parents. From the results of this "panel" it looks like a
    "supertax" on NCP's to help finance state welfare programs. 

    
    
    re .117
    
    How can you compare case one in which a born child exists to case
    two in which a born child doesnt exist?     
    
    A born child needs finanical, physical and emotional support.
    That responsibility rests with both of its parents.  

    Re: responsibility rests with both parents
    
    I demur.  Suppose a woman is inseminated through a sperm bank.  Is the
    child entitled to the loving support of its biological father?  I think
    not.
    
    Rather than pontificating the moral law for others (a thankless and
    incidentally impossible task in any event), I think the determination
    of responsibility rests with the individual people involved, and I (for
    one) am certain that a woman alone is every bit as capable of arriving
    at a correct determination for her situation as a man is for his.  If
    one parent's determination is that the child deserves both parents'
    love and the other's is otherwise, then things can get sticky.  Then,
    not before, and only if government's interference is requested by one
    of the parties, does society have any moral right whatever to stick its
    collective nose in.
    
    -dick

>    How can you compare case one in which a born child exists to case
>    two in which a born child doesnt exist?     

 You are inaccurately characterizing things. In both cases, the child or
nonchild (as you prefer) is in an identical state of existence at the time
of the decisions by both parents as to whether to have a child or not. If she
chooses to abort and he chooses to continue, he is overruled. If they both decide
one way or another, no problem. But if she decides to continue, he should be
afforded the same opportunity to opt not to have a child. And at that point, he
is not "walking away from a child" anymore or any less than a woman who chooses
to abort kills a child. We're talking about zygotes and fetuses here.

 Should a man decide AFTER it is too late to abort that he doesn't want to be
a daddy, tough beans for him (assuming she didn't keep the pregnancy from him
or lie about her intentions). Same with kids. If a guy decides to leave his wife
(or vice versa) after kids exist, he has to continue to provide support.

>    A born child needs finanical, physical and emotional support.
>    That responsibility rests with both of its parents.  

 Absolutely. However, an unborn child's needs are completely met by the woman,
and it cannot be any other way. If a woman chooses to allow an unborn child to
become a born child and insists on keeping the child all the while knowing that
the father has no intention of providing the support the child requires, then 
she's signing up to provide those things herself. 

    RE:  .125
    
    AGREED!

    I agree with .116.
    
    I think that men should just accept the fact that if an accidental
    pregnancy occurs, that regardless of any verbal agreements made or not
    made between the two participants, that the woman is going to go after
    the man for child support, because most women cannot afford to raise a
    child alone on their salaries.  I think that any men who cannot accept
    this should not have sex with women.  After reading this string, I
    can't see where it would be any great loss for most of us.  I wouldn't
    want any such selfish brutes touching a kid of mine anyway.
    
    Lorna
    

    Lorna,
    	"A child of mine" suggests possession. Kids aren't property. 
    
    "Men shouldn't have sex with woman" - A woman has the right to say
    no to sex just as much as a man. A woman can insist on the terms of sex
    more than a man. "Men don't get woman pregnant", pregnancy is a result
    of sex which happens to be a mutual decision. If the woman isn't ready
    to care for kids she has all the choices in the world to avoid having
    them. 
    			dan d 
    	

    re .128, yes, and so do *men*!!!  So, what's your point?  What's your
    problem?  You don't want kids, either get a vasectomy or practice
    abstinance!  Why this incessent complaining?
    
    You say a child of mine suggests possession.  You know as well as I do
    that it's common for people to use the expression "my husband", "my
    wife", "my girlfriend" "my daughter" - it's an expression - it doesn't
    mean people think they *own* the other person like they own their
    briefcase or stereo or car.
    
    Besides, if the man involved in the sex act, didn't want the kid, then
    it would be mine.  If two people jointly own something, and one of them
    says, "I don't want this anymore" then it suddenly belongs to only one
    of them!!
    
    This is all academic anyway.  You're talking to a 42 yr. old woman who
    has only gotten pregnant once in her life, fer goddsakes!!  
    
    My opinion is that everyone knows that sex can result in pregnancy,
    everyone should know that birth control is not 100% effective, and
    sometimes fails.  If birth control fails and the woman gets pregnant
    inspite of it, and can't bring herself to have an abortion or give the
    kid up for adoption, then I think the man has a 50% responsibility to
    support the child.  The law agrees with me.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .128, you totally refuse to address the fact that birth control is
    not 100% effective.  Guess what?  My 18 yr. old daughter was conceived
    while I was on the pill!  Yes, amazing things have happened in this
    world.  Condoms break sometimes, too!  
    
    What do you think should happen to a woman and child in this scenario -
    
    birth control method fails and woman becomes pregnant
    woman would be heart broken to either have an abortion or give child up
    for adoption
    man refuses to help support child
    woman does not make enough money to raise child alone
    
    Should the child go to bed hungry at night, in a cold house, and wear
    rags, and have no toys, just because the biological father, who was
    very happy to get his rocks off the night the kid was conceived, does
    not want a child???
    
    If this was your kid, would you let it live in poverty, while you lived
    high on the hog, with a good job in a high tech company?  Could you
    sleep at night knowing your own flesh and blood was suffering?
    
    You're pretty damned heartless if you could, IMO.
    
    Lorna
    

    
>    If this was your kid, would you let it live in poverty, while you lived
>    high on the hog, with a good job in a high tech company?  Could you
>    sleep at night knowing your own flesh and blood was suffering?
    
no, of course not...he would expect the tax payers of this country to pay
instead of him because he didn't want to become a daddy.  In his scenario,
he should walk free because he didn't WANT the child.  Of course, he also
feels free to criticize a women who might opt for abortion rather than
face the prospect of trying to raise a child with no, or only very
reluctant, child support from the father - on her salary.  You see,
she is wrong to have an abortion....and she is wrong for expecting him
to pay for the child...apparently, if the birth control fails, it is
ALL HER FAULT.

nice mature attitude, eh?

    re: last few
    
    Lorna,
    	I've pretty much been a read only in this conference, but this
    argument mirrors one we have had on a local bbs.
    	If two people enter into consensual sex and take the appropriate
    measures, pregnancy can sometimes occur.  But if the woman decides to
    carry the child to term and keep it against the man's wishes, I don't
    really think he should be liable for the kid's upkeep.  Both parties
    went into the act with the expectation that no child would result, so
    why should the guy be liable for something he does not want and took
    appropriate action to prevent?  For that matter, since the woman
    committed the act with the same expectations and is, in effect, forcing
    her decision on the man(assuming he didn't want the child), why should
    she expect any aid or succor from him?
    	Now I admit, I don't think I would be able to completely sever
    myself from any child of mine, but I do not expect to be forced into a
    position just because the woman has reneged on her previous position.
    
    George
    f

>    position just because the woman has reneged on her previous position.
    
    You never stated her "previous position".  Are you saying that she
    agreed ahead of time that if she got pregnant that she'd have an
    abortion?
    					- Vick

>The law agrees with me.

 So if men band together and get the law changed, you'll have no quarrel 
with that?

>  Are you saying that she
>    agreed ahead of time that if she got pregnant that she'd have an
>    abortion?

 The claim is that she did not indicate she wanted a child as an outcome of
the coupling. Or that she indicated she did NOT want a child as a result of
the coupling.

    So how did she "renege"?  If she promised she'd get an abortion then
    I can see how that would be reneging.   But if she gets pregnant when
    she didn't want to get pregnant then I don't see how she is "reneging" 
    anymore than he is.  Neither of them wanted her to get pregnant.
    
    				- Vick

    re .134, no, if men "band together" and get the law changed, I'll
    disagree with the law.  In this case, however, I was just pointing out
    that, so far, the law does agree with me.  (Often, it seems, the law
    doesn't agree with my views - it's nice when it does on occasion!  It's
    not a claim I can always make, so I thought I'd make it while I could!)
    
    I think men should be aware that just because a woman didn't *want* a
    baby, and just because she used birth control, that does not mean that
    she would get an abortion if she did happen to get pregnant by
    accident.  Not wanting a child, that has not yet been conceived, and
    killing one that has been conceived are two entirely different matters,
    for some of us.
    
    Lorna
    

    And if the rolls were reversed Lorna, a woman wants to abort the child
    and  the man wants to keep? Its her body? He has no say again? A mutual
    consent to an unmututal end? He has no chance of even getting custody
    if the child was carried to term in our present society.

    If you never want the risk of a woman getting pregnant, don't sleep
    with one.
    
    If you accept the fact that women do on occaision get pregnant, then
    use protection yourself as well as whatever she may be using.  Don't
    just expect her to be using some form of birth control.  Don't expect
    that should she be pregnant that protective hormones won't kick in and
    that she will just automatically get an abortion.  Expect to take
    responsiblities for your actions and not dump them all on a child should
    a child result.  Oh yeah, I forgot.  It isn't a real baby if you didn't
    want it to occur.  It couldn't have any genetic material from you and
    really shouldn't expect you to love, care for, or support it.
    
    I recommend that everyone who doesn't understand support issues, spend
    a day in a child support court.  What you may learn about the
    men and women who don't pay child support and their excuses may
    surprise you.  
    
    Selfish, inconsiderate, and boorish, are the least offensive terms I
    can come up with for several would-be deadbeat parents in this file.
    
    Meg 

    IMO the problem is the imposition of a responsibility. The child, once
    born, has all the right to being cared for. I'm not arguing this. I'm
    not inhumane nor irresponsible. 
    The system must recognize the dual nature of having children. Presently
    it's a serial resoning that states "the man lives with the decision of
    the woman". What gives the woman the right to make that imposition
    outside of :territorial rights of the womb". Presently there is no
    accountability or consideration for the mans intent. Children have got
    to be a mutual decision or injustice occurs. IMO!
    
    

    RE: .139
    Your point of "its not a real baby" is not the attitude I'm expressing
    nor any other man IMO. As I stated many notes back - If the woman is
    not willing to deal with the realities of pregnancy she should abstain
    from sex also. You keep dumping that argument in the mans arena as if
    its a risk only he can manage to avoid. 
    About support hearings - If child support was a "reasonable amount" and
    visitation was enforced for the man then a lot of the adversarial
    attitudes in probate would be defused and true fairness could emerge.
    
    

    re .140, blame the injustice on nature.  Babies grow inside women not
    men.  I was the one who had morning sickness, and had to walk around
    with a mound the size of a rocketship attached to my otherwise frail
    and slender form - :-) - not my exhusband (who has a stocky, sturdy
    form!).  I was the one who had to have a painful and frightening
    C-section, not my ex-husband.  I think it would have been more fair if
    he had had to be pregnant some of the time, and if he had had to have
    his tummy cut open, too, *but* damn nature, I got stuck with the whole
    bit.  And, guess what, when a baby is born they bring it to the mother
    and expect her to take care of it.  If a man says he wants a woman to
    go thru with a pregnancy just so he can have the baby, if she doesn't,
    who is to say he won't change his mind, and she'll get stuck with it
    anyway.  That happened to one of my best friends!!!  The baby goes to
    UMass now and the biological father never sees her, and has not
    contributed one cent towards her upbringing.
    
    The bottom line is, that history has shown us, that responsibility
    sometimes has to be forced on people, because otherwise they are not
    responsible.
    
    
    Lorna 

    re .142
    
    >re .140, blame the injustice on nature.  Babies grow inside women not
    
    Would you also support "blame the injustice on nature" for issues 
    like "women in combat", "women as firefighters", "women as _name_
    your_phisycal_intensive_ocupation".
    
    This is where I start having problems with the credibility of 
    so-called "equal rights" groups.  They want "all things equal" when 
    it's to their benefit, but then want to "blame it on nature" when 
    it's to their benefit.  
    
    fred();
    

    re .143, I do not think that women, in general, are as well suited to
    combat or firefighting as men, and, in general, I am not in favor of
    women in those capacities.   I believe in equal options for men and
    women, to a great degree, but feel that, at a certain point, common
    sense in regard to reality needs to be utilized.  So, I guess you don't
    have me on that one, huh, Fred.  Sorry to dissapoint you.
    
    I don't follow any party line. I think for myself and form my own
    opinions.  It doesn't always make me popular, but it certainly makes me
    opinionated (like many other noters).
    
    Lorna

nature has not rigged women to be less capable of killing another human
being than a man....ergo, the argument of who is suitable for battle must
be settled on a case-by-case issue...it isn't valid to limit the job
of soldiering to only men, and asking only men to risk their lives in
the service of whatever the hell the current soldier is serving.  The weapons
of the current era have equalized the power to kill - ability to kill is no 
longer dependent upon size or upper body strength.  Specious argument which has
nothing to do with the fact that women carry the womb, and therefore, the
baby.  Nature has rigged the reproduction game in the favor of the woman
having the ultimate say....we feminists didn't rig this one, we had no
say in the matter.  If you want it equalized, then get busy and create
both a safe method ( non-surgical and without anesthesia ) to remove the
fertilized egg and an artificial womb in which to grow the baby...then, if
the man wants the child, let him buy the womb and take the responsiblity.
Until then, the woman still gets to decide whether she wants to pay the
physical price of child birth.  

Re: fire-fighters...I am inclined to agree on this one due to the need for
upper-body strength.  However, has it occurred to you that the reason women
want these jobs is because of the pay - we have learned that when we get
a "MANS JOB", we get a decent salary.  When we get a womans job, we get
 $0.62 on the $1.00.

       <<< Note 822.145 by FORTSC::WILDE "why am I not yet a dragon?" >>>
                -< Lord, I wish that you men got preggers!!!!! >-

"If men got pregnant then abortion would be a sacrament."

    Abortion was legalized to protect woman. not liberate men.
    It ceases to amaze me that certain woman can continue to cast the blame
    for all inequality and suffering on "the patriarchy".
    My goal is to help create balance and equality in responsibility and
    opportunity. 
    Nature is elemental law, society is an attempt at "humanizing" natural
    law. IMO. 
    We as noters can continue to create narrow focus and argue details
    forever, which is happening in this string, or attempt a neutral
    position accomodating both camps. Some believe abortion is a crime.
    For these individuals pre-marital sex with it's risks should be
    avoided. For the rest of us accidental pregnancy is a reality to deal
    with in a fair manner. Can you "ladies" help us define the "fair
    approach" without using "you didn't have to go to bed with me "
    argument.
    

    re .147, no, I can't.  I don't think abortion is a crime.  I just don't
    know if I, personally, could ever have one.  I would be willing to tell
    that to anybody who had ever wanted to have sex with me, but, for the
    record, most don't bother to ask.  Most don't even bother to ask if
    birth control is being used, although in this day and age most men use
    condoms due to AIDS, so it's a mute point unless the condom breaks.
    
    Also, as far as abortions go, I believe, although can't give numbers,
    that most abortions have occured because the father didn't want the
    child, so it was legalized to protect the woman, yes, but *needed*
    because of men's lack of responsibility and compassion.
    
    So, Dan, when women disagree with you do always tell them their
    thinking is narrow?  It's a common tactic.
    
    Lorna
    

    re: 148
    Abortion was legalized to allow access to competent medical care for
    woman who chose abortion "for whatever reason".
    I'd rather have my thinking thought of as narrow but at least accurate
    and based on available data.
    

    I have been following this string with great interest... What caught my
    eye was FORTSC::WILDE's appeal to consider/commit to the children for a
    change, to place their welfare above/equal to our own.  Then CSC32::M_EVANS 
    entered the discussion with the same theme (to me) in that children are so
    important that you had better take the necessary steps to prevent their
    conception if you don't want them.  I have to applaud these two women and
    anyone else who espouses the attitude of "What about the children?" before
    their actions may result in pregnancy.  Is it so hard to CARE about the
    potential results of one's actions?  I would say that "What about the 
    children?" is _the_ fundamental value of Family Values.  I have counted at
    least three times where CSC32::M_EVANS has reiterated the best course of
    action/inaction.  Why is this so difficult to comprehend?    

>    
>    So, Dan, when women disagree with you do always tell them their
>    thinking is narrow?  It's a common tactic.

Lorna,

So why when I disagree with you, you say that 'I Need Help'?

-Joe

    re: 150
    That's the whole point. What about the kids!!!
    IMO kids deserve the love and committment of two loving parents and the
    benefits of an extended family. Both parents have to want the children
    to provide the healthy enviroment needed to raise them. 
    If the mutual committment is not there then everyone loses, including
    the kid! 

    re .151, I don't think you need help because you disagreed with me, I
    think you need help because you got so upset over a coffee mug.
    
    Lorna
    

    And, I disagree with you AND Dan Quayle.  I think that a single, loving
    parent, with enough money, can provide a good home for a child. Who are
    you to tell my friend, Hector, for example, a hardware engineer, who
    raised his son alone for the past 17 yrs., that he shouldn't have done
    it because he didn't have a wife?????  He loves his son and makes good
    money.  He's provided a good home.  It doesn't always take 2 parents.
    
    Lorna
    

    re: Lorna
    I'd like to ask Hector if he and his wife committed to having the child
    as a mutual decision?  Lorna, many notes back I stated my attitude
    about the issue you are bringing up - again!
    I too am a single parent. Divorced young, paid support for Ten years.
    After my ex died I took custody of my son and have raised him for
    another ten years. My sons place was with me as Hectors son is with him.
    My wife and I mutually decided to share responsibility for my son and
    I'll applaude anyone who does same but imposition of such a "huge"
    responsibility is what I've got a problem with.

    RE: .155
    
    > I'll applaude anyone who does same but imposition of such a "huge"
    > responsibility is what I've got a problem with.
    
    Are you willing to pay higher taxes (to cover the expense of supporting
    children of the men who get to walk away "scott free" after not taking
    measures to insure they would not spread their seed without meaning to
    do so?)
    

    re: 155
    What about the female side of your equation? Your statment implies
    men have all the responsibility to avoid the problem. As I've said over
    and over again, the woman can say "NO" just as easily as a man can
    abstain. There is no solution relating to "who's to blame".
    Statistics I've seen show the present "dollar" cost of the total
    welfare bubget fot AFDC is quite a small percentage. In my estimation
    creating a system where the woman has to think about "going it alone
    without financial obligation of the father" could "reduce" the need for
    tax dollars. You can't turn people in need away but don't "punish" the
    guy too! Two bad decisions are worse than one.

    RE: .157
    
    > What about the female side of your equation? Your statment implies
    > men have all the responsibility to avoid the problem.
    
    Your argument implies (to me) that a man should have ZERO responsibility
    for birth control and ZERO responsibility if he gets anyone pregnant
    (unless he wants the responsibility.)
    
    > As I've said over and over again, the woman can say "NO" just as easily 
    > as a man can abstain. There is no solution relating to "who's to blame".
 
    Whenever this subject comes up, folks suggest that men control their
    OWN reproductive capability by using their own birth control.  However,
    most men don't want to do this.  They want men to have NO responsibilities
    for birth control *nor* the consequences if a child results.
    
    At this point in time, men make most of the money in our society, so if
    we pass laws to keep men from being expected to support their offsping
    (unless they choose to do so,) I think it will have a *huge* impact on
    the amount of money the rest of society has to spend to support these
    children.
    
    Are you willing to pay extra taxes to cover these additional expenses
    or not?
    
    > Statistics I've seen show the present "dollar" cost of the total
    > welfare bubget fot AFDC is quite a small percentage.
    
    Considering how often people bitch about their tax dollars going for
    Welfare, you'd think it was 99%.
    
    In any case, if more men were allowed to walk away "scott free" after
    getting women pregnant, the cost would increase.
    
    > In my estimation creating a system where the woman has to think about 
    > "going it alone without financial obligation of the father" could 
    > "reduce" the need for tax dollars.
    
    On the contrary.  If men are given free reign to get as many women
    pregnant as they want (without the risk of having to pay for any of
    their children,) we'd see a far worse situation than we have now.
    
    Women already *HAVE* the situation of "going it alone without the
    father" (for everything but a small amount of money, if they get
    anything at all) and unwanted pregnancies still occur.
    
    If more men took responsibility for birth control (not instead of
    women, but in ADDITION to women using birth control) - we'd have
    less instances of accidental pregnancy (and less men who would
    need to worry about "getting caught.")

    What may I ask is wrong with asking a man who says he doesn't want
    children to take responsible steps to see that he doesn't?  last time I
    checked, barring turkey basters, women don't "get themselves pregnant.
    However, women have had to take full responsibility for what hapened
    should they wind up in a family way for centuries.
    
    Does it really bother you all to be told the same thing that women have
    been hearing for years?  It is just that the equation is equalizing and
    men can't just have a wife in every port and the hell with what happens
    with their sperm after it is discharged into a warm convenient
    receptical.  Horror of horrors, men actually have to face some of the
    same problems women have had with sex for millenia.  Oh my!
    
    Them high heels really pinch when they are shoved on your feet too,
    don't they?
    
    You to can learn to say no to protect your "honor"
    
    Meg

    WAY back in .37, I asked :
    
    >Yes, well, certain persons in here continue to dodge the original
    >premise/question :  Does the male have responsibility if the woman
    >deliberately becomes pregnant against his wishes ?  
    >No fair saying "FIRST, he should've..."  
    
    But I guess that answering the premise as stated in .0 wouldn't have
    been as much fun, folks couldn't rant and rave and label others,
    some of us would've had to forego repeatedly wishing men could get 
    pregnant, dragging in wage inequities, calling folks 'cold-hearted', 
    recreating the entire note on abortion, describing the pleasures of 
    pregnancy in detail, rehashing the welfare state and the state of 
    the courts, recommending certain folks never have sex again, or 
    preferably limit themselves to same-sex sex, and other inanities.
    
    A pretty sorry display.
    
    karl

    	I don't know U.S. statistics, but I rather suspect that the "higher
    taxes" argument is spurious.
    
    	I am sure the majority of fathers pay support anyway, and probably
    many of those who don't, don't because they can't. Any legal action or
    beaurocracy affecting any of the above is costing you taxes for no
    possible benefit.
    
    	That leaves those who could pay but don't, and even there, there is
    a trade off. As someone in a stable marriage I get a fair amount of say
    as to how much of my income is spent on my kids versus how much is
    spent on myself, and I also get a say in how it is spent. From what I
    have heard, in the U.S. the court-required support payments are
    occasionaly ridiculous, and rarely allow the non-custodial parent that
    amount of say. A less rigid court system could well reduce the number
    of non-paying non-custodial parents.
    
    	By now you are probably down to a pretty small percentage who could
    support their children and don't. I only know personally of one case of
    this type. He paid random and erratic cheques to the mother, and paid
    the air fare for the kids to meet him once a year in Cyprus, but for
    most of the time even *his* mother didn't know in which country he was
    living. Legal action would have been futile, and state support when
    the latest cheque from the father ran out was about the only practical
    thing.
    
    	How much taxes does your country spend on things of which you don't
    approve and which give less benefit to society than child support?

    re.161
    
    It would be nice if it were only a small percentage of people that can
    afford to pay something toward their child's support but don't. 
    Unfortunately, after 5 years, the percentage of people still holding up
    their end of a support agreement drops drastically.  (I dont have the
    ercentage here, but it is something like 15% are still paying their
    full commitment)
    
    This is not only punishing children for being born, but is often
    punishing me, and every other person in the US who pays taxess should
    the custodial parent and children be pushed far enough down to wind up
    on AFDC, or maybe just poor enough for foodstamps (currently 10% of our
    population)  The number of children living in poverty has consistantly
    increased over the past 12 years, and has apparently become intolerable
    enough to even have conservatives screaming for the wallets of a
    deadbeat NCP.
    
    I still say that anyone who feels that women are getting a free ride
    regarding child support needs to spend a day in their local court
    dealing with child-support cases.  It will truly open your eyes as to
    how some people feel about their offspring.  
    
    Again, if you don't want to make children take precautions.  If
    the risk or inconvenience of using condoms, or getting a vasectomy is
    not something you are willing to do, either plan on being celibate as
    far as women go, or taking the responsibility for any offspring you may
    produce.  Don't leave it up to fate, or expect any better out of your
    partner than you expect out of yourself.  And please, don't ever commit
    the sin of looking at a new partner the morning after, and saying, "You
    are using birth control, aren't you?"  She may have been everybit as
    carried away by passion as you were.  
    
    Meg

    Thanks Karl. I feel like I've been trying to walk a tightrope all
    through this string with people constantly tugging on the wire.
    
    I have to say it again. Men don't get woman pregnant!!! Sex is a mutual
    decision implying mutual consent and responsibility. When accidents
    happen why should the woman be allowed to impose such a huge
    responsibility on the man when the original intent is to share the sexual
    experience, not make babies. 
    
    
    
    

    Re: .160, in re (it is to be supposed) the original premise.
    
    > Does the male have responsibility if the woman
    > deliberately becomes pregnant against his wishes ?
    
    Let me use an analogy to answer the question.  This analogous situation
    is, to me, a powerful argument because it goes beyond the question of
    any *possible* contributory negligence, and contributory negligence
    seems, really, to be at the heart of the responsibility question.
    
    Who ends up losing money if a counterfeiter passes you a bogus bill? 
    You take it to the bank and complain, and they take it away.  Forever. 
    With no payment and no recourse.  You, the innocent victim, are the one
    who gets stuck.
    
    Life isn't fair, sometimes, but then who ever said it was?  The premise
    of making it as fair as possible strikes me as a good thing, and
    accepting responsibility for your actions - whether or not they
    resulted in what you intended, and whether or not you were deliberately
    shafted - is how you make things fairer.
    
    -dick

    Dan-
    
    In your last statement, I perceive a contradiction....you say sex is
    a mutual decision implying mutual consent and responsibility...then
    when accidents happen, why should the woman be allowed to impose such a
    huge responsibility on the man when the original intent is to share....
    I guess I'd have to say that if sex is a shared responsibility, so
    aren't the consequences.  
    
    For the most part, I have been agreeing with you.  I think in cases of
    entrappment, men shouldn't be forced into the support role.  These are
    probably only a very small percentage of pregnancy cases, though. 
    There are probably more accidents as a result of failed birthcontrol as
    there are entrapment cases.  
    
    Statements inferring that men that don't want children should abstain,
    take total responsibility for bc or get a vasectomy only grate on my
    nerves to the extent that the persons making them IMO refuse to
    acknowledge the point that women who don't want children should do the
    same damn things!  Accidents do happen and I do agree that men and
    women participating in a sexual act, mutually concerned for one
    another, are both responsible for the results.  Even though I believe
    this, it does not take the inequities out of the reproduction process.
    With the exception of entrapment cases, I can understand one's outrage
    when a woman decides to carry to term and the man refuses to help.  but
    nobody seems to be outraged that women can choose to abort even if the
    man wants the baby.  Although I recognice the issue of choice should
    lie with the woman, I still feel that with the sole responsibility of
    choice should come the sole responsibility of consequences.  For this
    woman, a pregnancy resulting in a child is *my* responsibility.  If my
    partner would like to be part of that responsibility, I accept it, but
    if I choose to have the baby, I choose to be responsible for it,
    regardless of my partner's wishes.

SALSA::MOELLER

.37,.160> Does the male have responsibility if the woman deliberately becomes
          pregnant against his wishes ?  

          Yes, he does...  If you were to discharge a firearm into the air
          without the intent of hurting anyone, you would still be responsible
          if the bullet killed/injured someone.  Sex is a deliberate act for
          which you have control and responsibility.  To relinquish this control
          and responsibility is to relinquish your Manhood.  The Patriarchy 
          takes a dim view of men who have relinquished their Manhood and have
          instituted "draconian" measures against these people.  Teach this fact
          to your children (especially the males) and you will have done them
          a great service...

.162> CSC32::M_EVANS

      Meg - If I were to look you up, you would be easy to find!  Just look for
      the woman who is "blue in the face"... 

.163> I have to say it again. Men don't get woman pregnant!!!

      To say this is to relinquish your Manhood...

    After reading everyone's reply I didn't see one...I may have missed it
    ...that addressed the issue of 'how do you know it's entrappment?' The
    only one I could think of was if a woman said she was using the pill
    and you were able to prove she never had a presciption or (I know
    this hasn't been addressed as a man entrapping a woman... I 'm trying to
    be equal here) if a man said he has had a vasectomy and he hasn't. 
    Most of the other birth control methods seem to have more of a physical
    presence...such as a condom or sponge ...that is certainly obvious if
    it isn't there. If such a claim could be adequately proven then maybe a
    case could be made that
    the other person would not be finacially responsible (woman or man).
    However there is still the child to consider...how can we ensure that
    the child is protected? How do we protect the innocence party? 
    It still comes back..IMHO...to the intial decision to engage in sexual
    incourse in the first place. The premise is that you have two
    consenting adults. Adult classification certainly implies that you are
    aware of the potential consequences of the act and you still chose to
    do it. Even with birth control you run the risk of pregnancy...not as
    high grant you but you still run the risk. So as an adult you would
    have to accept the consequences of your actions part of would be
    financially support for any children that resulted from that action. I
    believe that both adults are responsible from the moment they decide to
    engage in sexual intercourse. Both have access to birth control and
    both should use it and not just count on the other person. 

    Meg, your ablolutely right. If you WERE to spend time in the court
    rooms as I have, you Just might learn alittle something. But I guess
    you have not been much in the rooms of Injustice, execpt for your own
    case. I have been in for many cases. Bottom line, yep, its not fair for
    either parties. And right again, not fair for the children. But.....
    When you force a NCP person into taking a second job, and forcing them
    to live a lower standard of living in a rooming house, I guess your
    right again to force him not to see his children because he is working
    that second and third job. Or to force someone into bankruptcy because
    he might have re-married to someone else. Broad brushing isn't going to
    help either side of this debate. 

    re .159, Meg, "them high heels really pinch" is a great line!  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    It seems to me that both partners are responsible for using birth
    control.  Then if there is an accidental pregnancy then both partners 
    are responsible.  Of course, in a perfect world this would be true. 
    But this isn't a perfect world is it?  
    
