Judge Dismisses "Roe v. Wade for Men" Lawsuit

[Lazy8s]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Mormon? OK, now you've insulted me.😉

I certainly believe women are special. Not in that 'special so that men must PROTECT women' but in a general regard for what Nature allows them to do.

As for the lack of 'control' for men, my advice is to stop indiscriminant scroggin', use a condom (male or female), use rhythm (yeah it doesn't work), insist on giving your date her nightly pill, use spermicide film/foam, help your woman insert her diaphragm, buy HER patches and apply them yourself.

My point is that men have A LOT of options for avoiding conception, so it's not like they are being denied a right to control conception.

Lol no insult intended, just checkin to see if it was worth even discussing this with you. I went to a mormon church for years in 2 different cities (not at the same time) but there would be no arguing this with a Mormon.

Anyways I do completely agree with you. There is no excuse for unwanted pregnancy, however if the girl DOES get pregnant I still think the guy should have some sort of choice. I don't think it's fair that the woman has a choice after the oops but the man doesn't. I know she carries the baby but so what? She can't get drafted but a female president can declare war. I know it's not an exactly equal situation, but the point is life isn't fair and life isn't equal. If there is a situation in which equal rights can be afforded (like this one, the male can have a legal abortion) then I think that's how it can be. It will never be exactly equal but we should try.

@moonbeam: Just checking, it was just too funny to let go without comment.

 

[BoberFett]

Child support has made my life very difficult. The dollar amount goes up very easily, but is almost impossible to go down. The judge setting the amount will often scrutinize every bit of income to ensure that the father is paying his "fair share" but when the father loses his job and has to take a lower paying position, do they lower the amount appropriately? Usually no. It's a high water mark system. Apparently lawmakers figure the father is capable of making a certain amount of money, and will always have that ability.

On the other side of the coin is my friend, who coincidentally, is getting a vasectomy today. He has been trying to get the procedure done for years, but no doctor would do it because he doesn't have kids. He's 31, and is 100% confident that he never wants kids, yet he's had to go to one doctor after another begging them to do the procedure, only to be told that they can't do it because of "moral reasons". So they can't give a man a vasectomy due to moral reasons, but if a woman wants to take a morning after pill or get an abortion, we're all supposed to empathize with the poor woman's plight?

Reproductive and related laws in this country are so imbalanced it's disgusting. I recognize the needs of women whose support is suddenly cut off needing help, and that there are plenty of deadbeats out there that do nothing for kids that they may have wanted at first, then turned thier backs on later. But the system is so broken and draconian that it's less about helping children now and more about punishing men.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Vadatajs
2 failed biology students so far.

News flash: Men don't get pregnant, that's why they don't have the right to choose.

idiots

Now hang on...if women have 100% of the choice...the shouldn't they also bare 100% of the responsibility?

Right now the paradigm is, "Her choice, his responsibility".

What if a would-be father offered to pay for an abortion? Wouldn't the birth then be 100% the woman's choice?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: ButterflyHugs
Doesn't this man have the responsibility to ensure that he doesn't have an unwanted pregnancy just as much as the woman? Oh, that's right, from your other posts....woman have all the responsibility when it comes to children. From conception, childbirth, raising and nurturing. Women are whores that only get pregnant to entrap upstanding gentlemen into financial commitments.

Surely you've had biology class...the difference is that women can use Plan B emergency contraception and have abortions and men can't, and women have to voluntarily continue to host the embryo and fetus. Since abortion is available and especially if the man offers to pay for it, it sure does look as though 100% of the choice is on the woman.

Would women be willing to allow men to force women to carry pregnancies to term rather than to have abortions or use emergency contraception in exchange for holding unwilling fathers financially responsible for unwanted births?

 

[Polish3d]

The notion that 8-9 months of pregnancy (the "her body" argument) is somehow greater than 18 years of bound labor on the part of the man is absurd.


And don't get all touchy-feely with this point either and whine "Oh but doesn't he want to be a DAD to his kid???"

That same kid can be executed by the mom in the womb at will.



Depending upon of course when you think a kid becomes a kid and not just a bundle of cells. I haven't decided that myself.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I'm waiting to see what happens when it becomes possible to fertilize embryos merely by taking some DNA from any cell. So, what happens if a woman collects some blood or a hair follicle from a wealthy man? Presto! She could become a mother and he could be the unwitting biological father and thus make her wealthy by paying child support. Woohoo! Could you imagine men going around wearing body condoms [to keep from dropping any skin cells or hair (ala the movie GATTACA)]? Can you imagine throngs of women chasing after wealthy men, hoping to scratch them in order to obtain some skin cells?