    Karen

    
    > Again, if you don't want to make children take precautions.  If
    > the risk or inconvenience of using condoms, or getting a vasectomy is
    > not something you are willing to do, either plan on being celibate as
    > far as women go, or taking the responsibility for any offspring you may
    > produce.  Don't leave it up to fate, or expect any better out of your
    > partner than you expect out of yourself.  And please, don't ever commit
    > the sin of looking at a new partner the morning after, and saying, "You
    > are using birth control, aren't you?"  She may have been everybit as
    > carried away by passion as you were.  
    > 
    > Meg
    
    
    Meg, this is almost verbatum the pro-life argument against legal
    abortions.  Are you pro-choice?   If so ... why should men and women be
    held to a different standard about consequences of actions (and I'm
    asking about the vast majority of abortions ... non-life threatening
    and not the result of rape or incest)?
    
    Thanks,
    Greg 
                                 

    re .171, can't you understand that a woman can be pro-choice but still
    not certain that she would ever want to have an abortion herself?
    
    Lorna
    

    No this isn't verbatum the arguement against abortion.  this is an
    arguement that people need to take responsibility for their actions.  I
    am pro-choice, but pro-choice indicates that people need a range of
    options.  Abortion is often a responsible choice, but that doesn't make
    it the right choice for everyone.  
    
    Punishing children because a woman chooses give birth to an unplanned
    child rather than aborting it is irresponsible.  (I am talking about
    living breathing born children here)  Not using birth control (Male or
    female) is an irresponsible act unless you truly want the universe to
    control your destiny, instead of yourself.  
    
    All I am asking is that men take the same responsibility for themselves
    that women are expected to (equal rights, remember?)  I am saying that
    there is no living man here who can truly say he was "tricked" into an
    unplanned child unless his condom broke, they have been available for
    years.  They are messy, inconvenient, and unspontaneous, but I still
    prefer to think that men have enough control of their passions to take
    precautions for themselves.  Are you saying that I am wrong and that
    men are actually slaves to approximately 2% of their bodies?  
    
    FWIW I haven't spent time on my dead-beat ex-partner, because luckily
    I don't require the abuser's money for my child to survive will.  I am
    one of the fortunate women who makes enough money to support her
    children on one income.  I have, however spent time in court with friends 
    who are not as fortunate.  
    
    Remember, I consider not taking responsibility for one's children, be it
    emotional, physical or financial, a form of child abuse.  It is
    punishing a child for something beyond his or her control, not the
    ex-partner's.      
    
    I know that it is difficult for some people to realize that they share
    an equal responsibility in an unplanned pregnancy, but saying that men
    don't get women pregnant?  Oh right, I forgot my pre-Alexandrian
    anatomy.  Babies grow from a woman spontaneously sometime after she
    loses her virginity so that the babies can crawl up from the soil to
    grow.  This modern stuff about sperm coming from men and eggs coming
    from women is so much superstition and faddish science.
    
    Meg

    Meg,
    	How do you see a child being punished in your statement.
    Is the man punishing the "potential child" when he is excluded from the
    "choice" decision and not willing to financially contribute to the
    results of the womans "choice".
    Or is the woman punishing the "potential child" by knowingly bringing
    the child into a "potentially fatherless world". 
    

>    All I am asking is that men take the same responsibility for themselves
>    that women are expected to (equal rights, remember?)

 That you should say this in this discussion is utterly laughable. You have
no intention of equal rights, only of equal responsibility. The woman making
the choice and the man being held responsible is NOT equality. Equality implies
at least a similar level of rights and responsibility; you want it to be entirely
one way.

Re: .175

It is unfortunate that many people use the term "equality" loosely, sometimes
as a synonym for "equal rights".   They are, to me at least, not the same.
"Equal rights" means "the same rights", not "is interchangeable with".

			Steve

    equal rights, yes.  Men now have the equal right to make sure they use
    some form of birthcontrol, if not the have the equal right of having
    their world change forever, just like women.  
    
    BTW anyone who thinks pregancies, abortions or childbirth isn't a life
    changing event needs a reality check.  Do any of the men here know what
    the actual surgery involved in a bortion entails, or do you all think
    it is as easy as removing a sliver from your finger?  The only
    difference for women now, is that there are finally laws requiring men
    to make a contribution to he results of an unplanned pregnancy, rather
    than riding off into the sunset and tossing their sperm around at the
    next stop and riding out, and so on and so on.  
    
    Maybe this requires careful thought by men, something my victorian
    grandmother said men didn't possess the capability for, but I still
    like to think men are as capable of far thinking as women and not the
    raging bulls grandma  said they were.
    
    Meg  

    
>    re .171, can't you understand that a woman can be pro-choice but still
>    not certain that she would ever want to have an abortion herself?
>    
>    Lorna
    
    I'm sorry I don't understand the question ... Meg's argument seems
    inconsistant with being pro-choice to me ... I said nothing of her
    personal choices (or mine).  
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Meg,
    
    I believe I hear your argument loud and clear but to me it seems
    inconsistant ... I'm just trying to understand how it fits with you
    being pro-chioce.
                
    Am I correct in saying you believe ...in essence for men ... you play /
    you pay ... if the unwanted outcome occurs pay the piper and do your
    part until the munchkin becomes an adult (no matter what precautions
    were used or whatprevious agreements existed).
                                                             
    Now flip to the women's side ... the argument seems to change to me ...
    what happened to ... you play / you pay ... if the unwanted outcome
    occurs pay the piper and do your part until the munchkin becomes an
    adult.  Why is the abortion out OK for women given this argument about
    responsibility?
                  
    Thanks,
    Greg
          
                                         

    re .178, well, that makes 2 of us who don't understand Greg, because I
    have no idea why you don't think what Meg said is consistent with being
    pro-choice.  From my viewpoint, what Meg wrote really has nothing to do
    with whether she were pro-choice or not.  It would seem to me that she
    could hold the views she holds in regard to male responsibility for
    offspring regardless of what her stand on abortion is.
    
    Lorna
    

    Greg,
    
    This is a digression from the prime topic here, but the question needs
    to be answered.
    
    I'm strongly opposed to abortion.  Hence, I'm pro-life.
    
    I'm also strongly opposed to anti-abortion laws.  Hence, I'm
    pro-choice.
    
    To explain this seeming inconsistency, I'll point out that I have no
    right to force my personal choices on anyone else.  My fist stops at
    your nose, as it were.  To say that your right (the generic you) to
    force a woman to carry an unwanted child to term is stronger than her
    right to decide not to carry it is ludicrous.  Who made you (again the
    generic you) God for today?
    
    -dick

    Greg,
    
    Where did I say a woman doesn't pay and pay and pay for an unplanned
    pregancy, no matter what choice she makes?
    
    1.  If she has an abortion, which isn't nearly as simple as filing
    one's nails, she deals with the fact that some of the human race
    considers her a murderess, will do their best to humiliate her on her
    way in and out of a clinic, and that she has to decide how her
    metaphysical beliefs fit in with an abortion.  for some people it is
    picking up the pieces and going forward, for others, abortion is
    devistating.  
    
    2.  If she doesn't want an abortion, but her partner does, she will go
    through an inordinate amount of pressure from him.  ("How could you do
    this to us, are you sure it's mine?  Well, babe, you know, we could
    have had a future together, but, you had to go and do this....", etc)   
    If she decides to carry to term and keep the offspring, she can plan on
    yearly court battles on support, and possible custody-grab attempts by 
    the same person, whose life she "ruined" by having that child.
    
    3.  If she wants an abortion, but her partner doesn't, she will have
    him screaming, or worse at her, and he may set his family on her, to call
    and harrass her every night and day, about thinking of murdering "his
    baby."
    
    4.  If she give the child up for adoption, she is left wondering what
    ever happened to her child (Particularly in a traditional closed
    adoption) and the child always wonders why hir mother and father
    rejected hir.
    
    5.  The ideal is both partners recognizing mutual responsibility and
    working things out from there, however this must be becoming
    progressively more rare, witness a batch of the responses in this file.  
      
    
    Greg, I still don't see where being as responsible as possible in
    avoiding conception is an anti-choice statement, nor do I see asking
    men to face up to the responsibilities of an unwanted pregnancy an anti
    choice statement.  In an ideal environment there are NO abortions,
    because birth control is 100% reliable, safe, convenient, and
    reversible, and all people use it.  This isn't the case at this time,
    so we need all other available options as well.
    
    Megh  

    re .181, the voice of reason.  I agree totally.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    
    For those of you who like statistics, the news (radio, tv) this
    morning are reporting that FBI statistics show that 70% of 
    juvenile offenders come from single parent families.  Especially
    from families that _never_ had a father figure, and that the
    percentage of _all_ crime committed by juveniles has skyrocketed
    (don't remember exact number).  
    
    Personally I think that this is a rather sad commentary on
    _both_ genders.
    
    fred();

Um, I don't see how one can turn that around and suggest that single-parent
families are a contributing factor to crime.  Consider that 100% of those
offenders were born to women - does that mean that every child born is likely
to become a criminal?

I would suggest that the increasing numbers of children in non-traditional
families are largely responsible for the increase in the statistic.

I agree that the rapid increase in juvenile crime is a serious problem, but
I don't think that pointing (or wagging) fingers is very helpful.

				Steve

    Steve,
    
    All I know is that the FBI statistics and news reports made
    a point of indicating that the lack of a father figure in the
    home was a significant contribution to this problem.  Maybe
    (IMHO) because father's tend to be the tougher disciplinarian
    in the home.  Separate discipline from child abuse here (often 
    considered one and the same by "social engineers").
    
    re finger_pointing:
    
    I've noticed that NOW sure hasn't been any too shy in pointing
    fingers.
    
    fred();
    

    What are the opinions regarding someone who gets pregnant on purpose
    then if the baby is a boy has an abortion, but if a girl lets it go
    full term to keep the baby?
    
    IMO this is roughly the equivalent of what was practiced many years
    ago:  i.e. some farmers wanted only boys so kept the boys and killed
    the girls at birth.
    
    I know someone who is planning on following the first option....and
    I have been unsucessful in talking her out of it.
    
    What does that say about the mentality of the person?  Is this 'wisdom'
    in that the couple knows what sex child they are comfortable raising,
    or simply SELFISH behavior in considering aborting a healthy boy.
    
    Jeff

    re: .186
    
    Not only selfish, but IMHO reprehensible.
    
    Christine

    re:.185
    
    Poverty is more closely linked to crime than single parent families.
    
    The FBI will tell you that, the newspeople might not.
    
    It's chic this year to bemoan the scourge of single parent families
    as if they are all raising delinquents.  Helps us to focus away from
    the real problem ... poverty.
    
    It's easier to say "hey, the problem is you don't have a father" then
    to say "hey, we you need to get you to work so you will have some money
    to feed and clothe and raise healthy, well-rounded children."

    Re .188
    
    I didn't get any exact quotes, but I did get the impression
    that the statistics took into account single parent families
    of all financial status.  After all not all single parent
    families are living in poverty.
    
    As far looking at one issue, the issue of a non-father family
    has been *totally* ignored in favor of anything-else-you-can-
    think-of for years.  At least partially (IMHO) to soothe the 
    irresponsible conscience of members of both genders, and partially
    because it does not fit the political agenda of most Politically
    Correct groups. Maybe its time we took a second look at this issue 
    as at least *part* of the problem.
    
    fred();

    If you're not in the position to raise children, don't have them.
    If you don't have a committed partner, don't have kids.
    I know, I know, who made me god for today! Nobody.
    It's just what responsible, intelligent people usually use to dictate
    when to bring children into the world.
    IMO ignorance and immaturity lend more to the problems. Poorly founded 
    reasoning creates the cycles that perpetuate the forementioned
    symptoms.
    You can argue what's the root cause of the symptoms but we all pay for
    the results in one form or another. To be trusted and live up to the
    trust is a result of maturity.

    Bear in mind that the FBI is under control of the Executive branch of
    the gummint.  In this election year when the repubs are so busy
    espousing the radical right's version of "family" values and sneering
    at parents who are single by choice, it seems eminently credible that
    the FBI would help to do the dirty work required to get their boss
    reelected.
    
    -dick

    
    re .191
    
    So the White House controls the FBI and the librerals control
    the press....So what else is new  ;^).
    
    fred();

>    Abortion was legalized to allow access to competent medical care for
>    woman who chose abortion "for whatever reason".
>    I'd rather have my thinking thought of as narrow but at least accurate
>    and based on available data.
    
so, if abortion is legal, you want the law to allow a man to force a woman
to have an abortion?  Look, basic biology is a FACT.  You cannot change
it.  If you want everything to be "FAIR", then you are going to have to
invent a different method of reproduction.  If you cannot do that, then
PROTECT yourself from pregnancy - don't rely on someone else to do it,
do it yourself...because, once the woman is pregnant, you BOTH have a
problem - or society has to pay FOR you - and, quite frankly, there isn't
enough money to go around as it is.  You cannot say that a woman is
the only person responsible for the child if she keeps it - if, in doing
so, you put a responsiblity upon her shoulders that she cannot carry
alone.  There isn't an answer that will satisfy you on this one - you
want to play and not to pay if you don't feel like it.  But it isn't
fair to the rest of us - who have NO say in whether you have sex with
someone or not - to make us pay for your "mistakes". 

So, no, you don't get this one.  If you father a child, and the woman
doesn't want to abort, you are now a responsible daddy.  You pay.
If the woman is that much a stranger to you that you don't know how
she is going to act on this one prior to getting into the missionary
position with her, then you are a damned fool for taking your pants off.
Period.

This stuff should ALL be worked out exhaustively prior to sex...if not,
then you deserve to be nailed.  If you were lied to, then WHY DIDN'T
YOU TAKE MEASURES TO PREVENT PREGNANCY YOURSELF...and if you did, and
you still are paying, then I'm really sorry that you got lied to AND
that your birth control failed - but, hey, it isn't likely to happen
to very many men, so the odds ARE on your side...and the children born
to such men still need the money.

    re: .183
>70% of juvenile offenders come from single parent families.
    
    	From another note I have learned that for most of these families
    there is a second parent who ought to be in prison even if he isn't, so
    maybe it's just heredity?
    
    I don't think my terminal has the character set for the expression I
    would like to put here.

>so, if abortion is legal, you want the law to allow a man to force a woman
>to have an abortion? 

 I don't think anyone has said this.

> Look, basic biology is a FACT. 

 That's exactly what we've been arguing all along.

>If you want everything to be "FAIR", then you are going to have to
>invent a different method of reproduction. 

 God, this sounds familiar.

>You cannot say that a woman is
>the only person responsible for the child if she keeps it - if, in doing
>so, you put a responsiblity upon her shoulders that she cannot carry
>alone.

 Here's where your logic falls apart. You are saying that if we allow men
as much choice as we allow women, then men are unfairly placing responsibility
upon women. I am tempted to giggle, but this is a serious topic. How can
you ask for equality with a straight face and then say in the very next breath
that you only want equality where it suits you?

 When a woman becomes pregnant, she has the right as defined by law to have
an abortion. To terminate her responsibility with nary a second glance, at
her whim, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop her. You accept this as
being right and good. Yet you resist the obvious parallel when it comes to men.
You steadfastly REFUSE to allow men to have a parallel choice. You insist that
women be the only ones allowed to make choices after conception, and somehow
manage to rationalize that this is consistent with equality. You also berate men
for managing to get into this position in the first place (a behavior you
heartily decry when it's done to women.)

 If a woman chooses to have a child even knowing her partner is not willing
to bear the burden of parenthood, then SHE and only she is placing 
"responsibility on her shoulders" that she may not be capable of carrying alone.
SHE is making the choice to have the child in full knowledge that her partner
is unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary to be a parent. In making that 
choice, she is implicitly accepting the responsibility of raising that child 
on her own. Nobody is forcing her to accept responsibilities she does not
want except herself.

 Why are some people so reluctant to acknowledge that equality includes actual
drawbacks for women with the many benefits? Or is this equality Orwellian?

 The Doctah

    re: 193
    
    And conversely,
    
    If you become pregnant, carry to term and the man doesn't want to
    be a daddy, you are now the responsible mommy.  You pay.  If the man
    is that much a stranger to you that you don't know how he is going
    to act on this one prior to getting into the missionary position with
    him, you are a damned fool for taking your pants off.  Period.
    
    re:  .195
    
    Exactly!

re: last two

you are still trying to pass off the welfare of the child as a non-issue.
This isn't an argument about what the man and woman deserve - it is an
argument about what the kid GETS.  What the kid deserves.  The child isn't
a guilty party in this scenario - and, yet, your determination to free
the man from responsibility is BOUND to deny the child....the simple fact
is that the child benefits when there is more money available for medical,
dental, and educational needs - and, with both parents contributing, there
is more money.

I really do understand the frustration a man feels when forced to be a father
because a woman cannot bring herself to have an abortion...he gets forced
into the responsibility whether he wants it or not.  And, if things were
fair, there would be some other answer...but, there really isn't.  I
have seen women wrestle with the question of abortion - it is painful,
and it is so personal that the woman often doesn't KNOW herself that she
cannot do it...until she is faced with the real option.  This is the crux
of the matter.  And, once she finds she cannot have an abortion, then the
resultant child is a responsibilty for BOTH parents.  It is NOT fair - I
have no argument with that.  However, the child deserves the financial
benefits of both parents - and to deprive the child of that is NOT
fair to either the child or the rest of the human race.  Poverty is the
root cause of so much human misery - even if you have no love for the
woman, cannot you feel enough love for the child to make SURE he/she
doesn't suffer in poverty????

It is probably more "fair" to the man to allow him to walk away from his
financial responsibility to the child in these cases...but it is NOT
fair to the child.  We have evidence of our unwillingness to support 
children all around us today - it is time for us all to grow up and put
the welfare of the children FIRST.  If you make a baby, be prepared to
support the child.

So, I still stand on my original opinion.  If you don't want children,
PROTECT YOURSELF...if the woman doesn't want children, she should also
protect herself - but, if you insist upon going to bed with strangers,
you have no idea of her level of denial, her understanding of her own
reproductive system, or her ability to actually HAVE an abortion, should
she get pregnant...so, be as sure as you can be - wear a condom or have
a vasectomy - whichever is more comfortable to you.  If all protection
fails, then think of the child - and be ready to support his/her needs.
Maybe, you will get lucky and the woman will choose to abort - but maybe
she won't.  If it is any comfort to you - whichever decision she makes
will cost her in ways that you cannot imagine. 

Nothing makes it okay to deny the child your financial support.  It is 
the only ADULT thing any of us can do....

    re .198
    
    I will add to the you owe a child financial support, to you owe your
    child as much moral, physical, and loving support as you can possibly
    manage as well.
    
    Please stop punishing children to get revenge on another adult.  It is
    juvenile, and doesn't help the real issue, the fact that there is a
    child out there with half of your genetic makeup.  It deserves at least
    a little less disposability than a puppy or kitten you are tired of.
    
    Meg

        
Meg ... from your note .181 ...


>    Where did I say a woman doesn't pay and pay and pay for an unplanned
>    pregancy, no matter what choice she makes?
 
    You never said this exactly but I'll get back to this  
 
        
>    The ideal is both partners recognizing mutual responsibility and
>    working things out from there

      I couldn't agree more  

    
>    Greg, I still don't see where being as responsible as possible in
>    avoiding conception is an anti-choice statement, nor do I see asking
>    men to face up to the responsibilities of an unwanted pregnancy an anti
>    choice statement.  In an ideal environment there are NO abortions,
>    because birth control is 100% reliable, safe, convenient, and
>    reversible, and all people use it.  This isn't the case at this time,
>    so we need all other available options as well.
    
      I couldn't agree more ... but in .162 you said


>    Again, if you don't want to make children take precautions.  If
>    the risk or inconvenience of using condoms, or getting a vasectomy is
>    not something you are willing to do, either plan on being celibate as
>    far as women go, or taking the responsibility for any offspring you may
>    produce.  Don't leave it up to fate, or expect any better out of your
>    partner than you expect out of yourself.  And please, don't ever commit
>    the sin of looking at a new partner the morning after, and saying, "You
>    are using birth control, aren't you?"  She may have been everybit as
>    carried away by passion as you were.  
>    
>    Meg

In my words this says ... 

as a male unless you're willing to face the 18 year repsonsiblity of the child
you may father (even by failed birth control) then remain celibate.


To me this sounds remarkably like ...

as a female unless you're willing to face the 18 year (or 9 month if you choose
adoption) responsibilty of the child you may mother (even by birth control)
then remain celibate.


The lattter is frequently heard rhetoric from pro-life folks ... I saw a
parallel to your words in .162 ... I guess we disagree ... that's OK.


*********

Lorna,

Each response you have written in this string commenting to me (or to responses
to me) has IMO carried an attitude that I guess comes from what you believe I
think about Meg's personal beliefs and from what you think about my personal
beliefs.                         
                                           
I asked Meg a question because I find her to be a very interesting and
articluate noter and I was interested in her view of how her words were
different towards men than those from a pro-lifer towards women ... nothing
more, nothing less.
                  
As for my beliefs ... my experience has been that I'm am more pro-choice (using
a broader definition of the term) for women than the majority of feminists with
which I have met and discussed choice topics.  

Greg
                                                        
                                                     
                 

    re: 197
    Can you give any suggestions as to how to deter "gene hunting"
    behavior?
    Your argument is solid in regards to once there is a "child".
    The view of "double standard" regarding abortion is still open and
    unresolved in all this discussion. I agree that in the present legal
    context the woman holds all the cards. It seems possession is 100% of
    the law and once pregnancy occurs the woman has free reign on the
    destiny of all parties. Can fairness be attained? Doubtful.
    The oustanding question that I've raised and not many have entertained
    is "can a viable deterent to imposition of parental responsibility be
    formulated?". 
    Biological fact dictates the woman has the final say, so in that context
    it only seems logical that she must take the lions share of
    responsibility to avoid unwanted pregnancy? Is there an alternative to
    this view besides making the man ultimately responsible to avoid the
    unwanted pregnancy? I'm asking these questions to try and move the
    "shoulds" and "blaming" attitudes to the side. 
    The child poverty question is a major problem today. Some couples pump
    out babies because that's what there parents did years ago when you
    needed lots of hands to manage the farm. Some men feel keeping there
    woman pregnant is "macho". Some woman feel "incomplete" without a baby
    and will do anything to have one. Teen pregnancy is rampant and some
    feel a baby is a "badge of honor". All of these situations are creating
    major social costs and consequences we all must grapple with. 
    Ideas?
    

>you are still trying to pass off the welfare of the child as a non-issue.

 Funny you should say this; I was thinking the same about your position.

 Either you don't seem to realize or you don't seem to care that your scenario
ENCOURAGES women who lack the wherewithal and resources to have children to
do just that. Even though they are incapable of properly providing for children,
your policy encourages them to have them anyway, because, after all, at least
we can force the father to foot the bill. 

 The welfare of the child is best met when all parties agree to care for
the child. When one party is forced by the law to be a parent, that person
is RARELY a positive influence for the child. Yet to you its just a simple
matter of economics. Two incomes are better than one.

 I asked a question a few score of notes ago that was completely ignored.
And for good reason. The answer is not what people want to hear.

 Why should a woman be allowed to make her decision about whether to keep
a child in an economic vacuum? That's stupid, and encourages decisions
based on a subset of the facts. It also skews the results in one direction-
the wrong one!

> cannot you feel enough love for the child to make SURE he/she
>doesn't suffer in poverty????

 This is a non sequitur. Tying a child's welfare to the financial status of
her/his father guarantees no such thing. The fact is that there are no
guarantees in this life, financial or otherwise. And you seem to be completely
ignoring that many children from single parent families suffer from an entirely 
different but no less meaningful kind of poverty; a poverty of love, a poverty 
of emotional support, a poverty of positive role models and influences.

 Swell, mom can pay the bills, but she's never home and the kid runs the
streets at night at 12 years old. Great compromise.

 Society should not be encouraging women who cannot take care of children
to reproduce. But that's what your policy does. 

    Greg,
    
    let me try this again.  In matters of choice all people have a place
    where their fates wind up in the hands of the goddess.  Being
    pro-choice, I still believe that the first responsibility of all
    indulging in sex with a possibly fertile partner is to minimize the
    risks of having their choice taken away.
    
    In the case of both sexes, the avoidance of an unplanned pregnancy 
    with any partner is the first line of choice and responsible behavior. 
    Once a conception has occurred, both partner's choices become extremely
    limited, and they will both be impacted, as well as a potential third
    party.  
    
    In the case of the woman, her mental, emotional, and physical health
    are suddenly at risk.  In a man there is mental, emotional and
    financial health at stake.  I am sure that both partners have that
    gawd-awful sinking, trapped felling on discovery of an unplanned
    pregnancy.  ( I know the feeling and it isn't good)
    
    At this point there is little either partner can do but discuss this. 
    Because of biology (Is anyone out there trying to come up with a way
    for men to be pregnant?), the big decision is in the woman's hands. 
    All a man can do is try to put in input on his feelings  (something
    both should have talked out long before they hit the sack the first
    time)
    
    In the case of the woman, she has several choices.
    
    1.  Terminate the pregnancy.  This may be the best choice for some, and
    it can be a disaster for many.  This will believe it or not also wind
    up impacting the male partner in some fairly heavy ways as well.  
    
    2.  Carry the pregnancy to term and utilize the adoption option.  This
    is often not a good choice for the woman, the man or the child.  There
    are often horrible feelings all the way around.  
    
    3.  Carry the child to term without the support of the father and keep
    it.  This is a tough pregnancy and delivery to go through, but it has 
    been done for centuries.  At this time, the woman actually has some
    support from the government in at least getting some financial support
    from the father involved.  However, judging by the bitterness of some
    of the men in this file, that may be all the child gets from hir
    "father."
    
    4.  Both parents come to terms with the pregnancy and each other, and
    work together to support the child in all ways, even if they don't live
    together.  Best of all worlds for the child if both parents have some
    level of maturity.  
    
    Because of Biology the best time for a man (and a woman) is to exercise
    their choices in advance.  If you don't as a man, you are putting your
    fate in the hands of the universe, and in that of a woman whose
    hormones may well kick in protectively and you are out of luck.  
    
    You still have a choice, you can badger, beat or bludgeon the woman who
    you obstensively cared enough about to have sex with into having an
    abortion.  It is one of the most common reasons I have heard from women 
    when I volunteered in a clinic for having an abortion.  She won't like
    it, and I can almost guarantee that your relationship with her has just
    come to a screeching halt, even if you still stay together for a few
    months.  But hey, then you are only out 500 bucks and a woman.  big
    deal.
    
    Meg

               <<< Note 822.200 by PCCAD::DINGELDEIN "PHOENIX" >>>
                                     -< y >-

>    Can you give any suggestions as to how to deter "gene hunting"
>    behavior?

first, I submit that this practice is very infrequent - and when it
is practiced, the gene-hunter, as you so charmingly put it, is more prone
to go buy a nobel-prize-winner's contribution than to seduce a man she
meets in a bar...they have the artificial insemination centers where the
genes of purported "superior" men are available.  I'd bet that there
is less than 1% of the pregnancies out there that are a result of this
behavior, however she gets the contribution.  Second, even if the
practice WAS an issue in this country or the world - the deterrent is
to take long enough to know your partner BEFORE you have sex that you
know the REASON your partner has chosen you as her/his partner.  You
cannot criminalize pregnancy - any way you cut it, that punishes the
child.  You cannot demand that women get un-pregnant because it is
what YOU want (or what I want, or what anyone else wants) without
giving someone control of the woman's body.  You cannot deny the child
support - the child didn't cause the problem.  So, there is no way
to "deter" this behavior...except for the fact that a woman raising
children by herself is the most overworked, underpaid, under-appreciated
human being in the world - and she has to want to be a mommy one hell of
a lot to be willing to try and do it alone, knowing beforehand that the
help and support won't be there. 


>    Your argument is solid in regards to once there is a "child".
>    The view of "double standard" regarding abortion is still open and
>    unresolved in all this discussion. I agree that in the present legal
>    context the woman holds all the cards. It seems possession is 100% of
>    the law and once pregnancy occurs the woman has free reign on the
>    destiny of all parties. Can fairness be attained? Doubtful.
>    The oustanding question that I've raised and not many have entertained
>    is "can a viable deterent to imposition of parental responsibility be
>    formulated?". 

Hey - if you don't like the present balance, start supporting the 
establishment of artificial means to support the pregnancy to term, and
THEN men can demand a say - if a woman could turn over the zygote to an
artificial womb without incurring the expense (health-wise) of pregnancy
in order to give the man some say in the matter of pregnancy, then you might
have a legal stand.  However, I don't envision a world in which a man will
ever be able to force termination of a pregnancy except in the case of a
husband terminating a pregnancy in order to sustain the mother's life -
or save it.  And that only happens if the woman is unable to speak for 
herself.

>    Biological fact dictates the woman has the final say, so in that context
>    it only seems logical that she must take the lions share of
>    responsibility to avoid unwanted pregnancy? Is there an alternative to
>    this view besides making the man ultimately responsible to avoid the
>    unwanted pregnancy? I'm asking these questions to try and move the
>    "shoulds" and "blaming" attitudes to the side. 

READ MY LIPS.....both adults in an intimate relationship must take
responsibility for avoiding what they don't want.  Period.  The fallacy
you are stuck on is that the woman will somehow be willing to avoid
pregnancy if you DON'T want a baby...even if she does, at least 
subconsciously, WANT a baby.  You must be responsible for yourself...
if you don't want a child, then don't allow one to happen - take the
measures necessary to protect yourself from unwanted fatherhood.  YOU have
established a scenario during this string of notes in which the woman and
you are in an adversarial position to one another.  I did not define the
dynamics of the imagined relationship - you did.  Why a man would bed with
a woman who is in such a position to him is not something that I can
understand...however, YOU made up the rules.  In this scenario, you cannot
trust the woman to protect YOUR interests when you are assuming her interests
are different.  IF you did choose you partner wisely, then you both KNOW
how you feel about possible children - and you are BOTH operating in a
responsible manner....and, in my mind, that means you are BOTH protecting
yourselves from unplanned pregnancy.  The pill can be disturbed by ingestion
of antibiotics...the diaphragm might slip, the condom might slip off...but,
if at least two means of avoidance are used, then the odds are, as said
earlier, in your favor that much more.  I assure you, a woman who knows
her own body, who is not playing "magical thinking" with herself about what
she is doing (if I admit I am having sex, I am a "bad girl" - so I don't
take birth control measures and that makes me a "good girl" because I
didn't PLAN to have sex) WILL take protective measures.  Her life is
forever altered by pregnancy....and she knows it.  Unfortunately, so many
women have been trained to be shamed by their own desires that they will
lie to THEMSELVES about what they are doing - and these women end up
pregnant more often then anyone would like.  Just ask the men who bed them.


>    The child poverty question is a major problem today. Some couples pump
>    out babies because that's what there parents did years ago when you
>    needed lots of hands to manage the farm. Some men feel keeping there
>    woman pregnant is "macho". Some woman feel "incomplete" without a baby
>    and will do anything to have one. Teen pregnancy is rampant and some
>    feel a baby is a "badge of honor". All of these situations are creating
>    major social costs and consequences we all must grapple with. 
>    Ideas?

yes, first adjust your attitude a little.  The VAST MAJORITY of unwanted 
pregnancies in this country are due to teenagers having sex without a decent
understanding of their own bodies, the fact that they are MORE FERTILE now
than they will ever be, and that they cannot avoid pregnancy by the man
"pulling out" before orgasm.  If we would stop the magic thinking that
"children will not have sex if we don't mention sex", we could much more
easily get a grip on the problem.  We are aculturated to view teenagers as
children - 200 years ago, teenagers were married folks having babies.  The
biological model is the same...the urges are the same.  WE have the problem.
Blunt, no-nonsense sex education, every year of school from grade 5 on up
would be a start.  Cheap, reliable, AVAILABLE birth-control would also
be a powerful tool.  Once a child is capable of reproduction, Nature starts
urging that reproduction....this isn't an issue of religeon, it is an
issue of biology.  As much as we might try and teach children to abstain
from sex...well, let me put it this way, Jerry Falwell had a "bun in the oven"
when he got married - and if there ever was a dedicated, "just say no to sex"
advocate, he is it....however, as a young man, he couldn't make it..why
do we expect other children to have more willpower than good ol' Jer?

Yes, there are children of poverty, raised to believe that their current
life is all that they will ever see - who think that having a baby is
good - they sometimes get enough welfare to get their own place to live,
you see - and when you are living in crowded conditions with others who
are damaged by grinding poverty, that can be very tempting.  However, if
the USA wants to prevent this kind of pregnancy, then we have to address
the issues and problems of poverty - and that takes a committment of
dollars and manpower that the voters of this country do not seem willing
to pay.  The real tragedy is that so many see it as just a problem of
them having babies that nobody wants - and refusing to see that they
wouldn't be having unwanted children if they could envision a life that
promised them a chance to dream or achieve something of their own.  WE
are responsible for the children - they are a substitute for dreams that
we have denied their parents.

> Either you don't seem to realize or you don't seem to care that your scenario
>ENCOURAGES women who lack the wherewithal and resources to have children to
>do just that. Even though they are incapable of properly providing for children,
>your policy encourages them to have them anyway, because, after all, at least
>we can force the father to foot the bill. 

my scenario deals with the reality.  I don't believe that we should encourage
pregnancy without the financial ability to support the child...but, other
than education of the real cost, and education about birth control, and
ready availability of a safe, cheap, effective birth control, I have no
other option for you.  I will not support forcing poor women to have
their tubes tied - it would be a solution you might support, but it isn't
something I can choose and live with muself.  I don't think that any woman
can become property of the state without setting all women up for the
same fate.  A woman who is owned by anyone or anything is a slave...and,
as a woman, I will not support slavery for my own gender.  Period.  I
DO support education and birth control - free to anyone who asks.  What
other solution would you propose?  Criminalizing pregnancy?  and what
happens to a woman who gets pregnant and THEN finds out she is fired or
laid off from her job...is she as much a criminal as the woman who wasn't
working first?

> The welfare of the child is best met when all parties agree to care for
>the child. When one party is forced by the law to be a parent, that person
>is RARELY a positive influence for the child. Yet to you its just a simple
>matter of economics. Two incomes are better than one.

I have never argued that a single-parent situation is BETTER for the child.
I have simply been operating within the limits established in the base
note.  Once a woman is pregnant, what happens then....well, if the man
doesn't want to be a daddy, he won't act like one, nor can I make him act
like one...but, if he won't be there for the kid, he can at least help support
the child.  It isn't perfect, but it is a better answer than the man doing
nothing.  Of course, the ideal answer is for the man and woman to be
responsible BEFORE the pregnancy occurrs....I believe if you read my
replies to this string, I have said this too...BOTH use birth-control and
there is no problem at all.


> Why should a woman be allowed to make her decision about whether to keep
>a child in an economic vacuum? That's stupid, and encourages decisions
>based on a subset of the facts. It also skews the results in one direction-
>the wrong one!

if you are suggesting that the woman be forced to abort, then SAY IT...if
you are suggesting that the woman be forced to put the child up for
adoption, THEN SAY IT....don't pussyfoot around, say what you think is
a possible solution for this situation.  I categorically refuse to accept
that a father who won't pay child support deserves to be custodial parent.
If he is angry enough about the child to refuse to feed and clothe and
provide shelter for the child, I do not trust him to take care of the
child...so, what's YOUR solution to this problem?  Stop pointing fingers
and come up with an answer - one that doesn't force women into slavery....


> This is a non sequitur. Tying a child's welfare to the financial status of
>her/his father guarantees no such thing. The fact is that there are no
>guarantees in this life, financial or otherwise. And you seem to be completely
>ignoring that many children from single parent families suffer from an entirely 
>different but no less meaningful kind of poverty; a poverty of love, a poverty 
>of emotional support, a poverty of positive role models and influences.

so...again, what solution do you offer - once the child exists?  Avoiding
the pregnancy is the best idea for all - but in an imperfect world, it
doesn't always happen this way.  Ideally, both parents should be involved
with the children, and both should choose to have the children TOGETHER.
We aren't dealing with ideals, but the scenario offered in the base note.
If the child exists, then the best that CAN BE must be offered...and that
is a one-parent home in which adequate food, proper shelter, and warm
clothing are available...all these things take money.  

> Swell, mom can pay the bills, but she's never home and the kid runs the
>streets at night at 12 years old. Great compromise.

so, you define another, better option once the child is HERE - a reality.

> Society should not be encouraging women who cannot take care of children
>to reproduce. But that's what your policy does. 

No, society should be educating each and every one of us to respect the 
needs of children and the facts about our bodies in a non-shaming manner
so that we all could have healthy attitudes about sex and reproduction.
But, society isn't doing that - and woman are still using magic thinking
like , "it won't happen if we have sex just once", or "I won't get
pregnant if he pulls out", or "I won't get pregnant if I don't have an
orgasm"....and babies happen when they shouldn't.  If you have a suggestion
on stopping them from happening, other than education and reliable
birth control, then put it on the table.  Pointing fingers and making
accusations about my failure to solve the problem when you have offered
no concrete answers is the cowards way out.  

 Continually repeating the same old thing is not the same as advancing the
discussion. This is becoming overly redundant.

    
    Meg  (re. 202)
    
    Fair enough ... see you in the next topic.
    
    Take care,
    Greg

    There is no argument that the best way to manage this situation is to
    avoid the problem in the first place. Total agreement.
    The dileman remains. 
    Pre-defined roles will continue to drive the views of the system and
    many women "men will be responsible as providers, woman will be
    responsible in child-rearing". Womb territoriality will be the
    impenetrable barrier to equal rights for men. As I stated earlier,
    just because the woman has "control" of the development phase of the
    fetus she will be allowed to impose a life-long responsibility on any
    man that is unfortunate enough to encounter "magical thinking" that may
    or may not be influenced by "the goddess". My a@@. More like
    irresponsible and irrational thinking IMO. This horse is turning into a
    formless mass of flesh. I'd like to discuss pragmatic deterents but we
    get mired in idealogy. Serious problems require serious solutions, not
    rationalizations to exempt equality. IMO
    

    May I ask why so many men in this forum are so resistant to using
    condoms?  They really are cheap insurance.  Are you all saying you
    don't want to be responsible for anything including yur own lives?
    
    Meg

>    May I ask why so many men in this forum are so resistant to using
>    condoms?  They really are cheap insurance.  Are you all saying you
>    don't want to be responsible for anything including yur own lives?

Who said they were?  I hear people saying that the WOMEN should be using
birth control as well.  They should be.  Wouldn't you agree?

    re .199, Greg, sorry you weren't interested in my reply, but IMO you
    should realize that once you enter a reply in a Notesfile, that is open
    to all Digital employees, there is a chance that someone whom you don't
    consider to be "articulate and interesting" may respond.
    
    I would suggest that if you are only interested in reading the thoughts
    of one particular person that you send that person vaxmail, and that
    way nobody else can express an unwanted opinion on the issue.
    
    However, I'll try to remember not to ever reply to one of your notes
    again.
    
    Lorna
    

    re 208
    Condoms have their place relating to safe sex and male birth control
    but to a man it is un-natural. Once a relationship has developed enough
    trust and the risk of STD's is eliminated natural sex is nice to have.
    "sex using a condom is like gourmet dining with a balloon around your
    tongue!"
    Condoms are ok but not forever! 

    And taking birth control pills, using a diaphragm, or chemical
    spermicides is natural huh?
    
    Karen

    I have always said that woman who don't want children should use birth
    control.  However, men who don't want children should also use BC to
    protect themselves as well.
    
    I would like to know about what is natural with the pill which fools a
    body into believing it is a little bit pregnant and has serious side
    effects for many women, what is fun about inserting a diaphram or cap
    and what is natural about using foam, or other spermicides on a woman.
    
    Why do you expect her to take measures that you refuse to take to
    protect yourself?
    
    Meg

    Come on Meg, this is a finger pointing exercise not a discussion with
    you. I am sure many men are using protection against unwanted births.

    George,
    
    I disagree.  Fred pointed out that many men feel that using a condom is
    "unnatural".  Meg and I pointed that using birth control pills and
    spermicides is also "unnatural."  Meg and I have also stated, clearly,
    that it is both the peoples responsibility to use birth control if they
    want to prevent pregnancy.  Why is this so hard to understand?
    
    Karen

    The use of condoms still doesn't address the inequality that exists
    once a woman becomes pregnant.

    Mike, I can't change biology, only show people that there are ways to
    reduce biology's impact on them.  If you don't like the fact that there
    is a significant biological impact on women in regards to pregnancy and
    consider it unfair, be my guest and find a way for men to get pregnant,
    carry to term and give birth.  
    
    All I can recommend for men is to take enough responsibility for their
    lives and finances, and protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies
    just as if their lives depended on it the same way women normally do.  
    
    Meg

    
>    I disagree.  Fred pointed out that many men feel that using a condom is
>    "unnatural".  

That does not mean that they do not use condoms, does it? 

>    spermicides is also "unnatural."  Meg and I have also stated, clearly,
>    that it is both the peoples responsibility to use birth control if they
>    want to prevent pregnancy.  

Well, it comes across (at least to me) as only men have to have protection.
I do agree that both are responsible.

>Why is this so hard to understand?

Who here is having a hard time understanding?

    
    Lorna,
    
    I am interested in your replies and I hope you do not feel inhibited
    from doing so ... that certainly was not my intention.  My first words
    directly to you in this string were a request for clarification.  (BTW
    I find your notes very interesting because the strength of your notes
    often stirs the pot ... it make notes smore fun!)
                                                         
    The first words in this string you spoke in my direction were ... "Can't
    you see" ... to me that came across condensending ... and the replies
    that followed IMO also had strong negative tones also.
           
    I asked Meg the question because I was suprised at what Meg wrote I
    wanted to hear her comments to the inconsistancy I saw in her words ...
    I chose Meg specifically because her noting almost always seems very
    consistant to me.  
    
    IMO balancing a pro-choice position with father's rights is often trcky
    and I was hoping to explore the grey area.  I also thought the question
    may be of interest to the greater noting community.  Most of my notes
    tend to inquire about consistancy or try to analyze data.         
                                                            
                         

>Who said they were?  I hear people saying that the WOMEN should be using
>birth control as well.  They should be.  Wouldn't you agree?

who didn't agree?  the real problem here is the failure of the men in
this discussion to come up with any ideas - they have complaints, but no
solutions...

>    The use of condoms still doesn't address the inequality that exists
>    once a woman becomes pregnant.
    
    I'll say.
    
    Ray

>    The use of condoms still doesn't address the inequality that exists
>    once a woman becomes pregnant.
    
the problem with this discussion - other than the skewed scenario under
which we were driven to discuss the issues surrounding unwanted pregnancies...
is that the men are standing back and saying that things aren't fair - and
are NOT offering any solution that would be fairer.  The only conclusion
I can reach is that there is no other, more fair to both parties, solution
than to AVOID the problem in the first place....and once the problem exists,
there is no nice solution that pleases everyone.  Hardly a revelation...it
is what Meg and I have been saying from the start.

One issue that surprises me in this discussion is the male's resistance to
taking measures to prevent pregnancy....it is the woman who has the womb
so she is to be responsible for preventing pregnancy...and if she gets
pregnant, she should pay for everything - and if the kid suffers, too bad.
Well, this is kinda silly to me as it shows damned little instinct to
protect yourself.  Although sex with a condom may not bee as much fun as
sex without - if you are going to get into a major snit and refuse to be
adult and take responsibility for the results of failed birth control,
you'd better get used to condoms....even if the woman takes the pill,
pregnancy occurs - and a child is real regardless of your intent.

Of course, life would be just fine if the man could force an abortion,
or force the woman to carry to term - on his whim - but no man here will
speak this out loud because he knows that makes the woman a virtual
slave to him.  And, we could say that men can walk away from a pregnancy
he didn't want - and the taxpayers will foot the bill to make sure the
child has the basic necessities of life - but, I don't think you can
convince the taxpayers out there, me among them, that this is fair to
US...so, we are back to the quandry.

The bottom line is that sex has a potential price for all parties...
and, if you want to minimize the price you pay, you need to be a
responsible player AT ALL TIMES - protect yourself.  The message
is the same to BOTH men and women - protect yourself, both by using
birth control....and by CHOOSING your partner wisely.  Discuss the
issues surrounding pregnancy BEFORE you are faced with the problem.
Know thyself...and know the other person as well.

The inequities are not going to change...they are driven by our biology
and the need for women to have autonomy - control over their own bodies.
I dare say, men would not allow the state to tell them to get a vasectomy
so I cannot imagine that you would expect the state, or you, to be able
to dictate that a woman change her body at your whim.

    
> who didn't agree?  the real problem here is the failure of the men in
> this discussion to come up with any ideas - they have complaints, but no
> solutions...
    
    How about ...
    
    * National Committe on Families drawing from NOM, NOW, etc to provide a
    blueprint within 100 days for family issues.
    
    * National Health Insurance which includes free reproductive counseling
    and birth control.
    
    * High Schools offer sex education that talks about birth control and not
    just about plumbing.
    
    * Increased research into alternative birth control methods.
    
    * Quicker response to delinquant NCP ... this could be an adjustment if
    the NCP were laid off  ... this could be automatic payroll deductions
    if they are a deadbeat parent ... whichever the case much quicker
    intervention. 
    
    * Quicker repsonse to CP withholding visitation ... no great ideas how.
    
    * Abortion rights settled at US level .... hopefully pro-choice.
    
    * Roe v. Wade Card Pamphlet Developed ... like the Miranda card ...
    anyone providing any pregnenacy counseling must provide this pamphlet
    which describes all options as netrually as possible ... if not
    provided you're closed down.
     
    * Etc
    
    
    Come November just write in ... Gregory C. R. Yannekis

    RE: .222 

    > the problem with this discussion - other than the skewed scenario under
    > which we were driven to discuss the issues surrounding unwanted 
    > pregnancies...is that the men are standing back and saying that things 
    > aren't fair - and are NOT offering any solution that would be fairer.

    The question seems to be "What should we do about the fact that women
    have the *capability* of getting pregnant on purpose to force 18 years 
    of child support onto men?"

    The logical answer is:  "Convince more men to take responsibility/control
    over the distribution of their sperm."
    
    Then we get all the arguments about why this isn't really the answer
    (since women have the option of abortion.)
    
    The most frequent suggestion I've seen is to threaten women with the
    possibility of getting NO SUPPORT WHATSOEVER (to what purpose, tho?
    Is the point to starve small children to death as an object lesson
    for women who get pregnant against the wishes of the men in their
    lives?  I don't know.)
    
    It all comes back to - What should men do about the fact that a woman
    has the capability of getting pregnant on purpose against the man's
    wishes?  Men should protect and control their sperm (to keep from
    having to support OR walk away from children they did not wish to
    help create.)
    
    Many men consistently reject this solution, though.  It seems that
    many of them would rather have ZERO responsibility for birth control
    *or* child support unless they so choose (leaving women holding 100%
    of the responsibility for arranging abortion, adoption or 18 years
    of nurturing and support, whether they conceived by accident or not!!)
    
    And this is seen as "equality"?????  Since when are "0.0" and "100.0"
    equal??

>Of course, life would be just fine if the man could force an abortion,
>or force the woman to carry to term - on his whim - but no man here will
>speak this out loud because he knows that makes the woman a virtual
>slave to him.

 Aside from the needless repetition and redundancy present in your last
few notes, this utter fabrication really takes the cake. NOBODY has said
or even means that men should make women's decisions for them. All that
has been said is that women should consider ALL of the fact when making their
decision, AND THEN LIVE BY IT. This, apparently, means slavery to you. Perhaps
"slavery" to their own decisions.

>And, we could say that men can walk away from a pregnancy
>he didn't want - and the taxpayers will foot the bill to make sure the
>child has the basic necessities of life - but, I don't think you can
>convince the taxpayers out there, me among them, that this is fair to
>US...so, we are back to the quandry.

 You make it sound like this "unfairness" to the american taxpayer is
the fault of the men who exercise _their_ choice rights. Actually, you should
be pissed off at the women who are forcing THEIR choices to be paid for by
the american taxpayers. But you insist that it's the men's fault. Typical.
Women should have only the ultimate choices, not the ultimate responsibilities.
And you even agree that this isn't fair, but shrug your shoulders as if to
rebuke women for bringing children into the world that they haven't the slightest
chance of being able to take care of is the worst thing possible.

>The inequities are not going to change...they are driven by our biology

 That's a laugh. The inequities are almost entirely societally imposed,
NOT a matter of biology. Indeed, it has been amply demonstrated that
equity can be attained on a far more equivalent basis, save your insistence
that the woman's choice begin considered to be more equal than the man's
choice.

re: .223

okay. some of the sugestions (in fact, most) sound just fine to me.  And,
with men participating in the discussions, we might get rid of some of the
self-defeating resentment that is coloring human interaction these days.
I would really like us to stress sane, blunt, no-holds-barred sex education
to the youth of this country.  Repeat it every year, make it mandatory,
and make the expense associated with child-rearing an integral part of 
that education.  You can tell them, "Just say no" as much as you want...
but make sure they know what they are saying no to.  And, while we are
at it, child care and development classes should also be included.  Child
abuse and neglect are inherited diseases - education could help this
problem as well.

See, finally a man speaks up....and nobody threw rocks at him...it wasn't
so bad, bas it?

			D 8^}

    Lately, we've been hearing a lot about "telephone" scams (such as
    luring people to call '900' numbers for some reason, then charging
    $50 for a minute or two on the line WITHOUT GETTING THE OBJECT OR
    SERVICE THAT WAS OFFERED AS THE LURE.)
    
    A friend of mine called a 'psychic' at a 900 number recently (she
    was in a strange mood and made a mistake she will never repeat.)
    
    The line was BUSY several times (and, I kid you not, SHE WAS BILLED
    FOR THE CALL EACH TIME SHE GOT A BUSY SIGNAL.)  She finally reached
    a 'psychic' and they spoke for 6 minutes (she timed it) - and my
    friend was billed for $100.  She complained to AT&T and they were
    very sorry for her plight, but she had to pay the bill!!!!!
    
    What can be done about this??  Of course it's wrong.  Of course it's
    a scam.  It's also free enterprise.
    
    What people can do is to refrain from ever calling a 900 number.  (In
    my friend's case, she had '900' blocked from her phone to keep her son
    from accidently falling into the same trap and costing her thousands of
    dollars some month.)
    
    If a man worries that a woman he meets (who agrees to have sex with
    him without knowing him very well) might be after his sperm, the man
    can protect himself by controlling where his sperm goes.  Even if a
    man worries that a woman he knows very WELL is after his sperm, he
    can protect himself by controlling where his sperm goes.
    
    I don't leave my most valuable possessions lying on the sidewalk (to
    get some air) while I'm at work all day.  It would be wrong if someone
    stole them, of course, but I protect myself by controlling where my
    possessions go.  It's important for men to control and protect their
    sperm.

    RE: .225  The Doctah
    
    > Women should have only the ultimate choices, not the ultimate 
    > responsibilities.
    
    How does an "ultimate responsibility" differ from the responsibilities
    involved with raising a child (by oneself) for 18 years?
    
    Is a man's money (as opposed to the money it costs the woman to raise
    the child) the only thing you define as "ultimate responsibility"???

re: .225

okay, you get to rebuke the women having children as much as you want...
I have not problem with that.  That doesn't take care of the children.
Now, once you are through rebuking the women, what do you suggest we do
about the children?

Somehow, I don't think you are reading my replies very well..or you are
just enjoying throwing negative crap into the discussion.  I am not
now, nor have I ever, nominated any woman who gets pregnant for
sainthood - she is stupid to do it...there is that easier to understand?
She is especially stupid to RISK getting pregnant by some jerk who is
going to say that he isn't responsible for the pregnancy so she has
to pay for it all herself...however, ONCE SHE IS PREGNANT, AND PRESUMING
YOU AREN'T GOING TO FORCE HER TO ABORT, HOW DO YOU PROPOSE TO TAKE CARE
OF THE CHILD IF SHE CAN'T DO IT????

What words of the above question don't you understand?  They are all
in plain English - do you speak another language perhaps?

I don't see you offering any solution - rebuking the woman isn't
going to make the pregnancy go away.  It is unlikely to even prevent
any pregnancies.  Any other ideas?

    .229
    Perhaps you might be talking to the wrong croud. There are many
    responisble men who are in a read mode of this file. There are many who
    are like the type of man that you have described that have filled much
    of the lifers of welfare. Perhaps you should be looking upon them for 
    your preaching. 
    
    Signed a very responsible man

    re:.217
    
    Biology doesn't need to be changed, but the choices available to the
    man, once the woman is pregnant could be expanded.
    
    The woman can absolve herself of any and all obligations, financial,
    physical and emotional, if she so desires.  The man is pretty much
    limited to waiting to find out what she does and finding out what
    he's required to do, by law.
    
    That's not exactly an equitable situation, if you ask me.

    
>    Biology doesn't need to be changed, but the choices available to the
>    man, once the woman is pregnant could be expanded.
    
excuse me....what choices do you suggest we offer?  The biology of the
situation means that either she controls her body (her choice - for better
or worse), or we give the man control of her body (his choice reigns supreme).
...now, if she is NICE about it, she will CONSIDER his feelings; she
might even make promises that she intends to KEEP.... but, barring 
enslaving the woman, she is, in the final analysis, the one carrying the 
fetus - and she is the one who has to either NOT HAVE AN ABORTION, or HAVE 
AN ABORTION....and she is the ONLY one who chooses what she will do with 
her body.  It just doesn't work any other way.  I'm honestly perplexed when
I see you or others say that the rules oughta be different, BUT you aren't
talking about forcing the woman to have an abortion/not have an abortion...
how else can they be different?  This is a question that is the REAL issue
under discussion here - and noone will say out loud what you MUST be thinking,
or are we women must be overlooking some facet of biology which is certainly
not taught in any books I've seen.  How do you make it different?

If you want the woman to be punished because she refuses an abortion that
the man wants....how do you propose we do THAT without punishing the
child that results as well? 

I REALLY do wish that men could get pregnant at least 50% of the time...then
the game would be played on a level playing field.  Then, maybe there could
be some equitable way to set up the rules differently.  

    RE: .231  Mike Z.
    
    > The woman can absolve herself of any and all obligations, financial,
    > physical and emotional, if she so desires.  
    
    This is bunk.  The only way a woman could be completely absolved of
    all these things would be to travel backward in time (to keep the
    pregnancy from ever happening.)  Otherwise, women are forced to bear
    the responsibility of abortion, adoption, or parenting (either alone
    or with a partner.)  No way do women get off scott free.
    
    > The man is pretty much limited to waiting to find out what she does 
    > and finding out what he's required to do, by law.
    
    How lucky for him that he doesn't face the choice of painful surgery
    on his sexual organs (or 9 months of a life-threatening medical 
    condition that will end with many hours of excruciating pain to
    deliver a child whom he would either raise for the next 18-21 years
    or long for during his entire life after giving it up for adoption.)
    
    > That's not exactly an equitable situation, if you ask me.
    
    I agree.  Perhaps there is some way to get fathers to undergo painful
    surgery or a lengthy, dangerous medical procedure on their sexual organs 
    to make it a bit more equal.

.232>excuse me....what choices do you suggest we offer?
    
    Allow the man a way to sever any claims to the child, along with all
    future financial responsibility.
    
    The woman can accomplish this via abortion.
    
    Why not allow the man similar options as those avaliable to the woman?
    
    
.232>The biology of the
.232>means that either she controls her body (her choice - for better
.232>or worse), or we give the man control of her body (his choice reigns supreme).
    
    Listen, I'm not suggesting the man be given "control of the woman's
    body."  I _am_ suggesting he be given control of his own destiny, in
    much the same way the woman is in control of hers.

    
    
    re -1
    
    yes the women can accomplish severing claims to the child
    along with financial responsibility by  getting an abortion
    because there is no child that results.  If a child results
    though why is it justified to let either parent walk away?  
    
    I think it stinks that some men get screwed in situations 
    like this.  It sure isnt any picnic for the women either.
    However, once the child is born, that child's needs should
    be paramount.  Why should the child be punished for actions
    of both its parents?  
    
    
    This is not a fair situation any way you look at it.  Until
    such time that men are able to bear children it will continue
    to be an unfair situation.  The only thing that we can do
    about it until that time is protect ourselves during sex.
    Both partners have to protect themselves.  
                                               

    re .233, amen.
    
    re .235, I agree.  It seems to me that everytime I've ever complained
    about something not being fair, there has always been someone around -
    usually a man - to point out that, afterall, "life isn't fair."
    
    In my opinion, that's the bottom line here.  Life isn't always fair,
    and politics are usually personal.   Perhaps there is no way that this
    could ever be fair.  In that case, I would put the interests of the
    child, and myself first, over the interests of the man in question. 
    That's life, and realizing that, I think people should live
    defensively.  As others have said, there is almost no way that a man
    using a condom, or a man who has had a vasectomy can get anybody
    pregnant.
    
    It seems to me that most of the men here are asking women to put the
    interests of the men first, before their own concerns, or the child's
    concerns.  My answer to that is - why the hell should we?
    
    Lorna
    

>    It seems to me that most of the men here are asking women to put the
>    interests of the men first, before their own concerns, or the child's
>    concerns. 

 What instead you are doing is putting the woman's interest first and foremost, 
then the child (sic), then the man. But the unfairness in this is just too
damn bad, because the woman's interests come first. And then the whining
about "deadbeat dads" starts. 

    RE: .237  The Doctah
    
    >  -< stop hosing them and they won't be deadbeats! >-
    
    Men should stop hosing themselves.
    
    Getting back to the situation with '900' numbers for a second...
    Now that I know that at least some of these 'services' charge for
    a busy signal, NO WAY will I ever allow myself to be tempted to
    call one.  (I was pretty convinced before I heard this, but NOW,
    I'm absolutely adamant about it.)
    
    When men hear stories about other men who have been forced to pay
    child support for 18 years, they freak (i.e., get very upset.)
    But do they say, "Boy, I'm NEVER, EVER(!!!) having sex again without
    my own protection"...???
    
    	Nope.  They most often say, "Well, if SHE says she's on the
    	pill, then I'll take her word for it [even though any mistake
    	or deliberate action she might take to get pregnant means a
    	very, very, VERY drastic consequence for the man.]
    
    	"Condoms just don't feel natural. Oh well - time for sex. 
        YEE-HA!!!"
    
    Let's face it, Mark.  Many/most men put their own sexual pleasure first
    before any possible risks to their future income (and only whine about it 
    when sex is over and they find they must actually PAY for this ultimate
    irresponsibility.)
    
    As often as men screw up (no pun intended) on this score (no pun
    intended again,) even though the risks of such behavior are horrendous
    - imagine how much worse it would be if we sanctioned it by telling
    men to screw their brains out all over this land (and not to worry
    about ever having to be held accountable for children they help create.)
    