I can.

Even a vasectomy wouldn't be good enough. At that point, we might as well just herd men into concentration camps and make them work as slave labor to support females.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: Frackal
The notion that 8-9 months of pregnancy (the "her body" argument) is somehow greater than 18 years of bound labor on the part of the man is absurd.

At least as absurd is the notion that responsibility might end after 8-9 months of pregnancy.

Raising kids is a lot of work. As the father of two, I cannot imagine myself trying to do it alone. Even with the financial means to do so.

 

[ECUHITMAN]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Can I have links to the 12 year old who was raped and had to pay child support please. I have learned to suspect your interpretation of things. Was this a forcible rape or one where he went 'sure'. Hey, isn't 12 old enough for the death penalty, what's a little child support for not having any morals.

Text

Sperm donors have been held accountable for child support. So have people whose sperm was obtained from a used condom.

Rape is rape. Statutory rape laws have existed for a while.

Once again, you like to miss interpret the facts of the case. I quote:

The two began a sexual relationship at a time when Colleen was 16 years old and Shane was only 12. The relationship continued over a period of several months and the parties engaged in sexual intercourse on an average of a couple of times a week. As a result, a daughter, Melanie, was born to Colleen on May 30, 1989. At the time of the conception of the child, Shane was 13 years old and Colleen was 17. Colleen applied for and received financial assistance through the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (ADC) from SRS.

Statutory rape laws do not apply here because according to Kansas State Law:

21-3503. Indecent liberties with a child. (a) Indecent liberties with a child is engaging in any of the following acts with a child who is 14 or more years of age but less than 16 years of age

The boy was 13 and girl was 17. For it to be statutory rape, the boy would have to be older than 14. It could fall under some other child molestation law, but either way you got your facts wrong.

Nice try.

 

[Lazy8s]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: Frackal
The notion that 8-9 months of pregnancy (the "her body" argument) is somehow greater than 18 years of bound labor on the part of the man is absurd.

At least as absurd is the notion that responsibility might end after 8-9 months of pregnancy.

Raising kids is a lot of work. As the father of two, I cannot imagine myself trying to do it alone. Even with the financial means to do so.

Well it can with adoption. On the other hand no one said the mother's responsability ends, just that she has the option to end it whereas the father does not. The mother can decide that she's done caring for the child when it's 2 and put it up for adoption, the father can't decide that he's done paying when the child is 2 and put it up for adoption, he's at the mercy of the mother, just because she carried it.

 

[BoberFett]

Are you trying to argue that because the child was under 14 that it was OK? 😕

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Can I have links to the 12 year old who was raped and had to pay child support please. I have learned to suspect your interpretation of things. Was this a forcible rape or one where he went 'sure'. Hey, isn't 12 old enough for the death penalty, what's a little child support for not having any morals.

Text

Sperm donors have been held accountable for child support. So have people whose sperm was obtained from a used condom.

Rape is rape. Statutory rape laws have existed for a while.

Once again, you like to miss interpret the facts of the case. I quote:

The two began a sexual relationship at a time when Colleen was 16 years old and Shane was only 12. The relationship continued over a period of several months and the parties engaged in sexual intercourse on an average of a couple of times a week. As a result, a daughter, Melanie, was born to Colleen on May 30, 1989. At the time of the conception of the child, Shane was 13 years old and Colleen was 17. Colleen applied for and received financial assistance through the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (ADC) from SRS.

Statutory rape laws do not apply here because according to Kansas State Law:

21-3503. Indecent liberties with a child. (a) Indecent liberties with a child is engaging in any of the following acts with a child who is 14 or more years of age but less than 16 years of age

The boy was 13 and girl was 17. For it to be statutory rape, the boy would have to be older than 14. It could fall under some other child molestation law, but either way you got your facts wrong.

Nice try.

Try quoting again..without inserting words in the middle

What used to be commonly called "statutory rape" is now included in the statutory crime of indecent liberties with a child. The statute, K.S.A.1992 Supp. 21-3503, reads in pertinent part:

(1) Indecent liberties with a child is engaging in any of the following acts with a child who is under 16 years of age:

 

[Starbuck1975]

At least as absurd is the notion that responsibility might end after 8-9 months of pregnancy. Raising kids is a lot of work. As the father of two, I cannot imagine myself trying to do it alone. Even with the financial means to do so.

I don't think anyone is saying this is a simple issue...it is extraordinarily complex, with the welfare of a living human being lying in the balance...on the one hand, I do not think it is healthy to force someone to assume the role of fatherhood...on the other hand, it is unfair to any child brought into this world to not have the resources necessary to provide a stable upbringing.