    Men need to control and protect their sperm.  If both parties used
    birth control, the incidences of birth control failure would be far,
    far fewer than they are now.  If most men even participated in birth
    control (such as being involved with frequent checking of IUDs or
    helping with sponge preparation or pill taking, if condoms are not
    being used) - it would help.  Many/most men don't seem to want this
    responsibility.  Instead, they want 0.0% responsibility (leaving women
    with 100.0% responsibility) in the name of "equality."  (Yeah, right.)

>    Allow the man a way to sever any claims to the child, along with all
>    future financial responsibility.
>    
>    The woman can accomplish this via abortion.
>    
>    Why not allow the man similar options as those avaliable to the woman?


so, you are suggesting the man be able to force the woman to have an abortion,
even though we have many people living in this country who equate such an 
action as MURDER - and that is NOT suggesting the man be given control
of her body?????  Well, just what WOULD be giving him control - performing
the abortion himself???  If he forces an abortion on her, he is controlling
her body - and she is enslaved.  That's where the biology comes in.

    
>    Listen, I'm not suggesting the man be given "control of the woman's
>    body."  I _am_ suggesting he be given control of his own destiny, in
>    much the same way the woman is in control of hers.

wrong - it isn't that clean and easy.  If he wants to control his destiny,
he has to protect himself BEFORE the fact of pregnancy.

    Re .239: The "equivalent" option for the man would be (presumably
    through a pre-intercourse agreement of some kind) to state that if a
    pregnancy should result, he has no interest in its outcome, and will
    pay half the cost of an abortion. If the woman chooses not to abort or
    give up for adoption, she agrees to support the child herself and seek
    no further support from the man (who would also agree not to seek
    custody or contact with the child).
    
    Human nature being what it is, very few people go to such lengths
    before engaging in sex [I can see it now; that first date, the
    candlelight, the romantic dinner... and the "what to do in case of
    pregnancy" contract. ;-)], and even the best-intentioned agreement of
    this sort is likely to fail at times. If the woman, having chosen to
    keep the child and support it herself, should lose her job, and must
    appeal to some government agency for support for the child, the agency
    may well want to try and track down the father for some help,
    regardless of any agreement between the couple. Or if the man changes
    his mind at a later date and wants contact with his biological child -
    and/or the child eventually wants to find the father - should that be
    categorically denied because of "the agreement"?
    
    There are always going to be hard cases, difficult decisions, painful
    choices... Seems to me the best we can do is to educate everybody about
    the possibilities, make safe preventative measures known and available,
    and try (this is the tough part) to make responsible behavior the
    "cool" thing...
    
    -b

    
    
    re -1
    
    I dont think he is saying that we should allow the man to force
    the woman to abort.  I think what he is saying that if a woman
    can absolve herself of the parental responsibilities then why
    shouldnt the man be able to do so as well.  Course my interpretation
    could be wrong.  The man can absolve himself of parental
    responsibilties by protecting himself to prevent conception.
    Fact of the matter is that the women has two different times
    when she can absolve herself of the responsibilites while
    the man only has one which happens to be before conception
    whereas she can do so before conception as well as after
    conception occurs.  Fair? No but its reality and nothing is
    going to change it.
    
    The real issue here is that simply due to nature, men can not
    get pregnant and once a pregnancy occurs the decisions are
    solely the woman's choice.  Now knowing this to be the truth,
    if any person does not want to become a parent, they must
    be responsible for their own protection.  If it is a male
    the only time he can do this is before conception.  If
    he chooses not to do so then he has made his choice 
    and live with the consequences whatever they may be.  
    
    
                       

    I agree with .240 about the equivilent option.  
    
    Intellectually I understand the arguments about men "protecting"
    their sperm etc., but it still says to me that the claim is women
    don't need to be held to the same standard of self-preservation in
    this matter and that irritates me, the inherant implication that a
    man is irresponsible if he doesn't use a condom or keep looking over
    his partner's shoulder to make sure she's not lying to him or misusing
    her form of bc.  When is the woman responsible?  And while probably
    helpful, to me it implies that a woman is unable (too stupid) to take 
    care of her own needs for protection when the man is urged to use the 
    condom or help check her IUD,sponge, pills, etc.  Where are the people 
    urging women to make sure men wear the condom,, use it as part of your
    foreplay?  And the comments about men being too selfish to use one
    due to inhibiting pleasure, I know lots of women who feel the same
    way about condom use, so men aren't the only selfish ones when it comes
    to sex.  Why do men need to control their sperm, but women don't need
    to control their eggs?

    Re .242: Whoa, whoa. Nobody has said that men should take
    responsibility while women do not need to; there are plenty of replies
    urging women to be responsible, too. But even if _both_ parties use as
    many methods of birth control as there are (the mind boggles; umpteen
    layers of rubber, plus chemicals - sex a la Union Carbide?), accidents
    can _still_ happen.
    
    -b

    
    
    re 242
    
    I think its implied that a woman is taking the responsibility.
    My interpretation is that men must also be taking this responsibility
    if they do not want want to become a parent.  Afterall, two forms
    of bc far lessen the chances of pregnancy.  I don't particularly
    like the feel of a condom,yet will not have sex with a man unless
    he has one on even while I am on protection.  To me though a condom
    is more a protective measure against aids or sexually transmitted
    disease than a form of bc.  Both parties should be equally responsible
    in using birth control. 

re: .242

In this society, there are many very negative messages fed to women about
their own sexuality - a woman who prepares for sex beforehand is often
perceived, by both herself and her partner, as "bad" - a "loose woman",
a "cheap whore", and "easy lay"....in this climate, many women end up
sabotaging themselves when it comes to avoiding unwanted pregnancy...
after all, if she plans her reproductive protection, she is being
a "bad girl"....if she is "swept away by passion", she is the victim of
her own emotions...and still a "good girl".  These are not conscious
thoughts, nor do they lead to conscious decisions to not protect herself,
but they often have a negative effect on the woman's life.  When you start
talking about reproductive behavior in this society, you cannot overlook
the impact of these messages.  Your partner may not be protecting herself..
And she certainly will find it very difficult, if not impossible, to demand
that you use a condom - it isn't what "nice girls" do, you see....

This is certainly not true for every woman, but it can be true for many...
so, if you want to be sure to avoid pregnancy, protect yourself - and,
if your partner has a healthy view of her own sexuality, she will be
protecting herself as well.

Noone here has suggested that women shouldn't protect themselves...but,
as the number of unwanted/unplanned pregnancies in this country indicate,
many do not, or they do not protect themselves adequately, or the method
chosen fails at a critical time.  The number of unwanted pregnancies
could drop to near 0, if men ALSO began to take responsibility for this
issue.

Protect thyself....or prepare to pay, and pay, and pay....perhaps this
is a message that would reach the young men out there and convince them
to prevent pregnancy?  It might even save some lives - HIV doesn't
seem to get past condoms....

>
>Noone here has suggested that women shouldn't protect themselves...but,
>as the number of unwanted/unplanned pregnancies in this country indicate,
>many do not, or they do not protect themselves adequately, or the method
>chosen fails at a critical time.  The number of unwanted pregnancies
>could drop to near 0, if men ALSO began to take responsibility for this
>issue.
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Huh?  If all these women are being the 'responsible' ones, and are using birth
control, WHY are there some many unwanted pregnancies?  I cannot believe there
are THAT many failures of birth control methods.

>Protect thyself....or prepare to pay, and pay, and pay....perhaps this
>is a message that would reach the young men out there and convince them
>to prevent pregnancy?  It might even save some lives - HIV doesn't
>seem to get past condoms....

Perhaps the EXACT same message should be sent to women as well.  If they are
not protected then THEY should pay, and pay, and pay....  Perhaps this is a
message that would reach young women out there and convince THEM to prevent
pregnancies?  In takes two genders; why shouldn't BOTH take the responsibility.

And before you ask "Who is saying it is only the man", I will answer with 'you'.
In my opinion, you are laying the blame for unwanted  pregnancies solely on the 
male and that blame comes across (to me) in many of the notes you have entered
here.  If a woman does not want to get pregnant then SHE should take appropriate
action on her part (from using BC to telling the man to get lost).  In the same
vein, the man should take appropriate action for BC if he does not want to deal
with the results of unwanted pregnancies.  But it is BOTH that need to; not just
men as many of the writings here suggest.

.235>                     -< who said life was fair? >-

    What I'm asking for is equity, not fairness.  Life can be equally
    unfair to all involved, yet still be equitable.

    But wait a second ... isn't equity the _primary_ goal of the feminist
    movement?  Or is the equality you strive for selective in nature?  Maybe
    you only want equality for those situations in which you're at a disad-
    vantage ... for those where you have an advantage, the status quo bias
    is Ok, eh?

    
.235> because there is no child that results.  If a child results
.235> though why is it justified to let either parent walk away?  

    Most curious logic ... are you proposing that adoption is somehow
    wrong?  Doesn't that allow the parents to walk away after birth?

    
.235> Both partners have to protect themselves.  

    Like I've pointed out twice already, this rhetoric avoids addressing
    the inequity that exists once the woman becomes pregnant.

    I sat through 200+ notes worth of begging this particular question,
    and thought that maybe the participants were finally ready to address
    this issue, but, prehaps I was wrong.

    Give me a buzz when y'all get tired of the "you gotta protect yourself"
    rhetoric and you're ready to discuss real life and what happens when
    birth control fails.  Until then, this fluff doesn't interest me ...

    re .247, Mike, for some people adoption is wrong.  It's not wrong for
    other people, if that's their choice, but there are people who could
    never give their own child up for adoption, so it should never just be
    assumed that adoption is an option for every woman.
    
    As far as the feminist agenda goes, I have no idea what the feminist
    agenda is on the issue we're discussing, I only know what I think about
    it.
    
    Also, re .246, nobody has suggested that women not take responsibility. 
    We are suggesting that *both* men and women take responsibility, since,
    in this string, it is the men who are complaining.  Most women my age
    were told we were completely responsible for preventing unwanted
    pregnancy.  The concept of being responsible for unwanted pregnancy
    simply is not new to most women.  We take it for granted.  For years
    most men left it entirely up to women.  Now, it seems that when men are
    asked to take an equal responsibility, they resent it.
    
    Lorna
    
    
    

.239>so, you are suggesting the man be able to force the woman to have an abortion,
    
    Of course not.
    
.240> Re .239: The "equivalent" option for the man would be (presumably
.240> through a pre-intercourse agreement of some kind) to state that if a
.240> pregnancy should result, he has no interest in its outcome, and will
.240> pay half the cost of an abortion. If the woman chooses not to abort or
    
    That's a reasonable implementation of the idea.

    Re: .249
    
    A reasonable implementation will not, unfortunately, have much effect
    on a court.  Judges tend to decide that the contents of any such
    agreement, however well written and protected and witnessed, are null
    and void where the welfare of a child is at stake and the woman appears
    not to be able to follow through with total support.
    
    -dick

    re:.250
    That's another bridge that needs to be crossed.  All in due time ...
    
.248>re .247, Mike, for some people adoption is wrong.  It's not wrong for
.248> other people, if that's their choice, but there are people who could
.248> never give their own child up for adoption, so it should never just be
.248> assumed that adoption is an option for every woman.
    
    For some men, abortion is also wrong, yet the woman can abort regard-
    less.  Have you considered the case of a man who wants the child?
    
    Lorna, what you're citing as potential problems, for women, with my
    proposal are existing problems, for men, with the current situation.
    
    
.248> As far as the feminist agenda goes, I have no idea what the feminist
.248> agenda is on the issue we're discussing.
    
    Isn't equality for men and women one of the _fundamental_ maxims of
    feminism?

     re .247
    
    Mike,
    
    Adoption is a legal means of BOTH parents absolving themselves
    of the responsibility once a child has been brought into this world.
    I think that adoption is an option for some but not all people.
    
    >Isn't equity the primary goal of the feminist movement?  
    Not that I'm aware of.  In the case of pregnancy, there is
    not fair equity as only the women is pregnant.  Biology can
    not change this.  Again, until such time that both men and
    women are able to become pregnant, this will not be an equitable
    situation.  Nature dictates that.  As for equity in other situations,
    I believe that if both male and female are doing the same thing
    then both should have equal weight.  If all qualifications are
    the same, why isnt the pay the same?  For what its worth, I don't
    beleive that women should automatically be granted as custodial
    parent just due to their sex.  I know of many a man who would be
    in a far greater situation to raise his children.  It is the judges
    that deal the cards with respect to this.  Change their attitudes.
    
    We've given answers to the "equity after pregnancy question".
    It doesnt exist.  It only will when both sexes are able to 
    become pregnant.  And why does the feminist movement have to
    come into play here. This is an issue between the male and
    female involved in the pregnancy.  
    
    

> A woman who is owned by anyone or anything is a slave...

 etc. I notice many, many references to women forced to do things they
don't wanna do being called "slaves," but curiously enough (or not) you
refer to men doing things they don't wanna do as "taking responsibility."
Interesting dichotomy, no?

    re .253, the situations are not the same.  A woman who is forced to
    help support a child she didn't want, would also be "taking
    responsibility."  A man who was forced to have a vasectomy against his
    wishes would be a slave.
    
    Lorna
    

>Huh?  If all these women are being the 'responsible' ones, and are using birth
>control, WHY are there some many unwanted pregnancies?  I cannot believe there
>are THAT many failures of birth control methods.

>Perhaps the EXACT same message should be sent to women as well.  If they are
>not protected then THEY should pay, and pay, and pay....  Perhaps this is a
>message that would reach young women out there and convince THEM to prevent
>pregnancies?  In takes two genders; why shouldn't BOTH take the responsibility.

as has been said, repeatedly, BOTH SHOULD.  In reality, as I've already
explained exhaustively, some women do not take adequate measures - in most
of these cases, because it would make them feel like they are "planning" to 
have sex - and that would make them "bad".  No, this ISN'T a good thing...
nobody here is saying it IS..but, it IS reality - we have a dramatic need
for no-nonsense sex education in this country - but, what little we've had
in the past has been solely aimed at women to prevent pregnancy - that is
the REAL problem - women are told that they are BAD if they plan to have
sex (read: take precautions against pregnancy) AND they are help solely
responsible for birth control (what do you mean you aren't on the pill?)...
don't you see the mixed message here?  IF you want to know why so many
unplanned pregnancies happen....this is where you look.  YES, YES, YES,
WOMEN SHOULD PROTECT THEMSELVES - REPEAT THIS TEN TIMES SO YOU WILL HEAR
IT....NOBODY THINKS THEY SHOULDN'T - BUT, IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN STAYING
OUT OF THE STATE OF FATHERHOOD, YOU'D BETTER PROTECT YOURSELF.  YOU HAVE NO
WAY OF CONTROLLING THE WOMAN'S BODY.  PERIOD.  SO, CONTROL YOUR OWN
CONTRIBUTION TO PREGNANCY IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE A DADDY. 

>And before you ask "Who is saying it is only the man", I will answer with 'you'.
>In my opinion, you are laying the blame for unwanted  pregnancies solely on the 
>male and that blame comes across (to me) in many of the notes you have entered
>here.  If a woman does not want to get pregnant then SHE should take appropriate
>action on her part (from using BC to telling the man to get lost).  In the same
>vein, the man should take appropriate action for BC if he does not want to deal
>with the results of unwanted pregnancies.  But it is BOTH that need to; not just
>men as many of the writings here suggest.


Fer Pete's sake...the original note offered a premise - how do you prevent
becoming a father - I have been addressing THAT premise.  The original note
put the man and woman in conflict over the issue of pregnancy - I've addressed
how THE MAN CAN PROTECT HIMSELF.  If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant,
AND SHE HAS A HEALTHY ATTITUDE ABOUT HER SEXUALITY, THEN SHE WILL AVOID
PREGNANCY - BELIEVE ME.  She is the one who carries the baby to term, or
she is the one who has to have a abortion...neither option is any fun.

Telling men to take precautions does NOT mean that I am telling women
they don't have to take precautions - that is a ridiculous premise...it
means that MEN SHOULD PROTECT THEIR OWN INTERESTS REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE
WOMAN DOES - THEN HE KNOWS HE IS PROTECTED!!!!!!!!!

    
>.240> Re .239: The "equivalent" option for the man would be (presumably
>.240> through a pre-intercourse agreement of some kind) to state that if a
>.240> pregnancy should result, he has no interest in its outcome, and will
>.240> pay half the cost of an abortion. If the woman chooses not to abort or
    
>    That's a reasonable implementation of the idea.

SURE...but, it may very well NOT be a good option for the child.  Once
the pregnancy occurs, the options are narrowed to: woman gets abortion,
woman doesn't get abortion and spends the next 9 months pregnant, suffers
through hours of hideous pain delivering live child...and then she either
keeps the child and tries to raise the child alone or she puts the child
up for adoption.  Now, perhaps YOU think that putting the child up for
adoption should be forced on the woman - again, making her a slave to
the mans whims - but, nature has developed some strong compulsions to
make sure the mother is willing to invest the time and energy to
raise a child.  it is the bonding that takes place between mother
and child - and it makes the idea of permanent separation
from a child unbearable to most women - that is why there are so few
healthy babies available for adoption in this country and so many
families waiting for years to adopt.  It is no more acceptable that
a man would force a woman to put a child up for adoption than it is
to force an abortion - both these decisions are painful, life-changing,
irrevolkable - and you cannot FORCE them on someone.

You want to have the final say when a woman gets pregnant - and yet men
don't go through the abortion or the pregnancy, nor do they create the
milk to feed the newborn - it is an experience you cannot understand...
or you would not be tossing these solutions around.

    who said anything about forced adoption?  I don't see any men
    asking to force a woman to do anything.  The big issue, IMO,
    is that because a woman is the one to bear the consequences of
    an abortion or full term pregnancy, the choice is hers and doesn't
    need to consult consider her partners feelings.  she can choose to
    eliminate the pregnancy, thereby severing further
    ties/responsibilities.  I only see men asking to be given the same
    choice-to walk away from an unwanted child should a woman's choice
    (decision made on her own)be to carry and keep said child...that may
    seem cold-hearted to some, but then there are others who consider the
    choice to terminate to be just as cold hearted.  Regardless,, the end
    result is the same-if the woman doesn't want the responsibility of a
    child for 18+ years, she can terminate.  Men don't have the same
    choice.  Obviously, my opinion is that they be given the same option.
    
    And even though there are those here saying both people should takke
    precautions to avoid pregnancy, my impression in reading all these
    notes is that there is still more emphasis put toward educating men
    than there are women.  The comments about women being raised not to
    be prepared to have sex seem to be to be a convenient way of excusing
    a woman who is irresponsible about birth control and it's ok for her,
    but not for him.  Perhaps this isn't the intended message, but it's 
    the message I am recieving.

you guys really don't understand...I finally have accepted the fact that
you don't.

Pregnancy is much more REAL to the woman in some ways because it happens
to her body - and that means that men and woman don't have the same view
of the process - perhaps we simply cannot have the same view.  

given the premise of the base note, then the answer to what can be done
once the woman is pregnant is:  try and understand that SHE has to
make a life-changing decision - no matter what she does, she will lose
a great deal...and, perhaps gain as well - motherhood can be quite
wonderful if it is a desired state - but, she has to live with the
decision in an intimate manner that you will not understand.

This isn't an issue of money - if it was, the answer would be easy.  It
is much deeper and more complex than that...and the woman has to face
the decisions alone if the man does not support her.  You may be right, 
the child might be better off not being born if both parents aren't willing 
to care for him/her...but, the woman may not be able to turn off her bond 
to the fetus enough to abort.  And, once the child is born, the pain of
turning the child over for adoption can be devastating.  It can ruin lives
to be forced into such answers at a time like this.  That is certainly
not a fair price to pay for an unwanted pregnancy.

You're right...once pregnancy occurs, men don't have equal say on what
happens next.  And, once a child is born, they can be forced into
paying child support for the child.  Neither situation may be fair..but,
there aren't any more fair options available that would not unfairly
burden the woman or the child.  I don't know many women who CAN support
their children who then go after the biological father on a whim - it
is a painful, humiliating process guarenteed to damage one's self-esteem.
So, if it will help any, you can be sure that she HAD to go after the
child support if you end up in court.....and you can be sure it isn't
fun.  NOBODY WINS WHEN THE PREGNANCY ISN'T PLANNED BY BOTH PARTIES
INVOLVED.

So, are there better answers - yes...as said, don't let it happen in the
first place...or figure out how to make men pregnant instead of women
and let them face the real, PHYSICAL, toll the process demands of women..
maybe then we would all communicate better on this subject.

 Of course, of course, because we don't agree with what you say, _we_ don't 
understand. It couldn't POSSIBLY be that you have a differing but equally
valid opinion. It's that you disagree and have a self-described superior
position. Right.

 Maybe men SHOULD get paid more than women for the same work; at least women
won't be forced to pay for kids SOMEBODY ELSE wants...

    
    re .258
    
>you guys really don't understand...I finally have accepted the fact that
>you don't.
    
    Actually I think the real problem ( to some here anyway ) is that
    we DO understand what is REALLY happening and we are not buying
    into the b.s. any more.
    
    fred();
    

>    ties/responsibilities.  I only see men asking to be given the same
>    choice-to walk away from an unwanted child should a woman's choice
>    (decision made on her own)be to carry and keep said child...that may
>    seem cold-hearted to some, but then there are others who consider the
>    choice to terminate to be just as cold hearted.  Regardless,, the end
>    result is the same-if the woman doesn't want the responsibility of a
>    child for 18+ years, she can terminate.  Men don't have the same
>    choice.  Obviously, my opinion is that they be given the same option.

when men walk away, innocent children pay the price...they do without
adequate shelter, food, clothing education...are you suggesting this
is fair?  
    
>    And even though there are those here saying both people should takke
>    precautions to avoid pregnancy, my impression in reading all these
>    notes is that there is still more emphasis put toward educating men
>    than there are women.  The comments about women being raised not to
>    be prepared to have sex seem to be to be a convenient way of excusing
>    a woman who is irresponsible about birth control and it's ok for her,
>    but not for him.  Perhaps this isn't the intended message, but it's 
>    the message I am recieving.

as this is MENNOTES - or have I segued into another dimension? - we are
addressing this issue PRIMARILY from the man's viewpoint - you seem
quite unhappy that men are being warned to protect themselves...keep up
that attitude and you, too, can become a daddy.  The idea that women
are immune to the the social pressures that have have so seriously
screwed up the male viewpoint in this society interest me...are we
supposed to be somehow teflon-coated while boys are the only folks
who suffer because of unrealistic messages from the society around them?
Men are, by and large, unable to communicate their emotions, they are
unable to admit they have fears or feel love...they have problems
admiting that they aren't always "hot" for sex - all because of the
messages coming at them all the time about what they are supposed to
BE...woman are given different, but just as devastating messages -
and they can leave women as seriously screwed up as men get screwed
up.  If you aren't willing to admit that, you risk not recognizing
the symptoms when you see them - and that, too, can harm your
relationships with women - or make you a daddy, depending on where
you stand when it hits the fan.

You are receiving a message that is NOT being transmitted...so, sit in your
cubical and be in a snit about it...fine by me...it solves nothing,
but it may make you feel a hell of alot better...I know I enjoy my
snits quite a bit...	8^}

     Re .249: It may be a reasonable implementation, but as I tried to
    point out in the rest of my note - and as others have commented on as
    well - it's probably not a practical one. Furthermore, if and when a
    child has been brought into the world and its parent(s) cannot support
    it, who does? At present, government agencies at various levels -
    meaning, of course, everyone who pays taxes. If my loosely-equivalent
    option of a buy-out contract re child-support were to be implemented,
    and the remaining parent opted to keep and raise the child but then
    turned out to be unable to support it, we have the choice of having the
    whole society share in paying for the child, or of placing fallback
    responsibility on the other parent - contract or no contract... 
    
    If it were put to a public vote, "Shall we the taxpayers pay for these
    children's support, or shall we attach the incomes of the people who
    were responsible for creating these children," which way do you think
    the vote would go?
    
    -b

.258> you guys really don't understand...I finally have accepted the fact that
.258> you don't.

      Dian,

      This is one guy who DOES understand!  I want you to know that I think
      you have done an excellent job as champion of this cause.  There is
      nothing that I could add that has not already been said except to say
      thanks for saying the things that needed to be said...

      Regards, Don

well, I try....I have no argument with the men who think it is unfair...
it sure is.  I am not saying the situation is perfect...it sure isn't.
But, as a taxpayer, I ain't voting to pay INSTEAD of a biological father...
after all, I didn't get a vote on who he had sex with.

>as this is MENNOTES - or have I segued into another dimension? - we are
>addressing this issue PRIMARILY from the man's viewpoint - you seem
>quite unhappy that men are being warned to protect themselves...keep up
>that attitude and you, too, can become a daddy.

 Actually, I imagine that IAMOK::KELLY would find it far easier to become
a mommy...

    I go to an outing for the afternoon and all hell breaks loose!
    
    re: 262
    
    This is the "public perception" that is creating tremendous hardship
    for Non-Custodial Parents. The men "get woman pregnant" and "Dead-Beat
    Dads are gonna pay"! BIGTIME!!! 
    I watched the public hearings on C-SPAN a while back about the "CHILD
    SUPPORT ASSURANCE ACT". One of the senators asked a group of three
    woman who were "paternity specialists" about their statistics that
    showed a virtual explosion in out-of-wedlock births. The senators
    simply wanted to know why this was occurring. Every one of the panel
    members just shrugged their shoulders and smiled saying "We don't have
    any answers for you about why". They didn't even want to speculate.
    
    Another interesting piece of info showed that the vast majority of men
    who had paternity cases filed against them signed all the legal
    paperwork voluntarily. The senators were "surprised" for some reason.
    
    I'm sharing this with you to give a glimpse of the tone of this issue
    in the federal arena. 
    
    I firmly believe that if some "fair and equitable" national laws
    regarding this issue could be implemented everyone would be better of.
    Especially the kids. Adversarial attitudes could be transformed into
    co-operative sharing. 
    
    Someone made the "bullseye" observation that a woman has two chances to
    avoid the problems or "blessings" of an accidental conception. A man
    only has one. In some eyes "Womb territoriality reigns supreme". The
    pre-sex agreement is the only way to manage the unfair risk to the man
    but the matrimonial/paternity statutes would have to be reformed and as
    long as "taxpayers" are deemed responsible for the failure of the
    womans abilty to provide, the biological dad will be the "deep pockets"
    pursued by the system.

> Actually, I imagine that IAMOK::KELLY would find it far easier to become
>a mommy...

if true, I stand corrected....I assumed the protest was from someone more
directly stung...if not, then apologies are in order.  These noters
handles don't come in pink and blue so it was an honest mistake.  The gist
of the message stands...

    RE: .242  
    
    > Intellectually I understand the arguments about men "protecting"
    > their sperm etc., but it still says to me that the claim is women
    > don't need to be held to the same standard of self-preservation in
    > this matter and that irritates me,...
    
    OF COURSE women are asked (and expected to) exercise the same amount
    of caution (in preventing pregnancies) that men are being asked to do.
    As it stands right now, the vast, vast majority of birth control taking
    place is being done BY WOMEN.  Recent surveys have shown that most men
    don't even ASK if birth control is being used (much less initiate birth
    control themselves.)  It's this irresponsible attitude (the "Hey, I
    only want to worry about getting laid and not what might happen later")
    that is the problem being highlighted here (by some of us.)
    
    > ...the inherant implication that a
    > man is irresponsible if he doesn't use a condom or keep looking over
    > his partner's shoulder to make sure she's not lying to him or misusing
    > her form of bc. 
    
    Why is it so tough for men to be responsible for their own methods of
    birth control when so many of them know DAMN WELL that the risks they
    are taking (by not controlling and/or protecting their sperm) could
    end up ruining their lives for the next 18-21 years???  Men aren't
    stupid.  Men can say, "Gee, I'm in danger here.  I guess I should take
    some precaution" instead of, "Gee, I really want to get laid and condoms
    don't feel natural, so I think I'll throw caution to the wind, then 
    whine a whole lot if anyone expects me to pay for this later."
    
    > When is the woman responsible?  
    
    Unless the woman travels backward in time, she is responsible (no
    matter what the guy decides to do.)
    
    The woman *always* bears the responsibility for dealing with abortion,
    adoption or parenting (unless she miscarries before any of these things
    occur.)  In any case, it's the woman's life AND HEALTH that are at risk
    here (as well as her financial situation for the next 18-21 years.)
    
    > And while probably helpful, to me it implies that a woman is unable 
    > (too stupid) to take care of her own needs for protection when the 
    > man is urged to use the condom or help check her IUD,sponge, pills, etc. 
    
    You inferred incorrectly.  Many times, I've mentioned that BOTH PEOPLE
    need to take care of birth control (and I've stated repeatedly that far
    less accidental pregnancies would result if BOTH PEOPLE used their own
    form of birth control.)  
    
    Your problem (most likely) is that you're used to thinking of birth
    control as a "one person" operation.  If she does it, then he's off
    the hook.  If he does it, then [thanks to cultural sexism] she must
    be too stupid to do it.
    
    I've been saying for years that BOTH PEOPLE should do it.  BOTH PEOPLE
    (MEN AND WOMEN.)  If one method fails, the other backs it up (and both
    people know that they are taking responsibility for their reproduction
    THEMSELVES without leaving it up to someone else.)
    
    > Where are the people urging women to make sure men wear the condom,, 
    > use it as part of your foreplay? 
    
    Men aren't stupid.  They don't need to be nagged into protecting their
    livelihoods for the next 18-21 years (nor do they need to be coddled
    by women who turn men's protection into a fun game.)  If men want to
    be protected, they can be responsible for their OWN PROTECTION them-
    selves (while women are responsible for THEIR protection.)  Simple!
    
    > And the comments about men being too selfish to use one
    > due to inhibiting pleasure, I know lots of women who feel the same
    > way about condom use, so men aren't the only selfish ones when it comes
    > to sex.  
    
    Men have a way to protect themselves against paying support for 18-21
    years.  It may not be as "fun" as having sex without a condom, but it's
    a lot less risky.  If they take the risks and whine about paying the
    consequences, I have to ask, "Is 'natural sex' worth the price you'll
    be paying for the next 18-21 years?"  If not, then it was a dumb choice.
    
    > Why do men need to control their sperm, but women don't need to control 
    > their eggs?
    
    No one said women don't need to control their eggs.  (Hopefully, I
    don't have to repeat it to you again that I've been talking about
    BOTH PERSONS taking precautions, not just one of the two people who
    are having sex together.)

    RE: .246  Joe Melvin
    
    > Huh?  If all these women are being the 'responsible' ones, and are 
    > using birth control, WHY are there some many unwanted pregnancies?  
    > I cannot believe there are THAT many failures of birth control methods.
    
    NO birth control methods are 100% effective.  However, if both parties
    used their own methods, the odds of both failing (simultaneously) are
    very low.  It's the best possible way to prevent pregnancy (except for
    abstinence.)
    
    > Perhaps the EXACT same message should be sent to women as well.  If 
    > they are not protected then THEY should pay, and pay, and pay.... 
    
    Women *do* pay and pay and pay for accidental pregnancies!!!!!  They
    face surgery on their sexual organs, or life-threatening procedures
    (after nine months of having their health severely affected) and if
    they raise the child alone, women face a good chance of living in
    poverty. 
    
    > Perhaps this is a message that would reach young women out there and 
    > convince THEM to prevent pregnancies?  In takes two genders; why 
    > shouldn't BOTH take the responsibility.
    
    How many times does it need to be repeated that folks here are talking
    about BOTH PERSONS using birth control?????  Why is it that some men
    respond to requests to be responsible (in this area of their lives)
    with assumptions that they're being asked to be the ONLY ones who use
    birth control?  BOTH PERSONS SHOULD USE IT.  BOTH PERSONS.  BOTH!
    
    > And before you ask "Who is saying it is only the man", I will answer 
    > with 'you'.
    
    And you'll be wrong.
    
    > But it is BOTH that need to; not just men as many of the writings here 
    > suggest.
    
    I'm glad you agree that BOTH PERSONS need to use birth control.  Most
    men still don't think it's their responsibility to do so (but don't
    want to be burdened with the consequences of this irresponsibility.)

    RE: .251  Mike Z.
    
    > Isn't equality for men and women one of the _fundamental_ maxims of
    > feminism?
    
    In the case of pregnancy, it would be most "equal" if men's lives and
    physical health were as much at risk as women's (after fertalizing a
    woman's eggs.)  We'd see real equality if we could toss a coin and
    decide who carries the fetus (and if the man "wins" the toss, his body
    is cut open to plant the growing embryo to be carried until he goes
    through the excrutiating pain of delivering the child 7-9 months later.)
    
    Unfortunately, it's not possible to put a man's life and health at
    risk this way (nor to operate on his sexual organs as part of this
    specific pregnancy.)
    
    Men (and women) risk a heavy financial burden, though (which is a lot
    closer to "equality" than having women risk their lives *and* their
    futures while men risk absolutely nothing at all.)

.252  Again, until such time that both men and
.252> women are able to become pregnant, this will not be an equitable
.252> situation.  Nature dictates that. 
    
    Nature does no such thing, YOU dictate that the inequality will remain.
    
    Equality is the goal only if you don't have to give up any of your own
    perks, eh?

.256>milk to feed the newborn - it is an experience you cannot understand...
    
    There we have it ... I cannot understand it because I'm a man.
    
    The only logical conclusion of this flawed premise is that you cannot
    possibly understand _my_ side, because you're a women.  I don't actually
    believe that cop out, by the way.

.264>well, I try....I have no argument with the men who think it is unfair...
.264>it sure is.  I am not saying the situation is perfect...it sure isn't.
    
    "Hey, it's unfair, sure, but that's your tough luck."

    RE: .271  Mike Z.
    
    .252> Again, until such time that both men and
    .252> women are able to become pregnant, this will not be an equitable
    .252> situation.  Nature dictates that. 
    
    > Nature does no such thing, YOU dictate that the inequality will remain.
    
    Bunk.  Nature dictates that women's lives and health are at stake in
    pregnancy (not men's.)  This is an inequality that can't be fixed
    until we have the option of cutting men's bodies open to plant a
    growing fetus (for example.)  Until then, the danger, the pain and
    the health risks are carried by women alone.
    
    Men get the easy part.  They don't have to risk their lives or their
    health.  They only have to (sometimes) worry that they may have to
    help support a child they didn't want (if they didn't bother to use
    their own method of birth control and the women's method failed or
    she wasn't using one.)
    
    > Equality is the goal only if you don't have to give up any of your own
    > perks, eh?
    
    It doesn't constitute "equality" to force women to bear 100% of
    the burden of unplanned pregnancy while men bear 0.0%. 
    
    Of course, we already know that equality isn't the goal of those who
    already have many societal perks/advantages (and are fighting like
    hell to keep from losing them.)

    RE: .273  Mike Z.
    
.264>well, I try....I have no argument with the men who think it is unfair...
.264>it sure is.  I am not saying the situation is perfect...it sure isn't.
    
    > "Hey, it's unfair, sure, but that's your tough luck."
    
    Nope.  It's more like (from many men in our society):
    
    	"Hey, if women and men can't each bear 50.0000000000000% of the
    	responsibility, then women should be stuck with 100% of it and
    	men should have 0.0% for things to be EQUAL."
    
    Bunk.

    The men in this conference who are already Dads (with kids in the
    same house) should know that a weekly or monthly sum of money is
    almost nothing compared to what it really takes to raise a child.
    
    Doctah, you're a Dad.  Imagine if someone sent you a sum of money
    to help pay for your youngest daughter's expenses.  Would this be 
    "the ultimate responsibility" of raising her?
    
    Raising a child has so much more to it than a few (or even a lot)
    of bucks that child support for 18 years can't compare (by a long
    shot) in equal numbers with the work it takes to raise and nurture
    a child every day of his/her life for those 18 years.
    
    Changing the law to give women 100% of the responsibility while men
    have 0% of the responsibility is *not* equality.  (It's just the
    same old shaft women have gotten throughout recorded history, with
    the exception that women in the 20th century are more likely to be
    awarded custody.)  Prior to this century, men were always, always,
    always given custody in divorce cases (because they had ALL the
    money, not just most of it.)

.275> Nature dictates that women's lives and health are at stake in
.275> pregnancy (not men's.)
    
    Another tangent ...
    
    Listen, a pregnant woman has two choices : 1 abort, 2 carry to term.
    
    The man has two choices also : 1 watch the woman abort, 2 watch the
    woman carry to term and then spend the next 18 years of his life paying
    child support.
    
    That hardly seems like equality ...

    re: 216
    
    Dian,
    boy, you really haven't been reading my notes.  I am a woman and have
    stated so before, so, I'm not worried about my attitude perhaps causing
    me to become a daddy.
    
    When it comes to your comment on "you guys really don't understand"
    I understand what you are saying, I just don't happen to agree.  I
    also don't agree that every child that results from an unwanted 
    pregnancy is going to result in the child living in abject poverty.
    I assure you, I am not in a snit, but if you'd like to dismiss my
    disagreement as such, that is your perogative.  Just wanted  to set
    the record straight.  I DISAGREE WITH YOU.  It's really that simple.
    
    Christine ( a woman )

    Re: .279
    
    Spending the next 18 years paying child support is not worse than, or
    even equal to, spending the next 18 years taking care of the child
    through thick and thin, sick and healty, flush and broke, coo and
    curse, while also trying to manage a job of one's own and (possibly)
    other children as well.  Get a clue, Mike.
    
    -dick

     <<< Note 822.258 by FORTSC::WILDE "why am I not yet a dragon?" >>>
                      -< you'll never truly understand this one >-

    you guys really don't understand...I finally have accepted the fact
    that
    you don't.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------


    Yes, we are a bunch of black-heart-less jackals. Whose primary concern
    is our lustful loins that we are guided by. Your preaching to the wrong 
    bunch of men. Many of us do give a dam, and
    thats why we are writing here. You don't think that many of us have a
    soul, a conscience. We are guided by our loins and not our hearts and
    heads. Perhaps this is the real reason that the NOW org is not making
    this headway that you have been damning us with. 
    
    You think that many of us would purposely turn our backs towards our
    own children? You think that we just go around beating women and
    children because we have external genitaila? Over taxed with male
    testerone? ........
    
    Perhaps you should attend a Fathers United meeting sometime. You just
    might get an ear and eye full of what goes on this side of the fence.

    Everyone agrees that no matter how you slice it bringing a child into
    the world is a monumental decision requiring unwavering committment.
    The best way to manage the situation is prevention...but
    As has been stated many times, it's not a perfect world. Some people
    are irresponsible and deceptive. Some guys (and gals I might add)
    only want to get laid without thinking about the potential
    ramifications of their actions. Each individuals motives and goals are
    unique to the person. The "potential result" is the same. 
    My view is that due to a lack of equality after the fetus has developed
    to a point where abortion is "not an option" something has to be done
    from the time of conception till the end of the first trimester (in
    todays definition of acceptable termination). What this proposed action
    is can take many forms but the action has to have enough power to
    supercede "changing your mind" or "the interests of the state". In
    present form child support obligation for a NCP can devestate a person
    financially and is comparable to "indentured servitude" but I'll stick
    to the present topic.
    There are many woman who have to have kids in their lives to feel they
    have fulfilled their "meaning and identity" and will "go it alone" if
    that's what it takes. But if they fail to provide...guess who gets to
    do it for her! The decision cannot be made with impunity to the impact
    on the man involved. There has to be a legal forum that creates
    conciosness of "willing or unwilling". This is the crux of the
    inequality. Even if the man is not willing to voluntarily submit to
    parenthood the woman can impose it upon him and the system will provide
    for the child regardless of how the guy "feels about it". 
    Without some form of "decision forum" and "escape clause" for the man
    the woman can do what she wants. Any ideas-without the "you shouldn't
    have" or "slavery arguments. My premise stands, without two committed
    parents you are creating a mess that lasts a lifetime. Somebody is
    going be treated unfairly, man and/or woman and/or child. 
    T
    
     
    

>    NO birth control methods are 100% effective.  However, if both parties
>    used their own methods, the odds of both failing (simultaneously) are
>    very low.  It's the best possible way to prevent pregnancy (except for
>    abstinence.)

I am aware of this.  My claim has always been BOTH parties should use their
own methods.  We seem to agree.
    
>    Women *do* pay and pay and pay for accidental pregnancies!!!!!  They
>    face surgery on their sexual organs, or life-threatening procedures
>    (after nine months of having their health severely affected) and if
>    they raise the child alone, women face a good chance of living in
>    poverty. 

But if they raise the child with the father paying and paying and paying, the
one more likely to be living in poverty is the father.
    
>    How many times does it need to be repeated that folks here are talking
>    about BOTH PERSONS using birth control?????  

How many times does it have to be said that some folks here are NOT talking 
about BOTH persons, but only the man.  Check out the notes here and you will
see a numbe rof strings that sya 'men should do this' or 'men are responsible'
those same notes do not mention women in the same way (also, only look at
those notes prior to the one of mine you are replying to).  At that point, the
focus was only on men.

>    And you'll be wrong.

In your opinion?
    
>    I'm glad you agree that BOTH PERSONS need to use birth control.  Most
>    men still don't think it's their responsibility to do so (but don't
>    want to be burdened with the consequences of this irresponsibility.)

And there are irresponsible women that do not use birth control as well.

>    Men get the easy part.  They don't have to risk their lives or their
>    health.  They only have to (sometimes) worry that they may have to
>    help support a child they didn't want (if they didn't bother to use
>    their own method of birth control and the women's method failed or
>    she wasn't using one.)

Rather interesting the way you put this.  What if the MAN's birth control has
failed?  The way you paint this picture, it makes the man look totally
irresponsible.
    
>    It doesn't constitute "equality" to force women to bear 100% of
>    the burden of unplanned pregnancy while men bear 0.0%. 

Sorry, but women do NOT bear 100% of the burden of pregnancy.  Perhaps the
physical birth itself, but all those incidentals around it sometimes involve
the father.

>    Of course, we already know that equality isn't the goal of those who
>    already have many societal perks/advantages (and are fighting like
>    hell to keep from losing them.)

Yeh.. Right....

>    
>    I agree wholeheartedly with you.  Some financial support does not come
>    close to the emotional, mental, spiritual, physical support that every
>    child and individual needs.

Except that some men are NOT allowed visitations right or ANY say in the
upbringing.  That is FORCED on them, wouldn't you agree?

    Well, it seems to me that men just want their own way.  
    
    Lorna
    

  >  Except that some men are NOT allowed visitations right or ANY say in the
  >  upbringing.  That is FORCED on them, wouldn't you agree?
    
    To me this seems more like slavery. Forced slavery of the system, of
    preconcieved notions and reputations. We help bring children into this
    world, and we are not allowed to see them? To foster them, to hold them
    and tell them how much we love and miss them. Want to feel their little
    arms around my neck. Listen to them sing and read a book to them. Or
    have them fall alseep in my arms. 
    
    Yep, just a bunch of black-heart-less jackels. Whose primary concern is
    loin driven. Yep.... We don't bare the birth of children, many of us
    are there in the room with you. Holding your hands, telling you how
    much fun its going to be to watch them grow. Then we are put out with
    the trash and told to leave our homes, our children and our money. 
    Forced slavery? Forced to take that second job to pay maintence,
    mortage, insurance. What time is there to spend with our children when
    we are working so many jobs?
    

    Lorna,
    
    I guess to some others here, it seems the opposite.
    
    Christine

    re .290, I'm sure it does.  But, if I want my way, and a man wants his
    way, and what we both want is opposite, I'll be damned if I can
    understand why the man thinks I should give in to him and let him have
    his way.   It seems like this is one of the few areas where, due to
    nature, men have not been able to have their way, and, since they are
    so used to having their way, they just can't deal with it.  Too damn
    bad (is my opinion).
    
    Men don't want to have to financially support children they have with
    women they weren't married to or in love with.  But, some women don't
    want to abort children they accidentally conceive, and yet can't afford
    to raise a child alone.  This is a problem.
    
    The best way to deal with it, as has been said repeatedly, is for both
    to use birth control.  However, should that birth control fail, then I
    think the biological father is responsible for helping to raise that
    child.  
    
    Lorna
    

>But, if I want my way, and a man wants his
>    way, and what we both want is opposite, I'll be damned if I can
>    understand why the man thinks I should give in to him and let him have
>    his way.

 And there is no compelling reason why your way should be considered to
be more important than his way. What's the solution? You go your way and he
goes his. That way, nobody gets stuck with someone else's decision.

>But, some women don't
>    want to abort children they accidentally conceive, and yet can't afford
>    to raise a child alone.  This is a problem.

 This is THEIR problem.

    
>    The best way to deal with it, as has been said repeatedly, is for both
>    to use birth control.  However, should that birth control fail, then I
>    think the biological father is responsible for helping to raise that
>    child.  
    
>    Lorna
 

    Do mean the father is responsible for paying for the child or do you
    mean he will be allow full parental privileges ( decisions, see the
    child anytime he wants, discipline, etc ). Somehow I think you are only
    talking about money........


    			Wayne   

    
>    Equality is the goal only if you don't have to give up any of your own
>    perks, eh?

I hardly thing any woman will think it is a "perk" to end up pregnant and
be left to go through labor and have the baby ALONE, or to have a 
painful abortion ALONE, or to live in poverty while trying to raise the
child ALONE...where are these "perks"?????

The woman bears the physical exhaustion, pain, and possible loss of life
(pregnancies go very wrong sometimes - women STILL die in childbirth or
before) in this situation - or she faces possible permanent sterility
or internal bleeding or peritonitis if something goes wrong with the
abortion - and sometimes things go wrong even with legal, safe abortions.
If they use the pill to prevent pregnancy, they get to have their hormones
yanked joyfully about every month of their reproductive life...or they can
live with the constant yeast infections and other niceties of the
insertable forms of birth control like the sponge/diaphragm....and, if
they get an IUD, they face possible infections of the uterus and inflamed
fallopian tubes - this will certainly make the victim sterile and has been
known to KILL some of the women who weren't luck.  Not all women suffer
all, or any, of these afflictions, of course...but EVERY WOMAN IS AT RISK.
What do the men risk?  Oh yes, their MONEY...

Woman are paying a pretty heavy damned price for the "perks" of having
sex with self-centered overgrown children who don't want to take
responsibility for birth control themselves and who certainly don't
want to support any child that can result.

Wow!  What a concept.  How did we get so lucky.

reasonable                                                                shrill

                                                                    	^
									|

 Getting near the end of the scale, eh? :-)

    MS. WILDE
    Woman have as many choices as men. Woman do not have to have sex with a
    man! They don't have to use birth control! They don't HAVE to do
    anything! This buisness about the trials and tribulations of pregnancy
    is your attempt to distract, not discuss the premise of equal
    responsibility=equal choice. Pregnancy and all its "evils" is a
    temporary condition which the woman has complete control of. She can
    demand terms to her potential partner or accomodate. That's HER choice.
    

    re:.288
    
    Nah, we just want similar choices.

    
>    When it comes to your comment on "you guys really don't understand"
>    I understand what you are saying, I just don't happen to agree.  I
>    also don't agree that every child that results from an unwanted 
>    pregnancy is going to result in the child living in abject poverty.
>    I assure you, I am not in a snit, but if you'd like to dismiss my
>    disagreement as such, that is your perogative.  Just wanted  to set
>    the record straight.  I DISAGREE WITH YOU.  It's really that simple.
    
    Christine ( a woman ),

I never said that every child born to a single mother was going to end 
up in poverty - I know many who don't - however, when a man is taken
to court and asked to pay child support, the premise is that the child
support is needed for the child.  If the woman doesn't choose to take
a man to court in order to get child support - then none of the men
here would have any problem at all - the man wouldn't pay, and the woman
would be able to pay all the price herself.  If both want it that way,
AND can afford it that way, then the men in this conference would be
very happy - and I presume there would be no issue.  It is only when the
child support is NEEDED that an issue comes up...my premise from the
start of this string as been to PREVENT the problem by BOTH players
being responsible for birth control - if you disagree with this premise,
it is your right - I was then chided that I wasn't dealing with the
question of what happens once a woman is pregnant...so, I dealt with
it.  I said that the man should EXPECT to pay child support for any
child he fathers - please note, I said EXPECT - if he doesn't HAVE TO
because the woman doesn't NEED or WANT the money for the child. Fine.
However, I still believe that, should the money be needed, the man
responsible for the child should pay rather than the taxpayers paying
so HE can walk away scott-free.  If you also disagree with THIS
premise, so be it.

re: not reading your notes - I read each note carefully, but I am not
perfect at tracking sign-on tags with signatures at the end of notes.
there are, after all, almost 300 hundred in this string.  Again, I
apologize.

.296>I hardly thing any woman will think it is a "perk" to end up pregnant and
.296>be left to go through labor and have the baby ALONE, or to have a 
.296>painful abortion ALONE, or to live in poverty while trying to raise the
.296>child ALONE...where are these "perks"?????
    
    Ok, if that's NOT a perk, then let's get rid of it...
    
    From now on, all women must carry to term.
    
    There, we removed those "painful abortions" from the list of terrible
    things women must endure.  Happy now?
    
    Or maybe it WAS a perk, eh?

>    Yes, we are a bunch of black-heart-less jackals. Whose primary concern
>    is our lustful loins that we are guided by. Your preaching to the wrong 
>    bunch of men. Many of us do give a dam, and
>    thats why we are writing here. You don't think that many of us have a
>    soul, a conscience. We are guided by our loins and not our hearts and
>    heads. Perhaps this is the real reason that the NOW org is not making
>    this headway that you have been damning us with. 
    
in the first place, where did I bring in NOW?  also, I think that there
are many men who are willing and able and anxious to take responsiblity
for their children - and I am assuming they do - I know a lot of women
who are raising kids who have fathers who are concerned and loving parents
and who work with the women to make sure the kids concerns are FIRST.
That is what I call responsible parenting...I don't know if the men planned
to be fathers, but I know they are doing a hell of a good job.  I never
said there weren't.  My problem is with the men who will NOT participate
in birth control, and who then want to turn their back on the results. 
THESE men obviously don't understand - and they were the ones writing the
notes so they were the ones who I was talking to - you, on the other hand,
are obviously a very paranoid person who assumes everyone is talking
about you - even when you know you don't fit the description.  That is
unfortunate - there are lots of nice people in this world - men and women
who have no hostility towards you,  no axe to grind, and who are willing
and able to be your friends - you should give them a chance before you
decide they are out to get you...and for Pete's sake, don't think all
the criticism is pointed at you - unless the shoe fits.

>    You think that many of us would purposely turn our backs towards our
>    own children? You think that we just go around beating women and
>    children because we have external genitaila? Over taxed with male
>    testerone? ........

I'm sorry, but the overblown prose on this one is just too much...I hadda
laugh....I honestly know many men who do not drag their knuckles on the
ground - I know they exist...hell, I know you can even dress them up
and take them out sometimes - if you don't make them wear a tie...

>    Perhaps you should attend a Fathers United meeting sometime. You just
>    might get an ear and eye full of what goes on this side of the fence.

I know several single fathers - and two men who are struggling to be
fathers in the face of hostile ex-wives - I know the side you are sitting
on.  I also know that nobody wins with the hostility monitor set at
100% - for your own sake, and the sake of any children involved, try not
to hate - and I know it can be hard, but the kids need you to NOT HATE...
whatever happens.

    re: .288
    
    >Well, it seems to me that men just want their own way.  
    
    And women don't, I suppose.
    
    Mike

    re .292, I disagree.  I think that once a man sticks his penis into a
    woman, that if a child results it's just as much his problem as hers.
    I think if a man's sperm creates a child, then he is responsible to
    help raise it.  
    
    re .294, wrong again, Wayne!  I think that if a man is willing to help
    financially support a child that he should be granted visitation
    rights.  I am also against men being made to pay so much child support
    that they're put in the poor house.  (After all, I did live with a guy
    for 2 1/2 yrs., who could never afford to take me anywhere because most
    of his money went for child support for the 2 dumb kids he had with his
    creepy ex-wife.  He told me that if I ever got pregnant by accident,
    that he would abandon me if I didn't have an abortion.  I said, "Oh,
    but that bitch's kids get to live and have all your money besides!
    FTS!"  - I think I would have had an abortion, but then *I* would have
    abandoned him!)
    
    Lorna
    

>I think that once a man sticks his penis into a
>    woman, that if a child results it's just as much his problem as hers.

 Why do you think guys bolt?

>I think that if a man is willing to help
>    financially support a child that he should be granted visitation
>    rights.

 How generous! I think that if a man is going to be expected to pay 1/2
the upkeep of a child (or more!), he should be entitled to joint physical
custody and equal say in the upbringing of the child.

    re .306, why do I think guys bolt?
    
    because they're heartless cads?   :-)
    
    I have nothing against joint physical custody and a say in how the kids
    brought up, for the father.  I just didn't think of it when I replied.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .306
    
    MEGADITTOS
    
    fred();

    Waydaminit! You're saying that somebody can _buy_ custody and
    visitation rights? 
    
    Seems to me there are two completely different things here - the
    _responsibility_ for providing support for the child, theoretically
    owed by both parents, and the _ability_ to be a parent. If one or both
    of the biological parents aren't fit to take care of a child, should
    they be allowed to do so just because they pay the bills?
    
    I don't think so.
    
    Now, that's not what the majority of cases are about, clearly. I, too,
    have heard and read of cases where one parent is apparently willing to
    take the other's money but refuses, without reason, to allow the other
    access to the children. That's cruel to all concerned, and yet another
    problem to be addressed. But paying the bills does not, and should not,
    automatically allow someone to act as parent.
    
    -b

    RE: .279  Mike Z.
    
    > Listen, a pregnant woman has two choices : 1 abort, 2 carry to term.
    
    In other words, she can either have surgery (on her sexual organs)
    or she can go through a 9-month medical condition (risking death
    and/or serious medical complications that can affect her health
    permanently).
    
    If things were equal, expectant fathers would face the same difficult
    choices (and risks of his death or serious medical complications.)
    Instead, the man merely "watches" someone else face the responsibility
    for these choices and "watches" someone else take these life and death
    health risks.  (So far, the woman has 100% of the responsibility and
    the man has 0.0%.)
    
    > The man has two choices also : 1 watch the woman abort, 2 watch the
    > woman carry to term and then spend the next 18 years of his life paying
    > child support.
    
    If the woman carries to term and keeps the child, the man is now
    sharing SOME of the financial responsibility (but very little or
    possibly NONE of the ultimate responsibilities involved with raising
    a young life.)  Even if he pays for 18 years, he's carrying a great
    deal less than 50% of this portion of the responsibility (after
    carrying 0.0% of the earlier responsibility.)
    
    If a man is allowed to walk away "scott free," then he has a full
    0.0% of the responsibility for pregnancy while the woman carries
    the remaining 100% (except for the portion carried by the rest of
    the taxpayers in our society, if she needs public assistance.)
    
    > That hardly seems like equality ...
    
    0.0% vs. 100% sure as hell ain't equality.

    RE: .285  Joe
    
    > But if they raise the child with the father paying and paying and 
    > paying, the one more likely to be living in poverty is the father.
    
    Take a look at the stats about poverty sometime.  Single mothers and
    their children are far, far, far more likely to end up in poverty
    than the fathers of these children.
    
    From the recent release of stats by the Census Bureau (1991):
    
    	40% of the poor were children.
    	Women were more likely to be poor than men (one woman in six lived
    		in poverty, compared to one man in eight.)

    RE 311
    The census beureau stats are bogus numbers. They're based on tax
    returns. If a man is making 30K a year and gives up 50% to a divorce
    settlement he's only got 15K minus taxes to live on. On the other hand
    the woman who is makink say 15k a year gets all her support money tax
    free and doesn't have to claim it on her return. So much for trusting
    government numbers to base an argument!
    

    RE: .312
    
    > The census beureau stats are bogus numbers.
    
    Do you honestly believe that 40% of the nation's poor are NOT
    children?  (Are they just folks living 'the good life' off money
    from dear ole Dad?)
    
    I suppose you could also say that poverty simply doesn't exist.
    (Perhaps this is the next tactic Bush will try in his failing
    re-election bid.)

>    access to the children. That's cruel to all concerned, and yet another
>    problem to be addressed. But paying the bills does not, and should not,
>    automatically allow someone to act as parent.

I always thought the reason that FINANCIAL support was required is because that
person IS the parent of the child (ie, contributed to the creation of the child)
Regardless of how much (or little) support is paid, that fact is, well... FACT.
That person IS the child's parent.

>    
>    If a man is allowed to walk away "scott free," then he has a full
>    0.0% of the responsibility for pregnancy while the woman carries
>    the remaining 100% (except for the portion carried by the rest of
>    the taxpayers in our society, if she needs public assistance.)

Or unless she puts the child in day care, or the care of grandparents, etc.
At which time this '100% responsibilty' you keep using erodes away quite fast.
    

>    RE 311
>    The census beureau stats are bogus numbers. They're based on tax
>    returns. If a man is making 30K a year and gives up 50% to a divorce
>    settlement he's only got 15K minus taxes to live on. On the other hand
>    the woman who is makink say 15k a year gets all her support money tax
>    free and doesn't have to claim it on her return. So much for trusting
>    government numbers to base an argument!

and another interesting stat from your government:

after divorce, the mans standard of living INCREASES 25+%...after divorce,
the womans standard of living DECREASES 50+%.  These stats came from a
country-wide survey of such considerations as:

		living expenses,
		disposable income,
		expenses vs income,	!note - the women have the children
		purchasing power

    RE: .315  Joe
    
    >> If a man is allowed to walk away "scott free," then he has a full
    >> 0.0% of the responsibility for pregnancy while the woman carries
    >> the remaining 100% (except for the portion carried by the rest of
    >> the taxpayers in our society, if she needs public assistance.)

    > Or unless she puts the child in day care, or the care of grandparents, 
    > etc.  At which time this '100% responsibilty' you keep using erodes away 
    > quite fast.
    
    It doesn't come anywhere NEAR the 0.0% responsibility the man would
    have if he were allowed to walk away "scott free" though.
    
    Even if the man paid child support for 18 years, he still wouldn't
    even reach 50% of the responsibility.
    
    In any case, 0.0% and <something less than 100% but way, way, way
    above 0.0%> are not "equal."

>    Take a look at the stats about poverty sometime.  Single mothers and
>    their children are far, far, far more likely to end up in poverty
>    than the fathers of these children.

So, WHEN is it that the stats say these people end up in poverty?  Immediately
upon divorce?  5 years later? 10?

Take a look at real life sometime.  I know a number of people where 'stats' 
just do not apply.  Try telling men holding multiple jobs to make ends meet
that the women they are paying child support to are 'worse off'.  If this IS
a major problem for women, then give the child custody to the man and have the
woman pay child support, regardless of how many jobs she needs to hold to do
so.

>    	40% of the poor were children.