This debate brings to question the larger debate of feminism in general...for decades now, women have worked extremely hard at achieving equality, and I would contend that they have been largely successful...however...

This same movement champions "exceptions" for women, largely anchored on the biological difference of their ability to bear children...maternity leave, pregnancy decisions, child support...all of these concepts hold on to the traditional notion of men as the bread winner, and women in a household and child raising supportive role.

Can't have your cake and eat it too...if anything, it exposes that men and women simply aren't equal, and that it is perhaps necessary to have seperate but equal laws and policies in place that respect these differences...right now, the system is weighed entirely in favor of exceptions for women, with men basically having to suck it up.

Probably why I have no patience for feminists...hypocrites, the lot of them.

 

[Ricochet]

I heard a radio program awhile back where a man called in to tell his absurd tale. While he was still in college, low on cash, he decided that he can earn extra money by donating to the various sperm banks. Years later, a couple of women benefited from his donation and had gotten pregnant (2 separate prenancies). However, both fell under financial hardship and sought aid from the state. The state told both women to go back to the sperm bank to obtain the identity of the father. Although, the sperm bank initially refused due to its policy of anonyminity, it relinquish his info due to a court injunction. Needless to say the man was sued by both women for child support. He settled out of court and end up paying over $300,000 total. Keep in mind that the man had previously never seen or met either women.

 

[Geekbabe]

Let's see, most you support the concept of one career families, women shouldn't have babies unless they're willing to stay home and raise em kind of thinkingchildren are too valuable to be entrusted to daycare. this is used to justify paying women less in the workplace, a pay hit that she will not recover from if she returns to work once her kids are older.

then Come divorce time those same women are then nothing but evil, gold digging tramps out to fisacally ruin a man, those kids who were too valuable to be placed in daycare are nothing but hammers used by their evil mothers and men need to hire sharp lawyers to keep those child support [payments as low as possible, let the biatch get out there and wirk, she deserves nothing,after all she contributed nothing.

Wax it, diet it, tramp stamp it, sex, hot on the half shell, anytime, anyplace, men deserve hords of young hotties eager to jump their jocks.. pregnancy worries ? that should be the slut's problem not mine.. unless of course she gets preggers then she needs to "face responsibility"alone and get a scrape job... unless the dad is pro life then she best not abort.. but wait, then she's a damaged goods single mother..and on and on it goes

There's an old arab saying "women want toasted ice"well I think it applies perfectly to a lot of men when it comes to issues of sexuality and reproduction.

btw, I raised 3 kids.. there was many a day that I'd have been glad if my parenting responsibility began and ended with the writing of a check.

 

[extra]

For once I agree with zendari. Rights on this kind of thing are extremely heavily slanted towards women in this country. Something like 90% of custody cases that get litigated are decided towards women.

Child support: If a man remarries, his new wife's income can be used to prove his ability to pay. If the woman re-marries, her new husband's income does not matter.

THere have been men who were coerced or forced into sex and THEN had to pay child support! The law has a HUGE female bias, or the judges just want to be politically correct--but most of the time they have to follow existing case law, etc, so I tend to blame the law here.

You can write a no-child support contract between yourelf and a man/woman. The courts will throw it out. LoL.

Now, I in no way think men should be able to force an abortion or anything along that matter! That is just ridiculous! But if the man was lied too, and there is proof of that, then SORRY biatch but you should not be entlited to child support. AND it should go the other way around too, if the guy lies and the chick gets pregnant. But right now there is a huge double standard. And I know a ton of women who agree on this issue.

Men get paid (slightly) more due to societal biases that are built in from the moment u start education.

Women get more rights when it comes to divorce and children.

Both of those things need to change.

 

[Moonbeam]

Men are tough macho football players and islands unto themselves, independent and strong, full of tough love and contempt for the weak. But they have a fatal flaw in that they WWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNTTTTTTTTTTTTT SSSEEEEXXXXX!

So all these supermen women have by the balls. They will whimper and cry and plead and beg for sex and wonder why they are enraged at what they have to go through. I want you I need you I love you until the moment you say no and then you are a worthless piece of sh!t. It's tough being a man who has no real internal self respect.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

It's an interesting argument (and one that I've made here before) to promote the concept of a male abortion.

But in the equasion Male + Female = Child, the most important component of the equasion is "Child". The desires of the Male and Female component of the equasion are irrelevant at this time. As such it is an unbalanced equasion... but that's the way it is.

No civilized society would ever force a woman to have an abortion at the request of the man. And once the child is born it needs to be supported. End of story.

All the rest of the rationalization in this thread can be boiled down to "me me me". Making things fair for the unwilling father makes things unfair for the child.


And as previously stated... The needs of the child are more important than the needs/wants of both the mother & father combined.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Let's see, most you support the concept of one career families, women shouldn't have babies unless they're willing to stay home and raise em kind of thinkingchildren are too valuable to be entrusted to daycare. this is used to justify paying women less in the workplace, a pay hit that she will not recover from if she returns to work once her kids are older.

This thread isn't about marriage...once a man and a woman get married, they enter into a social and legal contract, thereby creating a household...which usually constitutes their having children together...now if that social contract dissolves, there are still legal obligations which address your statements about skill retention for stay at home moms and caring for children after a divorce...which is why we have alimony and child support laws.

The whole Pro-Choice argument relies on the notion that a woman is free to make choices with her own body...well that choice extends well before a pregnancy, and women should have enough respect for themselves and their bodies to not sleep with men without insisting on birth control...and to choose partners who will suitably care for them and their children.

Men may be pigs on occasion, but it is because women allow it to be so...the sexual revolution may have empowered women to a certain extent, but the pendulum swing is so out of whack that we now have "Sex and the City" and "Desperate Housewives" as setting the standards by which women choose to engage in sexual activity.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

I think there are some men here with deep seeded issues about women.
Women are the life givers and carry with it unique and special responsibilities so having parental law slanted in their favor doesn't bother me in the slightest.
Then again, I don't hate women, I'm not pathologically angry with them and I appreciate and value their contribution to our species.

How many more men just run off and leave their children compared to women who just run off and leave their children?
The biological connection between a child and their mother is more powerful and harder to break than between the child and their father. To deny that reality is silly.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Let's see, most you support the concept of one career families...

Way to begin with a gross generalization. You lose.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge
Then again, I don't hate women, I'm not pathologically angry with them and I appreciate and value their contribution to our species.

If they're so valuable, you can pay my child support.

Nice straw man though.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge
Then again, I don't hate women, I'm not pathologically angry with them and I appreciate and value their contribution to our species.

If they're so valuable, you can pay my child support.

Nice straw man though.

How unfortunate for your child that you even joke about begrudging him/her support.
I sincerely hope the feeling behind that comment doesn't sneak out in various ways in your interaction with your child and/or his mother in his presence. I am from divorced parents who couldn't stand the sight of each other and constantly said horrible things about each other to me. It was very hurtful and not without lasting emotional effects.

Yes, it's a straw man and a silly generalization but it certainly seems to me there are deeper issues behind some of these male's bitter complaints.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Lazy8s
I wrote a paper on this my freshman year of college for Lit class. I actually take the guy's side here. If the woman gets pregnant and she has an abortion he can't force her to keep it. If she decides to keep the baby, he can't force (legally) an abortion. There needs to be legislation so the man can sign a piece of paper effectively "having his abortion" and if the mother keeps the child she gets no child support. Where's the man's right to choose? And don't give me that condom crap. The woman made the same decision he did at the time of conception, they should have the same choices afterwards.

Interesting....
In the first analysis above I'd proffer: The premise in the founding documents of having sex IS to procreate not for the pleasure of it. Sorta the biblical understanding, I guess.

In the second example you gave a crime was committed by the woman on the boy. In this case the boy had no choice in the matter for either the pleasure or the procreation aspects so I, therefore, disagree with the child being financially responsible for the results of criminal behaviour that he had no part in developing... unless like the 12 yr old in another thread he is deemed to be an adult and must pay for his participation in what then becomes a non crime issue..
:Q:disgust:

 

[Aisengard]

If you're a man and you don't use a condom, you live with the consequences. End of fricking story. Jeezis Christ, Conservative's attitudeo f 'personal responsibility' goes right out the window when it starts to endanger them.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge
Then again, I don't hate women, I'm not pathologically angry with them and I appreciate and value their contribution to our species.

If they're so valuable, you can pay my child support.

Nice straw man though.

How unfortunate for your child that you even joke about begrudging him/her support.
I sincerely hope the feeling behind that comment doesn't sneak out in various ways in your interaction with your child and/or his mother in his presence. I am from divorced parents who couldn't stand the sight of each other and constantly said horrible things about each other to me. It was very hurtful and not without lasting emotional effects.

Yes, it's a straw man and a silly generalization but it certainly seems to me there are deeper issues behind some of these male's bitter complaints.

Ah, so you're the bitter one. It makes more sense now. You hate you father for what he did and want to see men punished. It's not about getting proper financial support for a child, it's about hurting your father.