Interesting.  I thought ALL children were poor since they do not have income.
Does this mean they come from poor families?

>    	Women were more likely to be poor than men (one woman in six lived
>    		in poverty, compared to one man in eight.)

Gee, that still says that 5 out of 6 women are NOT poor. Hmmmm.

>    In any case, 0.0% and <something less than 100% but way, way, way
>    above 0.0%> are not "equal."

Well, your estimation of the 100% number was flawed; perhaps your estimate of 
the 0% number is also flawed.

.310> If a man is allowed to walk away "scott free," then he has a full
.310> 0.0% of the responsibility for pregnancy while the woman carries
.310> the remaining 100% (except for the portion carried by the rest of
.310> the taxpayers in our society, if she needs public assistance.)
    
    Her choice, her responsibility.
    
    And what's wrong with that?
    
    By the way, I found the claim that abortion is "surgery on her sexual
    organs" quite entertaining.

    RE: .320  Mike Z.
    
    > Her choice, her responsibility.
    
    Meanwhile, men would have 0.0% responsibility (as I've pointed out
    before.)  
    
    > And what's wrong with that?
    
    And this is supposed to be equality??
    
    > By the way, I found the claim that abortion is "surgery on her sexual
    > organs" quite entertaining.
    
    It's about as funny as the idea of painful surgery on testicles.

one of the most consistent tones of this dicussion as been hostility
on the part of men who feel they are victims of trickery when a woman
gets pregnant even though both partners have declared their 
unwillingness to be parents - and even though the woman says she
is using birth control...and the disgust on the part of women
who feel that the woman who has an unplanned pregnancy must be stupid
or something to not use her birth control correctly.  Both attitudes
are based on the premise that birth control is RELIABLE...and that is
the problem.  THIS PREMISE IS NOT CORRECT.  I was searching through the
publications about my house looking for some of the data I have acquired
through my reading...when my latest edition of Health magazine arrived..
and lo, here was a discussion that covers just this subject.

The Alan Guttmacher Institute, a leading think-tank for population
research, has amassed some very telling statistics.  For instance,
over a 5 year period, 50% of the women using a diaphragm will experience at
least ONE unplanned pregnancy.  As many as HALF of the women seeking
abortions WERE USING BIRTH CONTROL AT THE TIME THEY GOT PREGNANT.  Now,
as we all know, or should know, there are many woman who simply cannot
accept abortion - with that information in mind, can't you imagine how
many women get pregnant, in spite of their efforts to prevent pregnancy,
and are forced by their own moral code to bring that pregnancy to
term?  EVEN IF THEY CANNOT AFFORD THE BABY, ONCE PREGNANT THEY HAVE
NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO GIVE BIRTH...or be murderers.

The methods of birth control available to women are unreliable, often
complicated to use, and frequently can be disabled by subtle changes
in the woman's hormonal balance or the use of commonly prescribed
antibiotics.  There is virtually no research in the area of pregnancy
prevention going on by any major US pharmaceutical 
manufacturer...because the religeous-right has been pressuring them
to stop manufacturing birth-control at all...and they are the
only organized voice on this subject at all.  It is simpy easier to
NOT get involved - and the pharmaceutical manufacturers are doing
just that.

Some statistics that may help you understand the scope of the
problem:

Method of BC		Number of pregnancies per 100 women
------------		-----------------------------------

diaphragm or
cerical cap		Typically - 18/100;  if using the method
			"perfectly" and suffering no medical
			conditions to impair use - 6/100

Condom			Typically - 12/100; if using the method
			"perfectly" and suffering no medical
			conditions to impair use - 2/100

Spermicide		Typically - 21/100; if using the method
			"perfectly" and suffering no medical
			conditions to impair use - 3/100

Natural/Rythm
method			Typically - 20/100; if using the method
			"perfectly" and suffering no medical
			conditions to impair use - 1/100 to 9/100
			depending on restrictiveness of use

Oral Contraceptive
	Pill		Typically - 3/100; perfect use - .1/100
	minipill	Typically and perfectly - .5/100

Norplant		.04/100 

Intrauterine Device	Copper T: Typically - 4/100; perfect use - .8/100 
(IUD)			Progestasert: Typically - 4/100; perfect - 2/100

Sterilizations:		Tubal: typically - .5/100; perfect - .2/100
			Vasectomy: Typically - .2/100; perfect - .1/100

Perfect use is defined as following all instructions provided with the
birth control method "to the letter".  Although some statistics may seem
very small - remember that these methods with the lowest/100 women
numbers are also the most popular methods used  - and the
NUMBER of pregnant women in a given year is still very significant.

The article also outlines the reasons a woman may not be able to use
a given method - family history of high-blood pressure or breast or
cerical cancer eliminate the woman as a candidate for use of the
pill, for instance.  IUD's wreck havoc on the woman who gets yeast
infections frequently - and can lead to internal infections which
can become life-threatening.  IUD's can also be "silently" expelled
(the woman feels no pain or discomfort and is unaware of the loss
until she checks for the device - and it is gone - often AFTER her
partner notices it missing during intercourse).

The article stresses - the perfect use of a birth control method REDUCES
the risk of pregnancy - but it DOES NOT ERASE THE RISK ENTIRELY.  Women
will get pregnant in spite of doing all the right things.

What does it all mean?  I'm glad you asked, Binky....it means that it
is NOT okay for the man to presume he is safe from unwanted pregnancy
because his partner is using a birth control method...he must ALSO
TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR PREVENTION.  This doubles your chances of
avoiding an unwanted, and ultimately, tragic pregnancy.  It means that
those of you who are sure you were tricked or "robbed of your sperm
so she could have a baby" may very well be hooting up the wrong tree.
You may very well have been caught by inadequate preventative methods
used as consciously as is humanly possible....and she wasn't tricking
you - but was caught in the same trap as you were - and she is stuck
NOW as well.  

It also means that we, the great unwashed hoard out here, need to 
adjust our thinking about women who end up pregnant when they say
they didn't want to - they probably MEAN it, and they were probably
REALLY TRYING TO AVOID PREGNANCY.  It also means we need to let
the researchers know that we want safe, effective, easy-to-use
and cheap forms of birth control - and we want it NOW.

The hostility a man feels when he is suddenly facing losing income
for 18-20 years for a child he doesn't want is understandable...and,
unfortunately, once the pregnancy occurs, it may not be possible for
the woman to abort OR put a child she has carried for 9 months up
for adoption - both acts can be life-destroying for the woman who
cannot accept them as the "RIGHT", or moral decision.  The only
way a man can truly protect his interests in this issue is to work
with the woman to PREVENT the pregnancy...and, as the statistics
show, that takes BOTH PARTNERS USING BIRTH CONTROL EVERY TIME YOU
HAVE SEX.

.321> Meanwhile, men would have 0.0% responsibility (as I've pointed out
.321> before.)  
    
    Not quite, but it is as you have erroneously claimed before.

    re:.322
    
    I think we all realize that only abstinence is 100% effective.
    
    That said, yet AGAIN, now let us proceed to dismantle the "TRICKERY"
    strawwoman ... it doesn't matter how they got where they are, through
    trickey, clumsiness, forgetfulness, or revenge.  We have a couple and
    the woman is pregnant.
    
    She can choose not to accept the pregnancy, abort the fetus, and that's
    that.  That is her decision and hers alone.  REGARDLESS of what events
    and motives led to the pregnancy.

    RE: .323  Mike Z.
    
    .321> Meanwhile, men would have 0.0% responsibility (as I've pointed out
    .321> before.)  
    
    > Not quite, but it is as you have erroneously claimed before.
    
    Men would have 0.0% responsibility for using birth control and 0.0%
    responsibility for supporting any possible children.
    
    With these two responsibilities eliminated, what other responsibilities
    would the man have (besides his own sexual gratification?)
    

.325> With these two responsibilities eliminated, what other responsibilities
.325> would the man have (besides his own sexual gratification?)
    
    With an abortion, what responsibilities does the woman have?

    RE: .326  Mike Z.
    
    > With an abortion, what responsibilities does the woman have?
    
    Women have the responsibility of dealing with abortion, adoption
    or raising the child.  All of these options (including abortion!)
    involve life risks, affects on health *and* the woman's personal 
    time and/or money.
    
    Perhaps it would be easier to understand if men were forced to
    undergo physical consequences (such as painful surgery directly
    on their testicles) each time they get a woman pregnant accidently.

.327> -< Men would have to have testicular surgery to make things equal. >-

    That's rich, I'll say.  D&Cs and D&Vs aren't surgery on the sexual
    organs any more than a tooth cleaning is dental surgery. 
    
    
.327>> With an abortion, what responsibilities does the woman have?
.327> Women have the responsibility of dealing with abortion, adoption
.327> or raising the child.  All of these options (including abortion!)
.327> involve life risks, affects on health *and* the woman's personal 
.327> time and/or money.
    
    No, _with_an_abortion_, what are her responsibilities?  The things
    you listed are some of her concerns with a pregnancy, all of which,
    coincidentally, can also shared by the man, whether you want to admit
    it, or not.
    
    
.327> Perhaps it would be easier to understand if men were forced to
.327> undergo physical consequences (such as painful surgery directly     
.327> on their testicles) each time they get a woman pregnant accidently.
    
    Perhaps it would be easier to understand if you would leave the lucid
    exaggerations out of the discussion.  Surgery on the sexual organs?
    Brownmiller would be proud!  What's next, a claim that it's also rape
    since invasion of an body orifice occurs?
    

>    Men would have 0.0% responsibility for using birth control and 0.0%
>    responsibility for supporting any possible children.
    
    Maybe in the crowd you hang out with.  If you're speaking from
    experience, then the men you associate with have no self respect.  If
    you're speaking from impression, then I suggest you take the chip off
    your shoulder before proceeding.
    

    Oh Kris, you're a man, you couldn't possibly understand.

    RE: .329  Kris
    
    >> Men would have 0.0% responsibility for using birth control and 0.0%
    >> responsibility for supporting any possible children.
    
    > Maybe in the crowd you hang out with.  
    
    Go back and read the note (with comprehension this time.)
    
    I was speaking about the prospective situation where men are absolved
    of all responsibility for supporting children they sire.
    
    *IF* men are absolved (in the future) of all such responsibility,
    then we'll have a situation where (as stated above) "Men *WOULD* have
    [in the future] 0.0% responsibility for using birth control and 0.0%
    responsibility for supporting any possible children."
    
    > If you're speaking from experience...
    
    The rest of your note is meaningless since you were laboring under a
    misapprehension.  Try again.

    RE: .328  Mike Z.
    
    .327>-< Men would have to have testicular surgery to make things equal. >-

    > That's rich, I'll say.  D&Cs and D&Vs aren't surgery on the sexual
    > organs any more than a tooth cleaning is dental surgery. 
    
    If the teeth were located well inside a person's body (and required
    a surgical procedure to acquire access to the places being cleaned,)
    it would be called a surgery as well.  However, teeth are easily
    accessible without surgical intervention, so they constitute an 
    entirely different level of treatment.
    
    > No, _with_an_abortion_, what are her responsibilities? 
    
    An abortion doesn't just happen because someone wishes it so.  The
    responsibilities involved with abortion require life risks, affects
    on health *and* the woman's personal time and/or money.
    
    > The things you listed are some of her concerns with a pregnancy, all 
    > of which, coincidentally, can also shared by the man, whether you want 
    > to admit it, or not.
    
    Aside from the life and health risks (which obviously can NOT be shared
    by the man,) I've never denied that men have the capacity to share some
    of the responsibility.  We're talking about whether or not men should
    be required to share it.
    
    If you absolve men from all responsibilities in unplanned pregnancies,
    then they have 0.0% required responsibility.
    
    > Perhaps it would be easier to understand if you would leave the lucid
    > exaggerations out of the discussion.  Surgery on the sexual organs?
    > Brownmiller would be proud!  What's next, a claim that it's also rape
    > since invasion of an body orifice occurs?
    
    Do you understand that women's reproductive organs are located inside
    the body (requiring surgical procedures to perform medical operations
    on them?)  The outside of a woman's uterus may be accessible through
    a body orifice, but operations on this organ most often require some
    level of surgical access to the INSIDE of the uterus.

>    Go back and read the note (with comprehension this time.)
    
    Go back and write it to be comprehendible.
    
    You have been speaking as if men would scatter from the responsibility
    of raising a child if legislation didn't bind them to their offspring. 
    The men I know and associate with are better than that.  Much better
    than that. And I get tired of reading note after note after note of
    angst ridden, gender slamming, sexist babble. 
    

.332> If you absolve men from all responsibilities in unplanned pregnancies,
.332> then they have 0.0% required responsibility.
    
    Saying that over and over doesn't make it the truth.

    RE: .333  Kris
    
    > Go back and write it to be comprehendible.
    
    If you continue to have trouble following the discussion in this
    topic, ask questions.  I'll be glad to help you understand.
    
    > You have been speaking as if men would scatter from the responsibility
    > of raising a child if legislation didn't bind them to their offspring. 
    > The men I know and associate with are better than that.  Much better
    > than that. 
    
    Others here seem to think that men have absolutely ZERO responsibility
    for children they did not want to create, so speak to *them* about how
    many men are better than that.
    
    > And I get tired of reading note after note after note of
    > angst ridden, gender slamming, sexist babble. 
    
    Well, I can't stop others from slamming women with the sexist babble
    I've seen in this topic.  Sorry.

    RE: .334  Mike Z.
    
    .332>If you absolve men from all responsibilities in unplanned pregnancies,
    .332>then they have 0.0% required responsibility.
    
    > Saying that over and over doesn't make it the truth.
    
    If men are absolved from ALL responsibilities in unplanned pregnancies, 
    then what REQUIRED responsibilities do they still have for unplanned 
    pregnancies?
    

.335> Others here seem to think that men have absolutely ZERO responsibility
.335> for children they did not want to create, so speak to *them* about how
.335> many men are better than that.
    
    Really?!  That's simply amazing!   Who thinks that ...?
    
    I hope you're not confusing "should have less responsibility" with
    "[do] have absolutely ZERO responsibility."  Such an exaggeration
    might possibly be an intellectually dishonest misrepresentation ...

    RE: .337  Mike Z.
    
.335> Others here seem to think that men have absolutely ZERO responsibility
.335> for children they did not want to create, so speak to *them* about how
.335> many men are better than that.
    
    > Really?!  That's simply amazing!   Who thinks that ...?
    
    No one, I hope.  Men *do* (and *should*) bear some of the responsibility
    for children they sire.  If you agree, I'm glad.
    
    > I hope you're not confusing "should have less responsibility" with
    > "[do] have absolutely ZERO responsibility."  
    
    "Less responsibility" for their children than whom?  (And if men should 
    be required to have *some* responsibilities for their children, please
    list the responsibilities that should be required of men.)

    By the way, Mike Z., if people are saying that men should be asked to
    pay less money (per father) than the courts are sometimes asking of
    men (i.e., the cases of men who live in cars after making their child
    support payments,) then I do agree that men should have less of this
    financial burden.
    
    I'd like the court system to be fairer.  Each case should be taken on
    its own merit (to account for two-career divorcing couples by having
    arrangements that acknowledge the Mom's ability to provide a good deal
    of the support on her own.)  Plus, I'd like to see more joint custody
    as well as equal responsibility for child support regardless of sex
    (based on the amount that would be fair for a person of EITHER sex to
    pay.)
    
    I don't believe that most of these changes will become common until
    women are closer to equal opportunity in employment, though.  As long
    as men make most of the money, our society is going to expect them to
    use it to support their children (to avoid having society burdened
    with the growing problem of supporting the children of absent Dads.)
    
    If folks here have NOT been saying that men should get off 'scott free'
    after getting a woman pregnant (simply because the woman has the choice
    to abort,) then I'm glad.

>    Waydaminit! You're saying that somebody can _buy_ custody and
>    visitation rights? 

 If it is one's "responsibility" to "support" a child, then this responsibility
is not restricted to just paying the bills. Here again we see that it is 
completely acceptable to enslave men. Just because you are considered to be
responsible for the child, that doesn't mean you should have any actual rights.
What garbage. You, as a man, should be happy that by paying what some random
judge decides is your "fair share" that you have the right to remain out of
prison so you can continue to pay, pay, pay! Who could ask for anything more?

>But paying the bills does not, and should not,
>    automatically allow someone to act as parent.

 Unless you are _proved_ to be unfit, why the hell not? You want to hold men 
responsible for their kids only to the extent that they fork over the cold hard
cash. But they get no say over what happens to the money. They get no say over
what happens to the kid. How incredibly one way. (As per usual...)

>    Others here seem to think that men have absolutely ZERO responsibility
>    for children they did not want to create, so speak to *them* about how
>    many men are better than that.
    
    And you think that I have trouble following the discussion?
    
    I have learned that one of the least constructive activities here is to
    come between a person with an axe and their grindstone but I got to say
    that if this is the message you're reading into the notes posted here I
    think that you're once again jousting with windmills of your own
    creation.  
    
    Maybe it would be constructive to take off those crimson tinted glasses
    and read the words posted here like they were written by humans rather
    than penis-bearing ogres. 

    RE: .341  Kris
    
    >> Others here seem to think that men have absolutely ZERO responsibility
    >> for children they did not want to create, so speak to *them* about how
    >> many men are better than that.
    
    > And you think that I have trouble following the discussion?
    
    Well, I keep asking what required responsibilities men would still have
    after men have been absolved of all required responsibilities in the
    case of unplanned pregnancy and all I keep getting is this indignation.
    
    If men were absolved of all required responsibility for children they
    did not wish to sire, why don't YOU try telling me which required
    responsibilities would be left (if you can.)
    
    > I have learned that one of the least constructive activities here is to
    > come between a person with an axe and their grindstone but I got to say
    > ...                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    Yeah, I've noticed that you can't seem to stop yourself from centering 
    your argument around personal remarks about me (rather than sticking to
    the discussion at hand.)
    
    It doesn't help your case (if you have one, that is.)

    Re .340:
>>    Waydaminit! You're saying that somebody can _buy_ custody and
>>    visitation rights? 
>
> If it is one's "responsibility" to "support" a child, then this responsibility
>is not restricted to just paying the bills. Here again we see that it is 
>completely acceptable to enslave men. Just because you are considered to be
>responsible for the child, that doesn't mean you should have any actual rights.
>What garbage. You, as a man, should be happy that by paying what some random
>judge decides is your "fair share" that you have the right to remain out of
>prison so you can continue to pay, pay, pay! Who could ask for anything more?
>
    
    This is not my opinion at all. I was simply responding to your
    statement in reply .306:
    
> How generous! I think that if a man is going to be expected to pay 1/2
>the upkeep of a child (or more!), he should be entitled to joint physical
>custody and equal say in the upbringing of the child.
    
    "Entitled" is the word you used, with no qualification as to the man's
    fitness for custody. As you point out, unfitness should be proven,
    never assumed - but, if it _is_ proven, wouldn't you agree that, even
    though a parent (either parent) might still be held financially
    responsible for the child, that parent should not get equal custodial
    rights? 
    
    Or do you believe that if a parent is found unfit to have custody, that
    parent should no longer be held liable for support?
    
>>But paying the bills does not, and should not,
>>    automatically allow someone to act as parent.
>
> Unless you are _proved_ to be unfit, why the hell not? You want to hold men 
>responsible for their kids only to the extent that they fork over the cold hard
>cash. But they get no say over what happens to the money. They get no say over
>what happens to the kid. How incredibly one way. (As per usual...)
    
    Beg your pardon? I never said the cash was the main thing or the only
    thing, nor have I advocated "slavery". I simply pointed out that it is
    possible for someone to be responsible for having created a child, and
    yet not be fit to take care of it. This applies to women as well as
    men, and - *if they are proven unfit* - they should not be allowed
    sole charge of the child. 
    
    This isn't necessarily all-or-nothing; it might be workable to allow
    communication by mail or phone, or supervised visits, etc. However, the
    fact that someone is held responsible for a portion of the support
    payments should not, in itself, have anything to do with whether or not
    that person is entitled to visitation or custody.
    
    -b

.335> Others here seem to think that men have absolutely ZERO responsibility
.335> for children they did not want to create, so speak to *them* about how
.335> many men are better than that.
    
.337> Really?!  That's simply amazing!   Who thinks that ...?
    
.338> No one, I hope.  Men *do* (and *should*) bear some of the responsibility
.338> for children they sire.  If you agree, I'm glad.
    
    As I suspected.  No one said it, it was a fabrication.
    
    Please refrain from distorting the truth to make false points.

.341> Maybe it would be constructive to take off those crimson tinted glasses
.341> and read the words posted here like they were written by humans rather
    
    Given the admission in .338, I'd say they're more like welder's goggles.

    RE: .344  Mike Z.
    
.338> No one, I hope.  Men *do* (and *should*) bear some of the responsibility
.338> for children they sire.  If you agree, I'm glad.
    
    > As I suspected.  No one said it, it was a fabrication.
    
    Nice try, Mike.  No cigar.
    
    Until someone points out the required responsibilities men WOULD still
    have after men are absolved from all required responsibilities for 
    children they sire, then you're still left with men having ZERO required 
    responsibilities for unplanned pregnancies.
    
    > Please refrain from distorting the truth to make false points.
    
    If you believe men should be required to be responsible for the
    children they did not wish to sire, please state the extent and
    nature of these responsibilities.  So far, the sum total of such
    named responsibilities is zero.
    
    I've asked for this information at least a dozen times now.  My
    point stands as an accurate observation.

    RE: .345  Mike Z.
    
    > Given the admission in .338, I'd say they're more like welder's goggles.
    
    Admission??
    
    You're hallucinating (unless you're simply telling a deliberate
    falsehood.)
    

    	.335: Some men here ...
    	.337: What men here?
    	.338: None, I hope.
    	.344: Then you made that up.
    	.346: No, umm ... errr... umm...

    .335> Others here seem to think that men have absolutely ZERO
    responsibility
    .335> for children they did not want to create, so speak to *them*
    about how
    .335> many men are better than that.
    
    Sounds kinda broad brushing. Perhaps some men set up to look bad. Too
    bad there is not stats on that. 
    
    And of course there are some here who think that many women with or 
    with out custody are very irresponsible to the upbringing of the 
    children. 
    
    Kinda fashionalble politics. Kinda like those Nam days, when it was
    fashionable to be anti establishment. Now we are the establishment.
    Fashionable to bash men. Esp the deadbeats.... Bunch of rasputian
    gender irresponsible low lifes we are. Yup, yup, yup.
                                                                    

    RE: .349  Mike Z.
    
    Again, I see that you've managed to avoid the question ("What required
    responsibilities would men still have after men have been absolved of
    all required responsibilities for children they did not wish to sire?")
    
    If most of the men in this topic DO NOT believe that men should have
    the option of getting away "scott free" after an unwanted pregnancy,
    then simply name the required responsibilities men would still have.
    
    If you can't do this, then my observation still stands (no matter how
    long and how hard you tap dance around it.)

    
    re .351
    
    Still playing the "if you can't prove your point to my satisfaction
    then you loose" game,  eh, Suzanne?
    
    fred();

    RE: .350  Rauh
    
    .335> Others here seem to think that men have absolutely ZERO
    .335> responsibility for children they did not want to create, 
    .335> so speak to *them* about how many men are better than that.
    
    > Sounds kinda broad brushing. Perhaps some men set up to look bad. Too
    > bad there is not stats on that.
    
    Is "men are better than that" a broadbrush you dislike???  If so,
    complain to Kris about it (I got it from him.)

    The argument is based on responsibility before a child is born. If you
    beleive abortion is murder, then the solution is to fully support any
    child brought to term. But abortion is a legal choice. 
    If a pregnancy is allowed to continue past the third trimester then
    the argument about responsibility has no basis other than to support
    the child. I do not see anyone arguing this point! 
    The woman can choose to allow the man to go his way or force him to
    comply with her decision. This is the issue. So, if you are
    anti-abortion then this argument has no basis. If you are pro-choice,
    then IMO men have to have a say in whether they are to have parental
    responsibility imposed on them by someone elses choice. Equal
    responsibility=equal choices.   

    RE: .352  Fred
    
    > Still playing the "if you can't prove your point to my satisfaction
    > then you loose" game,  eh, Suzanne?
    
    Nope.  But you're playing the "Maybe if I jab at her, she'll get
    too distracted to notice that her opponents don't have a valid
    argument" game again.
    
    I asked a simple question.  They haven't answered it.  You can jab
    and stab at me all you like, Fred, but I do still notice this.

    I've been following this discussion but I won't pretend to have read
    all replies in great detail.
    
    I've read a lot of back and forth banter and I must say I find myself
    much more closely identifying with Dian's point of view (to readers of
    =wn= this should come as a "no duh" revelation), but I do wonder what
    folks expect to accomplish in this dialogue.  I can't say that I've
    heard much in the way of concrete suggestions to make things better.
    
    The title of the string itself seems kind of hard to swallow.  "The
    Line" is a concept that changes from relationship to relationship
    doesn't it?  Different people require different things from people.
    
    I would personally think it is a given that it is up to the woman to
    decide whether or not an accidental pregnancy results in a birth.  It
    is her body, plain and simple, and I don't believe anyone has the right
    to tell her "Yes, you will carry to term" or "No, you won't carry to
    term"  The male's contribution of genetic material just doesn't weigh
    as heavily as her sovereignty over what is most fundamentally hers.
    
    Of course, it is also a given that it would be really *really* nice if
    people felt close enough to their sexual partners to be able to talk
    this out.  Whether they are in a monogomous relationship or married or
    whatever, it would be ideal that adults could discuss and come to
    understandings on such matters.
    
    But that is an ideal, not the ubiquitous reality, so I still stand by
    the woman being the final arbitrator of that choice.
    
    And as far as the law is concerned, there is an old, old assumption
    that if a child is the result of sex, then both of the biological
    parents are held responsible whether or not both are equally
    enthusiastic about the birth.  I don't really see this changing much
    because the majority application of it is in situations where both
    parents are involved. The law is not good at creating permutations for
    every possible scenario.
    
    I'm left wondering just what people think should be done?  There are
    premarital contracts...should people draw up pre-conjugal contracts to
    determine fiscal liability should the unexpected occur?
    
    What's the practical way of approaching this?
    
    ------->daniel

    	
    	Someone help me out:
    
    	Pregnacy ......
    
    	From a traditional view? A condition that is part of the
    procreative cycle that for millions of years was not even considered to
    be anything but normal. Less than 100 years ago, native american women
    would stop, squat, bite off the umbilical cord and walk 25 more miles
    with the newborn attached to a breast. 
    
    	From the 1990's feminist view? A life threatening, severely life
    limiting medical condition that is the direct result of an assault by a
    male of the species that results in poverty and pyschologoical damage
    to female.
    
    	Give me a break!!!!
    
    	What I've read in many of these notes is quite simple: Abort a
    pregnancy or carry to term. Use birth control to prevent the
    possibility of a pregnancy. Each partner is equally responsible for
    birth control prior to the sexual act resulting in prenancy.
    
    What's not to understand?
    
    	If a pregnacy is carried to term and the procreators are not
    attached in law or emotion, a financial arrangement to aid in the
    upbringing of the offspring is required by the father if he does not
    have physical custody. In the same vein, he should have access to the
    child that he has sired and is contributing to the well being thereof.
    
    What's not to understand?
    
    	The title of this conference should be changed from MENNOTES to
    DESTRUCTION OF THE TRADITIONAL MALE. This note has turned from topics
    of interest to men to some kind of re-education of men to topics of
    interest to subgroups that want to reeducate men to their way of
    thinking.........
    
    	K
    
    	  

    RE: .354
    
    > The argument is based on responsibility before a child is born. If you
    > beleive abortion is murder, then the solution is to fully support any
    > child brought to term.
    
    If who believes abortion is murder (the mother or the father?)
    
    > But abortion is a legal choice. 
    > If a pregnancy is allowed to continue past the third trimester then
    > the argument about responsibility has no basis other than to support
    > the child. I do not see anyone arguing this point! 
 
    Right.  Folks are only arguing about whether or not men should be
    required to hold this responsibility for the child.
    
    > The woman can choose to allow the man to go his way or force him to
    > comply with her decision. This is the issue. So, if you are
    > anti-abortion then this argument has no basis.
    
    'Pro-choice' means wanting individual women to have the right to
    choose.  Many pro-choice women do not consider abortion possible
    for themselves as individuals (which means that abortion is not
    an option since these individuals are anti-abortion for themselves.)
    
    In this case, the woman has no choice.
    
    > If you are pro-choice, then IMO men have to have a say in whether they 
    > are to have parental responsibility imposed on them by someone elses 
    > choice. Equal responsibility=equal choices.   
    
    It almost sounds as though you are suggesting that the deciding factor
    should be the woman's views on abortions (so that if she is pro-choice,
    then the man should not be required to have any financial responsibility
    for the child if she decides not to abort - if she is anti-abortion,
    the man would still be required to support the child.)
    
    If this were law, how would a court determine the personal views of an
    individual woman about abortion?

    But if there are no equal choices in the decision of the birth of a
    child. Than its a moot point. So, no decision+woman
    choice=irresponsible men? Doesn't add up to me. Sounds like an equation
    that is a set up to fail for men. 
    
    Susane,
    
    You have been bashing this dead hourse call men irresponsible. Got to
    have been a moment where we were.I have met some real winner women
    out there who have custody and are fostering future criminal men and
    women. Just because you can make babies doesn't mean you know all the
    worldly things of raising them. I am not smashing cake in your face on it.
    Perhaps you should forsake the next NOW meeting to attend a fathers 
    support group. You can see what the terms of fairness are and are not.  
    

    RE: .359  RAUH
    
    I'm not a member of NOW.
    
    If you can get a translator to help you post your thoughts in this
    topic, I'll respond to more of what you write next time.
    

    re .357, are you saying pregnancy cannot be life threatening?  Haven't
    you ever heard about all the women who used to die in childbirth before
    C-sections were perfected.  (And C-sections are no picnic.  It's a
    major operation and extremely painful.)  If I had had to squat in the
    woods like an Indian to have my daughter, I wouldn't have survived
    because her head was too large for natural childbirth.  I hate to hear
    people talk about having babies as though it was the easiest thing in
    the world, when I know I'd be dead today if I hadn't had a C-section.
    
    re .359, the only men who are being called irresponsible are men who
    refuse to use birth control and then complain about women getting
    pregnant.  Also, men who refuse to help support children that they
    fathered, even if by accident.
    
    Lorna
    

>    "Entitled" is the word you used, with no qualification as to the man's
>    fitness for custody. 

 Well, wouldn't you say that the mother is entitled to custody, without 
qualifying that to say "unless she is proved to be unfit"? I didn't think
I had to be explicit to that degree, hence I apparently misundertood your
objection.

>wouldn't you agree that, even
>    though a parent (either parent) might still be held financially
>    responsible for the child, that parent should not get equal custodial
>    rights? 

 Of course.

>However, the
>    fact that someone is held responsible for a portion of the support
>    payments should not, in itself, have anything to do with whether or not
>    that person is entitled to visitation or custody.

 I disagree. I think it should have _something_ to do with it. Like every other
aspect of the relationship, it is a factor to consider. (IMO)

 The Doctah

    re .355
    
    >Nope.  But you're playing the "Maybe if I jab at her, she'll get
    >too distracted to notice that her opponents don't have a valid
    >argument" game again.
    
    By _whose_ judgement?
    
    >I asked a simple question.  They haven't answered it.  You can jab
    >and stab at me all you like, Fred, but I do still notice this.
    
    Way back somewhere I asked wheather or not women should be allowed
    to shirk  _their_ financial responsibility by remaining on welfare
    because it paid more or was more convient than what they could find
    otherwise.  Nobody bothered to answer that question either.
    
    I don't think it's just men who are shirking thier responsibility
    (financial and otherwise) to the unintended results of sex.  It's
    just more _politically corret_ for women to do so.
    
    fred();

    RE: .361  Lorna
    
    > re .357, are you saying pregnancy cannot be life threatening?  Haven't
    > you ever heard about all the women who used to die in childbirth before
    > C-sections were perfected. 
    
    Women still die in childbirth (even in expensive hospitals in the U.S.)
    from complications.
    
    In the olden days, they considered pregnancy and childbirth 'no big
    deal' because society just accepted that SO MANY WOMEN DIED FROM IT.
    Many children died in those days, too.  No big deal, right?

    .360
    
         >            <<< Note 822.351 by GORE::CONLON >>>
         >-< The sum total STILL adds up to 'zero responsibilities for men.' >-
    
    Does this refresh you shorten memory? 
    
    Funny about that NOW stuff. I was mis-guided again. I though I read 
    that someplace else...... Gee, now if I can remember where I can find
    that one....:)

    If a woman had to consider she was financially on her own, do you think
    she would be more diligent about who she allows to have sex with her or
    the terms by which sex occurs. And if she fell on hard times she could
    still get aid but the aid would be directly related to her effort to
    become self-reliant? If she was faced with a "hearing" before the start
    of the second trimester to determine "the parties" intent would she be
    more cognizant of the implications of sexual submission? 
    Is it not true that behavior modification only occurs when there is
    reward or avoidance?
    

    RE: .366
    
    > If a woman had to consider she was financially on her own, do you think
    > she would be more diligent about who she allows to have sex with her or
    > the terms by which sex occurs.
    
    Men live with the threat of paying child support for 18 years (!!!) 
    yet most men still do not take responsibility for birth control.
    
    > Is it not true that behavior modification only occurs when there is
    > reward or avoidance?
    
    Why doesn't it help modify men's behavior, then?  Why don't more men
    say, "I'm never, ever, ever, EVER going to have sex without using
    protection as long as I live (when I don't want to have a child)"...?

    BECAUSE THEY TRUST A WOMAN!
    If she changes her mind or chooses to be irresponsible...
    Believe me, men are changing their behavior to avoid this problem. In
    past years a woman would avoid the "taboo" of illegitamacy but today it
    seems more "permissable", especially when "men get woman pregnant" and
    she can get the DOR to chase down the supposed "DEAD BEAT DAD".

    RE: .368
    
    > BECAUSE THEY TRUST A WOMAN!
    > If she changes her mind or chooses to be irresponsible...
    > Believe me, men are changing their behavior to avoid this problem.
    
    No birth control is 100% effective (so it isn't just a matter of
    trusting a woman.  It's also a matter of trusting the birth control
    method being used to be 100% effective when IT SIMPLY ISN'T!)
    
    If men were responsible for their OWN birth control (as well as women
    being responsible for theirs at the same time,) the chances of unplanned
    pregnancy would be reduced a great deal.  But many/most men still won't
    take this responsibility unto themselves (complaining instead, "Well,
    I TRUSTED HER" to be responsible for both of them.)
    
    > In past years a woman would avoid the "taboo" of illegitamacy but today 
    > it seems more "permissable", especially when "men get woman pregnant" 
    > and she can get the DOR to chase down the supposed "DEAD BEAT DAD".
    
    Well, in the past, people used to say, "She got herself pregnant" (as
    if the man wasn't even in the room.)  Men can't get off the hook quite
    as easily as they did before.

    re .366
    
    >Why doesn't it help modify men's behavior, then?  Why don't more men
    >say, "I'm never, ever, ever, EVER going to have sex without using
    >protection as long as I live (when I don't want to have a child)"...?
    
    That's kind of like asking "Why would men over the milinia enter
    into *any* kind of relationship that required him to turn over
    the lion's share of the results of his labor and often putting 
    himself into outright danger to someone else's benefit"?
    
    The object of the "women's movement" seems to be to get rid of
    the relationship and responsibility and keep the finances.
    The "sexual revolution" has been a two edged sword for both
    sexes.  
    
    fred();

    RE: .370  Fred
    
    >> Why doesn't it help modify men's behavior, then?  Why don't more men
    >> say, "I'm never, ever, ever, EVER going to have sex without using
    >> protection as long as I live (when I don't want to have a child)"...?
    
    > That's kind of like asking "Why would men over the milinia enter
    > into *any* kind of relationship that required him to turn over
    > the lion's share of the results of his labor and often putting 
    > himself into outright danger to someone else's benefit"?
    
    In other words, men don't use birth control because it's some sort of
    "male trait" *NOT* to protect themselves from being stuck with child
    support payments for 18 years????  (Is this what you're trying to say?)
    
    > The object of the "women's movement" seems to be to get rid of
    > the relationship and responsibility and keep the finances.
    
    Not so.
    
    > The "sexual revolution" has been a two edged sword for both
    > sexes.  
    
    The women's movement and the sexual revolution are two separate things.

    rep .371
    
    >> The object of the "women's movement" seems to be to get rid of
    >> the relationship and responsibility and keep the finances.
    
    >Not so.
    
    To use your own logic, you haven't provided any credible evidence
    that this is not so.  In fact I can conclude from your line of 
    argument ( demanding that men pay support while discounting their
    right to be a parent or the mother having any accountability ) 
    that this is _indeed_ the case.
    
    >In other words, men don't use birth control because it's some sort of
    >"male trait" *NOT* to protect themselves from being stuck with child
    >support payments for 18 years????  (Is this what you're trying to say?)
    
    Actually I agree that in todays biggoted political climate that it is
    purely assinine for men to not protect themselves from having *any* 
    children.  I was also trying to point out the if you take Mother 
    Nature out of the question that the whole history of "family" doesn't
    make much sinse for the man.  But that's easier to say at 39 and four 
    kids, nine years of gorilla fighting, and twelve years of court battles, 
    than it was at 16 (;^)).  The upshot is, don't discount mother nature.  
    Without her the human race would have died out a long time ago.
    
    Actually I am on the complete other side of the argument.  I don't
    think women are being very responsible in this situation either.  
    I don't believe in "family values" per-se, but I do believe in
    the "value of the family".
    
    fred();

    re .372, Fred, Where did Suzanne ever discredit men as parents or say
    that women shouldn't take responsibility???????!!!!  The women here are
    saying that men should help support their biological children.  That's
    all. I never saw where anyone said men didn't have a right to visit
    their children or even have physical custody.  I don't understand how
    you draw your conclusions.
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: .372  Fred
    
    >>> The object of the "women's movement" seems to be to get rid of
    >>> the relationship and responsibility and keep the finances.
    
    >> Not so.
    
    > To use your own logic, you haven't provided any credible evidence
    > that this is not so. 
    
    If you want to discuss this one aspect in depth, let's open a new
    topic.  I'd like to hear your explanation of the above claim so I
    can discuss it with you.  Otherwise, no argument is needed to
    disprove such vague accusations on your part.
    
    > In fact I can conclude from your line of 
    > argument ( demanding that men pay support while discounting their
    > right to be a parent or the mother having any accountability ) 
    > that this is _indeed_ the case.
 
    My line of argument has *NOT* tried to deny fathers' rights to be
    parents.  Further, I've stated repeatedly that BOTH PEOPLE need to
    take responsibility for birth control and the consequences of
    accidental pregnancies (not just women!)
    
    Your new jabs and stabs (and deliberate falsehoods) still aren't enough
    to distract me from the discussion at hand, though.
    
    > Actually I agree that in todays biggoted political climate that it is
    > purely assinine for men to not protect themselves from having *any* 
    > children. 
    
    Remember - YOU'RE the one calling men assinine, not me.  (Let's keep
    the record straight on this.)
    
    > I was also trying to point out the if you take Mother 
    > Nature out of the question that the whole history of "family" doesn't
    > make much sinse for the man. 
    
    Don't you think men have the capacity to love and nurture children,
    Fred?  (I do.)  You make it sound like men get absolutely NOTHING
    from the family.
    
    > But that's easier to say at 39 and four 
    > kids, nine years of gorilla fighting, and twelve years of court battles, 
    > than it was at 16 (;^)). 
    
    Doesn't your family "make sense" to you, Fred?  (Is that what you're
    saying?)
    
    > The upshot is, don't discount mother nature.  
    > Without her the human race would have died out a long time ago.
    
    Men have brains (to protect themselves from unwanted child support
    payments for 18 years EVEN IF mother nature is urging men to spread
    their seed to every fertile woman possible.)
    
    > Actually I am on the complete other side of the argument.  I don't
    > think women are being very responsible in this situation either.  
    
    The situation would be greatly improved if it were more acceptable
    for BOTH PERSONS to take responsibility for birth control in the
    first place (since it takes TWO PEOPLE to have the kind of sex that
    results in procreation.)

    re .372, no wonder you're bitter - 4 kids.  Nothing on this earth could
    have enticed me to ever get stuck with the responsibility of 4 kids.
    
    Lorna
    
    
    

    re .373
    
    >re .372, Fred, Where did Suzanne ever discredit men as parents or say
    >that women shouldn't take responsibility???????!!!!  The women here are
    >saying that men should help support their biological children.  That's
    >all. 
    
    Maybe that's just the point.  Ie THAT'S ALL.  Every time the subject
    of custody/visitation comes up in this file it gets ratholed into 
    (yet another) tirade on why men are scum.
    
    fred();

    RE: .376  Fred
    
    > Maybe that's just the point.  Ie THAT'S ALL.  Every time the subject
    > of custody/visitation comes up in this file it gets ratholed into 
    > (yet another) tirade on why men are scum.
    
    The only stand I've taken on "custody/visitation" is that more courts
    should be awarding joint custody, Fred.
    
    You hallucinated the rest.

    re .375
    
    >re .372, no wonder you're bitter - 4 kids.  Nothing on this earth could
    >have enticed me to ever get stuck with the responsibility of 4 kids.
    
    and I think that that is part of the point also.  
    
    Only one of my four were actually planned,  but I fought a 9 1/2
    year court battle in order to be able to give my children a decent 
    life and education.  I paid every cent of the child support while 
    she _admitted_ _in court_ that she and her boyfried lived off of the 
    child support and AFDC.  I *gladly* spend more than what the child
    support was to send my children to private school because that is
    the only way to get them caught up on their education after she
    moved over 15 times (five times in one year) while she had custody.  
    Without the private school, thought, if I spent anywhere near on them 
    that I paid in "child support", they'd be so spoiled rotten that no 
    one could stand them.  She has made only one child support payment
    in over two years.  
    
    fred();

    re .377
    
    >The only stand I've taken on "custody/visitation" is that more courts
    >should be awarding joint custody, Fred.
    
    And you have been (IMHO) one of the biggest offenders in ratholing
    discussions and man-hate tirates.
    
    >You hallucinated the rest.
    
    If you want to stoop to that level...I think that it would be 
    debateable as to just who is on drugs around here.
    
    fred();

    RE: .379  Fred
    
    >>The only stand I've taken on "custody/visitation" is that more courts
    >>should be awarding joint custody, Fred.
    
    > And you have been (IMHO) one of the biggest offenders in ratholing
    > discussions and man-hate tirates.
    
    More jabs and stabs, I see.  You'll say absolutely anything to get
    the discussion off-track.  Well, I haven't forgotten what we're
    really talking about here, so when your bitterness, hatred and noise
    stop, the discussion will continue (whether you like it or not.)
    
    > If you want to stoop to that level...I think that it would be 
    > debateable as to just who is on drugs around here.
    
    Your bitterness and hatred are very powerful drugs (legal but totally
    counterproductive for you.)  I hope you recover from them some day.

    
    re .380
    
    Geeeeze!  You got a lot of nerve Suzanne.
    
    fred();

    
    If men were absolved of ALL required responsibilities for unplanned
    pregnancies, then what required responsibilities (for unplanned preg-
    nancies) would men still have?
    
    If men were allowed to walk away ("scott free") from unplanned
    pregnancies, what required responsibilities would men still have
    (such that men would have more than ZERO required responsibilities 
    for unplanned pregnancies)?

    
    
    If women weren't automatically given custody of the childern,
    I'll bet you'd see a lot different attitude from them also.
    
    fred();

    
    If men were absolved of ALL required responsibilities for unplanned
    pregnancies, then what required responsibilities (for unplanned preg-
    nancies) would men still have?
    
    If men were allowed to walk away ("scott free") from unplanned
    pregnancies, what required responsibilities would men still have
    (such that men would have more than ZERO required responsibilities 
    for unplanned pregnancies)?

    
    
    er--Suzanne,  I think you've entered an infinite loop.
    
    fred();

    IMO most men would voluntarily be involved in the childs life because
    most men understand that it is only humane to allow the child to know
    their fathers. There would be some that would "walk away" but if the
    system allowed voluntary involvement instead of "indentured servitude"
    the results would be quite positive. If a child loses their mother to
    death or insanity then I don't know many men that would abandon their
    kids omce they know them. We are human, men that is.
    

    RE: .385  Fred
    
    Nope.  I just keep returning to the main program after your NO_OPS!  :>
    

    re .383, if a man didn't want a child to be born in the first place, why
    would he want custody of the child?  It doesn't make sense.  
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: .386
    
    > There would be some that would "walk away" but if the
    > system allowed voluntary involvement instead of "indentured servitude"
    > the results would be quite positive.
    
    If a father's involvement were on a *purely voluntary basis*, then men 
    would have *ZERO required responsibilities* for unplanned pregnancies.
    
    Is this what you want?  (Yes or no?)
    

    In the cases where a woman was attempting to impose parental
    responsibility, yes. 

    I don't see any of the women saying that a man should just offer
    financial support to his children.  I see us saying that that is a
    minimum responsibility.  A father has moral responsibilities to his
    kids, like love, the benifit of his advice, etc.  
    
    In an ideal situation with an unplanned pregancy, the father
    immediately offers his support, physsical, financial and moral, to his
    partner and his offspring.  However, I only see some people trying to
    whine this into financial support responsibilities only.  
    
    I have two questions,
    
    1.  If you despise the idea of having children with a given woman, why
    are you having sex with her, especially given the status of birth
    control in this country?
    
    2.  Don't you feel any love toward your offsping once they are an
    inevitability? 
    
    Meg

    re 388
    
    >re .383, if a man didn't want a child to be born in the first place, why
    >would he want custody of the child?  It doesn't make sense.  
    
    You're confusing not-wanted with not-planned.  Why is it so hard
    to believe that men do have some sense of responsibility and love
    for their children (actually probably the majority of men).  There 
    are many men who try to get custody in spite of the near impossibility 
    because they _believe_ in what is right for their children, and want 
    their children to have a decent life. There are _many_ of us who do not 
    believe in abortion and would take the child and raise it on our own 
    if need be rather than see our children buchered.
    
    BUT WE'RE NOT GIVEN THAT CHOICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
    
    fred();

    RE: .390
    
    > In the cases where a woman was attempting to impose parental
    > responsibility, yes. 
    
    Thank you for confirming that you want men to have ZERO required 
    responsibilities for unplanned pregnancies (which is in line with
    the observations I made about this earlier.)
    
    I appreciate it.

    re .392, I'm talking about instances of unplanned pregnancies, between
    unmarried couples, where the man would prefer that the woman have an
    abortion, such as Dan has been talking about.
    
    I realize that many men love the children they have had with their
    spouses and former spouses.
    
    Dan thinks men should have zero responsibility for unplanned
    pregnancies, and that is what this topic is about.  I doubt Dan would
    want custody of a child that resulted from an unplanned pregnancy with
    a casual sex partner, Fred.  (Actually, I doubt you would either,
    inspite of how much you love the 4 children you already have.)
    
    Lorna
    

    re .391
    
    >1.  If you despise the idea of having children with a given woman, why
    >are you having sex with her, especially given the status of birth
    >control in this country?
    
    1.  If you despise the idea of having children with a given man, why
    are you having sex with him, especially given the status of child
    support in this country?
    
    You're forgetting Mother Nature again.  Even marriage and planning
    children together doesn't guarantee that she won't change her mind 
    a year or two down the road.
    
    >2.  Don't you feel any love toward your offsping once they are an
    >inevitability? 
    
    It becomes very difficult when the the only relationship that you
    are **allowed** to have is financial.  In fact it has been
    statistically proven that men who have an ongoing relationship
    and visitation are *by far* more likely to pay child support.
    But I heard the judge who whas the head of the commission to
    investigate child support and testified before the Congressional
    committee on "deadbeat dads" state when asked about that fact, 
    "Visitation is someone else's problem".  Now you'd think that if 
    payment of child support was the important thing you'd see more 
    support to enforce visitation and custody rights if that has been 
    proven to help.  
    
    fred(); 

    RE: .395  Fred
    
    > It becomes very difficult when the the only relationship that you
    > are **allowed** to have is financial.  
    
    Do you have any stats to show that it's ONLY the fathers who are not
    allowed to visit their kids that skip out on child support payments?
    (My understanding is that a lot of these 'deadbeat Dads' don't have
    visitation BECAUSE they've skipped out to parts unknown.)
    
    > In fact it has been statistically proven that men who have an ongoing 
    > relationship and visitation are *by far* more likely to pay child 
    > support.
    
    How about the men who do not keep up their relationships with their
    children (by their own choices)?  One of the biggest complaints I've
    heard (in the problem of 'deadbeat Dads') is that the children want
    to see their fathers but the dads don't keep up the visits (along
    with not paying court-ordered support.)
    
    > Now you'd think that if payment of child support was the important 
    > thing you'd see more support to enforce visitation and custody rights 
    > if that has been proven to help.  
    
    When men skip out on court-ordered custody, they've broken the law.
    The system isn't looking to find these Dads to give the men a shoulder
    to cry on.  They want the orders of the court to be obeyed (whether
    the guy is happy about it or not.)
    
    Men can take women to court for not allowing proper visitations.  The
    courts do enfore this part of the judgment, too.

    re .396
    
    >Do you have any stats to show that it's ONLY the fathers who are not
    >allowed to visit their kids that skip out on child support payments?
    
    I didn't say that it was _only_ fathers who are not allowed visitation
    who skip.  I said that statistically proven ( I believe that it was
    the census records or something national like that, and NO I am
    not going to go look it up for the sake of proof to you ) that 
    fathers who have visitation and an ongoing relationship are much
    more likely to pay child support than fathers who don't.  Since
    many men who would like to have a relationship with their chidren
    are forbidden ( and this practice was supposed to have gone out 
    with the Emancipation Proclamation ), wouldn't it stand to reason
    that one solution to the "child support" problem would be to
    support visitation and the ongoing relationship of the non-custodial
    parent.
    
    
    >(My understanding is that a lot of these 'deadbeat Dads' don't have
    >visitation BECAUSE they've skipped out to parts unknown.)
    
    Whenever I hear this argument brought up as a reason for _not_
    paying support, ie no visitation-no support, (especially in court) 
    it is immediatly slapped down with "that is a totally separate issue".
    
    fred();

    My friend (who's had the best situation with child support of any woman
    I know) has always been perfectly willing and reasonable about her ex's
    visits to their son.
    
    Even so, the guy skipped out for 4 or 5 years (without having a single
    visit *or* paying a dime in child support all that time.)  When he
    finally resurfaced, he started paying a bit more than 1/10th the
    amount ordered by the court - but my friend didn't complain to the
    court about it.  She allowed him FULL unlimited visitations again
    (he's an airline pilot so he visited the boy whenever he could get a
    flight to where they lived, and my friend agreed to ALL visits whether
    they fit her schedule or not.)
    
    It wasn't until she was laid off from her job that he started paying
    his original child support again (and only because he worried that
    she might try to get food stamps to feed his son, which would not
    have gone over well for the son of a Captain of a major airline.)
    
    The boy and his Dad have a good relationship now (even though the Dad
    missed knowing him from around 2 to 6 years old.)  My friend has never
    stood in his way even once when it came to this relationship.
    
    Why did the guy skip out for so long (then pay around 1/10th of his
    support payments) while making a good living as an airline pilot???
    
    Well, who knows?  He and his new wife (and kids) sure do live in the
    lap of luxury now, though:  Big house, nice boat, private airplane,
    etc.  I guess my friend's little boy did *without* (his Dad and the
    support) to help finance their splendid lifestyle.
    
    Do I regard this Dad as 'deadbeat'?  In part, I sure as hell do.  He
    gave up seeing his son voluntarily while he ditched his support payments
    to build a life my friend and her son can only see on "Lifestyles of
    the Rich and Famous."

    
    P.S. As I mentioned before, this friend of mine got the best deal I've
    ever seen (for child support from a divorce case.)
    
    She got $500 per month (from an airline pilot with a 6-figure income)
    and lost it for 5 years without complaining until he restarted the
    payments with a whopping $60 per month for the next few years until
    she was laid off.  
    
    He had unlimited visitation rights every time he contacted her about it.
    
    (I've never known any other woman personally who got a better deal
    than this, though.  The second biggest settlement among the women
    I've known was $70 per month.)

    
    re 399
    
    I didn't say visitation was a cure.  I said it "helped".  I also
    reguard that man as a "deadbeat" that helps make it harder on
    the rest of us who do care.  
    
    However, in your friends case, she went to court and got action.
    It was her choice to go or not to go, and when she decided to
    go, the court took action.
    
    In cases where the sitation is reversed,  I have seen little
    or no action out of the court.  (Beyond my own case that is).
    
    fred();

    RE: .401  Fred
    
    > However, in your friends case, she went to court and got action.
    > It was her choice to go or not to go, and when she decided to
    > go, the court took action.
    
    Nope.  She never took him to court (after he skipped out then
    returned with the $60 per month payments instead of $500.)
    
    He went back to full child support payments on his own (out of fear
    that she would try to get food stamps if he didn't restore the
    original payments after she was laid off from her job.)
    
    During one of his visits, she had the food stamps application on 
    the table (and remarked something like, "They didn't ask much about
    me, but they wanted to know EVERYTHING about you.")  He restored
    the payments immediately and she never applied for food stamps,
    although she was probably still eligible for them.  She worried
    that he would stop the payments again after she got a job some
    months later, but he's kept the payments up to the court-ordered
    level since restoring it back then.

    re .400
    
    >(I've never known any other woman personally who got a better deal
    >than this, though.  The second biggest settlement among the women
    >I've known was $70 per month.)
    
    I support men paying a _reasonable_ amount of child support.
    
    Apparently you haven't looked at the _mandatory_ "child support"
    "guidelines" lately.  I know some men who are paying in _excess_
    of $250 per _week_.  Take a look at your own paycheck and see
    what kind of dent _that_ would make.  Then go to visit your 
    child and have the door slammed (literally) in you face.  Then
    you come and talk to me about "deadbeat dads'.
    
    If given the choice of 1) starve, 2) cut-and-run, which would you
    do?  I know what my ex-wife did, and her support wasn't even
    close to what I'd had to pay.  Men aren't the only "deadbeats".
    
    fred();

    re .402
    
    >During one of his visits, she had the food stamps application on 
    >the table (and remarked something like, "They didn't ask much about
    >me, but they wanted to know EVERYTHING about you.")  He restored
    
    The point is _still_ she has some choices and leverage.  He doesn't.
    fred();

    RE: .404  Fred
    
    > The point is _still_ she has some choices and leverage.  He doesn't.
    
    She only had the leverage of threatening him with Food Stamps when
    she'd totally lost her job.  Up to then, as long as she was totally
    self-supporting (without his payments,) she couldn't afford to hire
    a lawyer (or a private detective) to track him down.  He changed
    airlines when he cut out and she didn't know where he was (or where
    he was working) anymore.  Even after he came back, she still didn't
    have the money to hire a lawyer to get the payments restored.
    
    She had to hit rock bottom before she had any clout at all.
    
    So much for her great leverage.  She just had a son to raise while his
    Dad had the choice to start a new family with all the luxuries they
    could ever want.

     re .405
    
    >She only had the leverage of threatening him with Food Stamps when
    >she'd totally lost her job.  Up to then, as long as she was totally
    
    That's a pretty big lever.  He probably knew that if she applied 
    for food stamps, then Social Services would go after him (free
    of charge to her and very expensive for him to provide his own
    lawyer) for a _lot_ more than what he was currently ordered to pay,
    _and_ have it garnished from his paycheck.
    
    fred();

    Fred, fred, fred ...
    
    What makes you think you can carry on an honest conversation with
    someone who refuses to acknowledge when they are caught, red-handed,
    making up disparaging comments about the men here?

>    Way back somewhere I asked wheather or not women should be allowed
>    to shirk  _their_ financial responsibility by remaining on welfare
>    because it paid more or was more convient than what they could find
>    otherwise.  Nobody bothered to answer that question either.
    
>    I don't think it's just men who are shirking thier responsibility
>    (financial and otherwise) to the unintended results of sex.  It's
>    just more _politically corret_ for women to do so.
    
fred(),

if a woman gets a job that pays LESS than welfare, how does that benefit
the child in any concrete fashion other than to set a good example?  While
it is wonderful to set good examples, they don't feed/clothe/shelter a
child.  A woman with a child must make decisions that provide the best
option possible for the child.  For that matter, I don't see how a woman
taking a job that pays less than welfare would benefit the man responsible
for child support - he'd have to pay more, wouldn't he?

THE BOTTOM LINE IS THE CHILD'S WELFARE - NOT PUNISHING THE MOTHER FOR
GETTING PREGNANT OR FOR GETTING DIVORCED. 

sheesh!!! how hard is it to understand this?  Children are involved in this
discussion - real live children who have the same needs whether a
man wants to pay for them or not.

>    BECAUSE THEY TRUST A WOMAN!
>    If she changes her mind or chooses to be irresponsible...
>    Believe me, men are changing their behavior to avoid this problem. In
>    past years a woman would avoid the "taboo" of illegitamacy but today it
>    seems more "permissable", especially when "men get woman pregnant" and
>    she can get the DOR to chase down the supposed "DEAD BEAT DAD".

AND SHE TRUSTS HER BIRTH CONTROL...and it isn't perfect and babies occur.
Now, if that happens, you want the woman to face a "hearing" to determine
if she really meant to get pregnant?  I'm sorry to be so dense, but how
in the hell do you suppose a court would determine that?  He says she
intended to get pregnant because she did get pregnant and she says she
was using birth control and it failed - now what?  do you automatically
believe the man because he says so - or do you believe the woman because
she says so?  What if she has the used spermicide tube and the diaphragm
to prove that she has birth control?  What if she can show that she can't
use the pill, but was trying to use the "natural method" and it failed?

And even if she does get self-reliant, why the hell should the court
decide that the man wouldn't be responsible to provide aid to the child
on the premise that MORE money for education (as an example) would certainly
benefit the child - after all, private schools do a better job of education
than public schools?

Look, if there was anyway to discourage people from having sex without
first getting to know your partner and determining that he/she has the
same values and believes the same things about pregnancy and abortion, etc.,
there would be far fewer people on this planet - some of US wouldn't be
here.  No, it would NOT discourage women from choosing the wrong partner
any more than it discourages men from choosing the wrong partner to be
faced with years of child support.  People choose partners by the glands,
my friend, not their brains....and that is a problem that BOTH genders
cause, not just women...not by a long shot.

    RE: .406  Fred
    
    >> She only had the leverage of threatening him with Food Stamps when
    >> she'd totally lost her job.  Up to then, as long as she was totally
    
    > That's a pretty big lever.  He probably knew that if she applied 
    > for food stamps, then Social Services would go after him (free
    > of charge to her and very expensive for him to provide his own
    > lawyer) for a _lot_ more than what he was currently ordered to pay,
    > _and_ have it garnished from his paycheck.
    
    You're mistaken.  *She* never wanted to go to court (because she
    knew that even if she got a few bucks to get a lawyer, he had enough
    money to get his payments made smaller *OR WORSE* to take custody
    away from her entirely.
    
    When it came to the Food Stamps, he was afraid that the Food Stamps
    folks would contact his employer (a major airline - he was a pilot/
    Captain, remember?)  The airline was very conservative about family
    stuff, so he hadn't bothered to tell them he was divorced and
    remarried.  He was worried that the airline would find out he'd lied
    to them about his family status.
    
    The Food Stamps folks couldn't have gotten involved in her child
    support case.  The divorce (and all subsequent child support payments)
    occurred in Colorado.  She was living in California when she almost
    applied for Food Stamps (and he was living in some posh area in
    New Jersey or New York at the time.)
    
    Today, she lives in Seattle (near her family) and he still lives in
    the same area (New Jersey or New York,) and he still mails his
    payments to Colorado (then they send her a check after they receive
    his.)

    RE: .407  Mike Z.
    
    > What makes you think you can carry on an honest conversation with
    > someone who refuses to acknowledge when they are caught, red-handed,
    > making up disparaging comments about the men here?
    
    Since you falsely accused me of claiming that some men here want men
    to have zero required responsibilities for unplanned pregnancy, one
    honest man has admitted that this is (indeed) what he wants.
    
    Read it and weep, pal.

    By the way, Fred...
    
    Notice how little time it took you to turn this 6-figure-income
    airline pilot (who skipped out on his visits and his payments
    for 5 years, then started paying a bit over 1/10th of his
    payment in exchange for unlimited visitation privileges) into
    the poor victim of this situation.
    
    While my friend and her son faced the possibility of getting
    Food Stamps to have enough to eat, I bet this poor ex-husband
    probably had to cut back on the amount of fuel for his plane
    for awhile (until he made the proper adjustments in his budget.)
    
    Yet, he's now the poor victim of a system that gives all the power
    to his ex-wife.  What a joke!
    
    Now I see how some of these stories about poor, downtrodden divorced
    men get started.  No matter how much money they make (and even if
    they skip out on child support payments to fund a VERY affluent
    lifestyle,) they quickly become victims.
    
    Thanks for showing me how it works.

   > There are _many_ of us who do not 
   > believe in abortion and would take the child and raise it on our own 
   > if need be rather than see our children buchered.
    
   > BUT WE'RE NOT GIVEN THAT CHOICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
   
    
    Fred, do you believe that a single man's opinion as to whether or not
    an abortion "butchers" his child is more important than a single
    woman's decision as to what will happen with her most private
    possession -- her own body?
    
    The male partner's limited biological role (ie: after fertilization,
    there is no implicit or required role for the development of a
    potential child) means he should have a say in the woman's control of
    her body?
    
    I said before (way back...it was ignored apparently) that it would be
    ideal for people to know and care about each other enough so that they
    could come to some understanding when unexpected or unwanted
    pregnancies occurred.  But this is the real world.  How do you get
    around that issue?  How, in this particular circumstance (ie: unplanned
    pregnancy, woman decides to abort, man doesn't want her to) can you
    reconcile your desire without squashing the woman's right to control
    her body?
    
    I don't see any way around it without resorting to the "pre-conjugal
    agreements" I mentioned earlier.
    
    --------->daniel

    p.s.  a lot of this problem would become academic if there were a
    *real* commitment to family planning and access to birth control
    methods on a much wider scale.  A lot of improtant information about
    pregnancy and family planning options is blocked by religious
    organizations.
    
    People who use TWO 90% effective methods of B.C. go a long way to
    reducing those odds of having to deal with these conflicts.
    
    -------->d

.411>    RE: .407  Mike Z.
.411> Since you falsely accused me of claiming that some men here want men
.411> to have zero required responsibilities for unplanned pregnancy, one
.411> honest man has admitted that this is (indeed) what he wants.
  
    Really?!  That's simply amazing!   Where did I say that ...?

    
>    People who use TWO 90% effective methods of B.C. go a long way to
>    reducing those odds of having to deal with these conflicts.
    
Yes, and several of us in this stream of notes have mentioned it...but,
for the more vocal male members of this stream, the real agenda seems
to be to bolster their feelings of "betrayed outrage" at the idea that
they might be held accountable for child support should pregnancy
occur.  They have no interest in hearing that birth control isn't
perfect, they have no interest in hearing that women might have real
moral problems with aborting a pregnancy should it occur, and they
sure don't care about the pain that putting a child up for adoption
might cause the woman...they are busy casting themselves as victims...
and they want the women who victimize them punished.  I am suprised
at the level of hostility towards women that has been expressed here -
and being a woman, I must admit relief that I'm not involved with any
of these angry men....of course, they are equally glad they don't
have to deal with someone like me who insists that these issues be
faced BEFORE there is any CHANCE of pregnancy - and who wouldn't
have sex with a man unless he was using BC (as in: comdom) too.  I
wouldn't care if he liked it or not - at least he wouldn't end up having
to support a child he didn't want...and I wouldn't be faced with
trying to support a child alone.

Unfortunately, only the chidren end up punished in any of the scenarios
mentioned.  Many men seem unwilling or unable to look past their
relationship, or lack of one, with the woman and focus on the needs
of the child.

    RE: .415  Mike Z.
    
    Worded a bit better, you falsely accused me of claiming falsely that
    some men want to have zero required responsibilities for unplanned
    pregnancy...
    
    I'd furnish you with a more complete list of your false accusations,
    but only one is needed here:
    
        .344> As I suspected.  No one said it, it was a fabrication.
        .344> Please refrain from distorting the truth to make false points.
    
    It was not a fabrication to say that some men here seem to believe
    that men should have zero required responsibilities for unplanned
    pregnancies.  In notes .389, .390 and .393, please see where one
    honest man admitted that this is what he wants.
    
    As for others here, I've asked repeatedly for someone to cite the
    required responsibilities in unplanned pregnancies that would remain 
    if men were absolved of all required responsibilites (and no one has
    been able to cite these responsibilities yet.)  So my observation
    still stands.
    
    You can tap dance around this all you like (and I'm sure you will.)

.417> Worded a bit better, you falsely accused me of claiming falsely that
.417> some men want to have zero required responsibilities for unplanned
.417> pregnancy...
    
    Thank you.  Now we all know the claim in .411 is false.
    
    In .338, you admitted the claim in .335 was false.
    
    So that's twice now that you've been caught in the act.
    
    
    Why are you doing this? 
    
    Is in intentional or accidental?
    
    Can we expect this to stop sometime soon?

    RE: .418  Mike Z.
    
    .417> Worded a bit better, you falsely accused me of claiming falsely that
    .417> some men want to have zero required responsibilities for unplanned
    .417> pregnancy...
    
    > Thank you.  Now we all know the claim in .411 is false.
    
    The sentence in .411 contained a typo (which was corrected in .417).
    Aren't you bright enough to understand this, or are you just lying 
    about it?
    
    > In .338, you admitted the claim in .335 was false.
    
    Now, this is a blatant lie.  I stated that I *hoped* no one here
    believed that men should have zero required responsibility for
    unplanned pregnancy (and it was a hope stated in the face of much
    evidence to the contrary.)  I'm an optimist.  :>
    
    > So that's twice now that you've been caught in the act.
    
    Nope.  It's twice that you've made desperate attempts to distract
    the discussion with deliberately false claims.
    
    > Why are you doing this? 
    
    I'm trying to have a discussion with you (in spite of dead certain
    knowledge of the futility of such a gesture.)  Again, I'm an
    optimist.
    
    > Is in intentional or accidental?
    
    Attempting discussion with you is intentional.  (I should put this
    in a "True Confessions" note somewhere, though.)  :>
    
    > Can we expect this to stop sometime soon?
    
    Your games?  I doubt it.

    Before this discussion gets side-tracked a whole lot further...
    
    When folks suggest that it would be more 'equal' if men could walk
    away from an unplanned pregnancy because women have options like
    abortion and adoption, the problem is that it results in a very
    unequal situation (where women, taxpayers, and society in general
    bear the burdens for the results of some of men's sexual activities.)
    
    It's true that men have no control over whether or not a child will
    be born as the result of an unplanned pregnancy.  Women also have
    no control over whether or not birth control will fail (nor whether
    or not the pregnancy will result in a miscarriage, nor whether the
    man will respond to the pregnancy with full emotional support or
    "Die, bitch!  You did this on purpose, I hope you rot in hell.")
    
    Women face health risks (and body changes) as well as possible/likely
    poverty (in some cases) if becoming a single parent.
    
    When I was a teenager, people said (about unwed expectant mothers)
    - "She went and got herself pregnant" (as if she was the only one,
    of the two parents, in trouble.)  Boys/men typically took the
    attitude of "Well, it's her body so it's HER responsibility to
    prevent pregnancy, not mine" (so most times, they didn't even ASK
    the woman if she was using any sort of protection.)  They simply
    didn't care that much about it.
    
    People who view men and women in a traditional sense *AND* people
    who view men and women as equal seem to agree (for the most part)
    that men need to take more responsibility in this area.  Traditional
    groups view men as breadwinners (and want them to support their
    children.)  Others view men and women BOTH as potential/probable
    breadwinners (but still want men to share the financial burden of
    child-raising for their offspring.)
    
    If men took more responsibility for birth control (along with women
    so that BOTH PARTNERS were using their own protection,) the problem
    of unplanned pregnancy could be greatly reduced!!!  For some reason,
    many men do not wish to start a new sexual revolution of sexual
    responsibility for birth control (so the problems continue.)
    
    Absolving men of all required responsibility for unplanned pregnancy
    is an attractive solution for some men (so they'd never again have to
    worry about where they planted their seed) - but it's not the answer
    for a society already burdened with a huge number of abortions,
    unplanned births, and children being supported by Welfare.
    
    Men have the opportunity to change this (for their own sakes as well
    as anyone else's,) but as we can see in this topic, it's something
    that most men simply don't want to do.

You know, folks, 420 entries on one subject, with the refrain of "Yes it is!
No it isn't!" is getting rather tiring.  It doesn't seem that anyone's mind
is going to be changed by what's going on here between a few noters.  
Perhaps it would be best to move on to something else.


				Steve (as moderator)

    Steve,
    
    I would still like to know what men think that men's responsibility in
    an unplanned (and unwanted) pregnancy resulting in a child should be?
    
    I would also like to know why there is so much hostility around men
    also taking some responsibility for birth control, instead of laying 
    all responsibility on a woman.
    
    I guess I am confused, and would like some clarity here.
    
    Meg  

Re: .422

You'll never find out here.  You'll only find what certain men think - trying
to extrapolate that to "men" in general is risky.  What is clear to me is
that there is a wide range of opinion, and it's best to take up the
question with the specific individuals whose response is important to you.

			Steve

    re .410
    
    >You're mistaken.  *She* never wanted to go to court (because she
    >knew that even if she got a few bucks to get a lawyer, he had enough
    >money to get his payments made smaller *OR WORSE* to take custody
    >away from her entirely.
    
    Which only goes to prove the point.  She _chose_ not to go to court.
    If she _chose_ not to avail herself of the remidies available, then
    it     is    not    my   problem.  Nor anyone elses for that matter.
    The only person that she is the victim of is herself.  The only real
    victim is the child, and he's as much a victim of her as he is
    of he is of him.
    
    From your last few entries, I'm beginning to wonder just how much
    you really know about the _current_ system, and how much of your
    intent is just to perpetuate the _victim_ myth.
    
    Case in point.
    >The Food Stamps folks couldn't have gotten involved in her child
    >support case.  The divorce (and all subsequent child support payments)
    >occurred in Colorado.  She was living in California when she almost
    >applied for Food Stamps (and he was living in some posh area in
    >New Jersey or New York at the time.)
    
    Social Services is bound *by law* to go after the child support when 
    a custodial parent applies for help.  The support is used to offset
    the support paid by the state.  That's why more and more states,
    and now the federal government, are so interested in child support
    collections and not interested at all in visitation/custody issues.
    Not because of "the poor little children", but because one helps 
    free up funds for other pork-barrel projects while the other is
    just a pain.  If these legislators and congressmen were really
    interested in the child, they would be more interested in 
    visitation/custody issues as well.  Especially when parents who
    have an ongoing relationship with their child are more likely
    to voluntarily pay the child support.
    
    fred();

    re .413
    
    >Fred, do you believe that a single man's opinion as to whether or not
    >an abortion "butchers" his child is more important than a single
    >woman's decision as to what will happen with her most private
    >possession -- her own body?
    
    I wonder how many of these decisions to "abort" are made on the basis
    of "do I want the responsibility of raising and supporting a child"
    rather on the basis of "what happens to my body during pregnency"?
    Probably no way to tell, really.  It's probably not all one way
    or the other.  This question brings the whole situation back directly
    in line of whether or not men and women have equal choices.  The
    woman is allowed to "abort" simply because she does not want the
    responsibility, not necessarily because "bad" things may happen to 
    her body during pregnency.  There is no such decision available
    to the male. 
    
    In how many of these cases could the child have been given in 
    adoption to loving and caring parents?  In how many of these cases
    (there's more than you might think) would the father have been
    willing to take the child and raise it?  Or is it better (or is
    it just more convienent) to just grind the kid up in the garbage 
    disposal.
    
    But as I said before I tend to be on the totally opposite end of
    this discussion.  I don't believe that _either_ men _or_ women
    are facing up to the responsibility of their actions.
    
    fred();

    RE: .424  Fred
    
    >> ...even if she got a few bucks to get a lawyer...[She never did
    >> get the bucks, though.]
    
    > Which only goes to prove the point.  She _chose_ not to go to court.
    
    She didn't have the choice of being able to afford a lawyer, Fred,
    nor did she have a choice in knowing that any lawyer she COULD
    afford would not be as powerful as the one her ex could get with
    all this money (if she dared go up against him in court.)
    
    > If she _chose_ not to avail herself of the remidies available, then
    > it     is    not    my   problem.  Nor anyone elses for that matter.
    > The only person that she is the victim of is herself.  The only
    > real victim is the child, and he's as much a victim of her as he
    > is of he is of him. [???]
    
    But the deadbeat Dad in this case is innocent, right?  He had 
    unlimited visitation and chose to take off (leaving his kid without
    his support while knowing that his ex-wife didn't have the resources
    to do a damn thing about it!!!)  What a guy, huh?  He won.
    
    > From your last few entries, I'm beginning to wonder just how much
    > you really know about the _current_ system, and how much of your
    > intent is just to perpetuate the _victim_ myth.
    
    Well, I can see that you think the woman is all-powerful (with all
    the resources in the world at her disposal, with all possible decisions
    going her way if she merely snaps her finger.)  What a load of crap!!!
    
    My friend was lucky the Dad ever turned up (and she knows it.)  If
    he'd gone for good, she wouldn't have been able to do a thing about
    it.  She was self-supporting, so no Welfare agency would have paid
    detectives or lawyers to nail this guy.  If she'd had to go on Food
    Stamps, it's possible (but the state of California would have gone
    after him for THEMSELVES with no regard at all for her divorce
    agreement in Colorado.)
    
    > Social Services is bound *by law* to go after the child support when 
    > a custodial parent applies for help.  The support is used to offset
    > the support paid by the state. 
    
    They would have gone after him for the FOOD STAMP money only.  Her
    divorce agreement was in Colorado, so California would have done
    NOTHING to change this agreement (the way you suggested earlier.)
    
    > Especially when parents who
    > have an ongoing relationship with their child are more likely
    > to voluntarily pay the child support
    
    In my friend's case, he abandoned his child (YES, HE ABANDONED HIS
    CHILD! HE WAS A DEADBEAT DAD!) in order to avoid paying the money he 
    owed for child support.  His income was 6-figures, but he didn't want 
    to pay $500 per month to help his child, so he didn't see the kid for 
    5 years. (So much for the ongoing relationship theory.)
    
    Meanwhile, you still seem to think this guy was doing ok (and that
    the child's mother was at fault for what happened.)  It only proves
    to me that most of these so-called cases of victimized Dads is a lot
    of biased nonsense.

    re .426
    
    >She didn't have the choice of being able to afford a lawyer, Fred,
    >nor did she have a choice in knowing that any lawyer she COULD
    >afford would not be as powerful as the one her ex could get with
    >all this money (if she dared go up against him in court.)
    
    If she were really unable to afford a lawyer, there are organizations
    that will represent her "pro bono" (for free).  I know, because
    one of them represented my ex while I went without.  
    
    This argument too brings up the question about how much you really
    know about the current system because this argument too is bogus.
    
    >But the deadbeat Dad in this case is innocent, right?  He had 
    >unlimited visitation and chose to take off (leaving his kid without
    >his support while knowing that his ex-wife didn't have the resources
    >to do a damn thing about it!!!)  What a guy, huh?  He won.
    
    I stated before ( and you have so conviently ignored ) that I did not
    have much respect for _him_ either.  It's guys like him that makes
    it harder on those of us who _do_ care.  However, there _were_
    remidies available to her that she _chose_ not to avail herself.
    
    fred();

    For the record, My intetnt is to avoid bringing children into the world
    that do not have the committment of both parents. Unwanted pregnancy
    doesn't equate to unwanted children unless you beleive terminating
    pregnancy in the early stages is "murder".
    
    I've stated my views over and over and I find it amazing how some
    people can take bits and pieces out of context and then attempt an
    argument by re-constucting my words to validate their own personal
    views. 
    
    Presently men have no recourse after conception, woman do. The
    "pre-sex" contract" seems the only answer (only if the courts and state
    will honor them). At least people will have more reason to think about
    the potential consequences of sex and the potential responsibilities
    beyond sexual gratification. 
    
    I do resent some of the attempts to paint me as some irresponsible,
    un-caring, insensitive creature from the "patriarchial lagoon". But I
    am willing to expose myself to this abuse for the sake of potential
    healthy argument and disscusion.
    
    We all share the human experience, men, woman and children. I would
    just like to see a more equitable balance between all parties instead
    of this "victim mentality" that's pitting us against each other.

    RE: .427  Fred
    
    > If she were really unable to afford a lawyer, there are organizations
    > that will represent her "pro bono" (for free).  I know, because
    > one of them represented my ex while I went without.  
    
    Your ex's free lawyer lost the case, though, remember?  My friend
    didn't know about any free lawyers, but she did know that her ex
    could afford the best (and would beat her in court no matter what
    she did.)
    
    > This argument too brings up the question about how much you really
    > know about the current system because this argument too is bogus.
    
    I'm telling you my friend's real experience with child support over
    the years I've known her (and I've heard about her situation step
    by step, as it happened.)
    
    Her experience proves to me that this idea about women being totally
    all-powerful in these situations is a bunch of crap.  She was at the
    mercy of her ex's willingness to return to her son's life (with some
    amount of child support.)  She knew (and HE KNEW) that she couldn't
    do a thing about his 'skipping out' for 5 years.
    
    > I stated befor ( and you have so conviently ignored ) that I did not
    > have much respect for _him_ either.  It's guys like him that makes
    > it harder on those of us who _do_ care.
    
    Why don't you have much respect for her, though?????  She supported
    that child through thick and thin (doing the best she could under
    the circumstances.)  She NEVER ONCE denied the Dad visitation.  She
    never asked for anything unreasonable (she only wanted the relatively
    small amount of money he was ordered by the court to pay for child
    support after the divorce.)
    
    She didn't go to court because she didn't have the money (and didn't
    know of any free lawyers) and because she feared she would lose the
    child if the dad got mad enough (about going to court) to get the
    best possible lawyer and go for custody.
    
    So what did she do wrong in your eyes (besides having a uterus)?????

    re .407
    
    I know, Mike, sometimes I feel like the perverbial voice crying
    in the wilderness.  I just hope that some of the other readers
    of this confrence and understand and see what is _really_ happening
    and not be sucked into all the "feminist" retoric.
    
    I still think this note makes a better example of the point being
    made than it does an argument against the point.
    
    fred();

    RE: .427  Fred
    
    Since you added this...
    
    > However, there _were_ remidies available to her that she _chose_ not 
    > to avail herself.
    
    She didn't know about any free lawyers (but I doubt she would have
    felt safe to use them even if she did.)  She knew that her ex could
    afford the best (money would not have been a problem for him with
    his income.)
    
    How do you think he got off (from the divorce) with only paying $500
    per month although his income was in the 6-figure range???  She knew
    she didn't have a prayer in court with him and his capacity to get
    high-priced lawyers.
    
    A free lawyer isn't much of an answer in a situation like that. It
    certainly didn't help your ex-wife any.

    RE: .430  Fred
    
    > I just hope that some of the other readers
    > of this confrence and understand and see what is _really_ happening
    > and not be sucked into all the "feminist" retoric.
    
    Most intelligent noters don't fall for such 'labeling' tactics, Fred.
    
    We've been talking about a real case (a real situation) and you've
    shown that the woman is damned no matter what she does (while the
    deadbeat dad is no worse than the Mom who held the fort without
    his help for 5 years.)
    
    > I still think this note makes a better example of the point being
    > made than it does an argument against the point.
    
    Wishing won't make it so.

    re .429
    
    >Your ex's free lawyer lost the case, though, remember?  My friend
    >didn't know about any free lawyers, but she did know that her ex
    >could afford the best (and would beat her in court no matter what
    >she did.)
    
    No.  My ex's lawyer won the case.  Twice.  I only won because the
    third time she made some _major_ screw ups and because I didn't
    have a lawyer to tell me different, I was able to capitalize on.
    
    >I'm telling you my friend's real experience with child support over
    >the years I've known her (and I've heard about her situation step
    >by step, as it happened.)
    > 
    >Her experience proves to me that this idea about women being totally
    >all-powerful in these situations is a bunch of crap.  She was at the
    >mercy of her ex's willingness to return to her son's life (with some
    >amount of child support.)  She knew (and HE KNEW) that she couldn't
    >do a thing about his 'skipping out' for 5 years.
    
    And I'm telling you that this particular example is bogus.  She
    _had_ remidies available and _she_ _chose_ not to take advantage
    of them.
    
   > Why don't you have much respect for her, though?????  She supported
    
    Because by perpetuating herself as a victim, she also victimized her
    son.  However, I do respect the fact that she continued to _allow_
    visitation.  Again it was her choice, because there wasn't much the
    father could have done if she had blocked the visitation.  I assure
    you that in this behavior, however, she is in the minority.   The
    majority would have further victimized their child by cutting off
    the visitation also.
    
    fred();

    re .431
    
    
>    She didn't know about any free lawyers (but I doubt she would have
>    felt safe to use them even if she did.)  She knew that her ex could
>    afford the best (money would not have been a problem for him with
>    his income.)
    
    And whose problem is _that_.
    
>    A free lawyer isn't much of an answer in a situation like that. It
>    certainly didn't help your ex-wife any.
    
    A free lawyer beats the *&^% out of what _I_ had.  I couldn't
    get representation because the only pro bono servaice was already
    representing _her_.  And yes the _did_ do her a lot of good.
    It was only on the third try and because she screwed up that I
    finally got custody.
    
    fred();
    

    re 432.
    
>    Most intelligent noters don't fall for such 'labeling' tactics, Fred.
    
    I sure hope so.  But then "intelligent noter" may be an oxymoron. ;^)
    
>    We've been talking about a real case (a real situation) and you've
>    shown that the woman is damned no matter what she does (while the
>    deadbeat dad is no worse than the Mom who held the fort without
>    his help for 5 years.)
    
    No, I'm just showing that this particular "example" is bogus.
    
    fred()

    RE: .433  Fred
    
    > And I'm telling you that this particular example is bogus.  She
    > _had_ remidies available and _she_ _chose_ not to take advantage
    > of them.
    
    It's bogus to you because she doesn't fit into your stereotype of
    the evil, vicious Mom who lives to bring destruction to her ex.
    She only wanted to raise her son with the support promised to her
    by the court.  She worked for all the rest of the money used to
    support him (which meant that she did FAR, FAR, FAR more of the
    financial support for her son than her ex-husband ever did.)
    
    > Because by perpetuating herself as a victim, she also victimized her
    > son. 
    
    This is an absolute, vicious lie.  She did the best she could under
    difficult circumstances.  She didn't victimize ANYONE (including
    herself!)  She simply carried on (in the best way she could) to 
    raise the boy by herself.
    
    > However, I do respect the fact that she continued to _allow_
    > visitation.  Again it was her choice, because there wasn't much the
    > father could have done if she had blocked the visitation. 
    
    She wanted him to have a relationship with his son, but if she
    hadn't wanted it, HE HAD THE MONEY TO HIRE LAWYERS TO SUE FOR CUSTODY.
    She knew he had the power in this situation and that she was lucky he
    only skipped out for 5 years (and didn't do other things that could
    have been much worse.)
    
    > I assure you that in this behavior, however, she is in the minority.  
    
    I don't believe you.  This friend has had the best deal in child
    support of anyone I've ever personally known.  I've NEVER known a
    woman who had all sorts of power over an ex-husband (or got lots
    of money) after a divorce.  NEVER!
    
    > The majority would have further victimized their child by cutting off
    > the visitation also.
   
    Oh yeah, I forgot.  The woman is evil and guilty no matter what.  Women
    are just such scum to you, right Fred?  We'll probably all rot in hell.

    RE: .435  Fred
    
    > No, I'm just showing that this particular "example" is bogus.
    
    Well, I won't tell my friend that you think her life is bogus (the
    next time I call her in Seattle.)  Not that she'd lose any sleep
    over it.
    
    She simply doesn't fit into your idea of the evil, vicious Mom who
    should rot in hell.  She's a very nice woman who has done a wonderful
    job of raising her son (mostly by herself) so far.
    
    If she should rot in hell for not knowing she could get a free lawyer
    in Colorado (while living in California,) then I guess (from your
    perspective) she *should* rot in hell (OR WHATEVER.)
    
    Your ideas about bogus examples are a bunch of crap.

    bla-bla-bla
    

    re .428, I will add to that bla-bla-bla, however, that, in regard to
    your comment that you don't think children should be brought into the
    world without the the "commitment of both parents" that IF I had a job
    earning - say - $85K a year, and if I wanted to have a child, on my
    own, I don't think it would be any of your business!  If I could afford
    to raise the child, including daycare, and everything else, then I
    don't see where it's anyone else's business that I would be the only
    parent.  
    
    (Since I don't make $85K a year, and don't even want another child,
    this is academic, but still, if it were the case, I'd be really angry
    at your attitude.)
    
    Lorna
    

    
    
    Suzanne,
    
    Your last two entries have finally pounded it throught my thick
    skull that you are going to cling to your idiology no matter what
    evidence is presented.  I now conclude that Mike is correct and
    any further discussion is futile.
    
    Time to agree to disagree.
    
    fred();

.420> or not the pregnancy will result in a miscarriage, nor whether the
.420> man will respond to the pregnancy with full emotional support or
.420> "Die, bitch!  You did this on purpose, I hope you rot in hell.")

    Here were have a strawman, pulled out of thin air and propped up high
    for all all to see ... rather than ask you who said this, and sit through
    another convoluted denial, I'll save you the time ... no men here said
    this.

    
.420> Absolving men of all required responsibility for unplanned pregnancy
.420> is an attractive solution for some men (so they'd never again have to

    And that's a second strawman.

    Lorna,
    	Individual autonomy is fine as long as it's "individual".
    Where do you propose to aquire the "sperm" for your child. A sperm
    bank?
    And if you fall on hard times are you going to entertain some lawyers
    idea that you can sue for $50k back support if he can have 10%?

    RE: .440  Fred
    
    > Your last two entries have finally pounded it throught my thick
    > skull that you are going to cling to your idiology no matter what
    > evidence is presented. 
    
    Fred, what "evidence" did you bring to discount my friend's child
    support situation?  (Calling her case 'bogus' isn't evidence, pal.)
    
    I'm not operating from any ideology about her case.  I know what's
    been happening to her and I'm recounting it here.  You can't change
    the facts of her situation simply because it doesn't fit into your
    "women are evil" stereotype.
    
    She did the best she could.  She didn't victimize her son or herself.
    She's raised the boy in the best way she could (and has allowed the
    former deadbeat dad to return to his son's life.)  She doesn't even
    cut down the dad in front of the boy.  She has supported their
    relationship from square one (and held the possibility open for a
    resumed father-son relationship in case the guy ever did come back,
    which he did.)
    
    > I now conclude that Mike is correct and any further discussion is futile.
    
    Of course we were bound to disagree about all this.  Did you think 
    I would call my own friend's situation 'bogus' simply because YOU
    think it is?  (Not a chance!)  I know her and I admire her for 
    things she's done for her son.
    
    I also know she's lucky to have gotten the support she did get.  In my
    case, I raised a son without ever getting a penny from his Dad (and I
    also allowed unlimited visitation in spite of the lack of support.)
    
    > Time to agree to disagree.
    
    Of course.  We'll never agree about this.  We each (even women) have
    the right to our own opinions about all this.  No one is forced to
    change their opinions for someone else in notes.

    RE: .441  Mike Z.
    
    .420> "Die, bitch!  You did this on purpose, I hope you rot in hell.")
    
    > ...no men here said this.
    
    I never claimed anyone here said this, so don't bother starting up with
    this game (yet again.)
    
    .420> Absolving men of all required responsibility for unplanned pregnancy
    .420> is an attractive solution for some men (so they'd never again have to

    > And that's a second strawman.
    
    Some men (in the world) *do* want to be resolved of all required
    responsibility (and at least one honest man here has admitted this.)
    
    So - your games do continue.  Of course.

Gee, I had hopes this morning that people would cool off on their own, but
it seems not to be.  I've write-locked this note and will leave it that way
for a few days.

				Steve