Question



 Science > Abortion > Question

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 1

1

 
Topic: Science > Abortion
User: "COL RSJ"
Date: 26 Jun 2005 12:22:48 PM
Object: Question
If the woman has total control of her body. If she can throw away or
have the baby as she please. Why the heck should guys be stuck with
18 years of payments for something that was her choice. Myself, I
have never had kids out of wedlock and all the kids we had in marriage
are grown. But I find it really unfair the way the system is set up.
--
"La ilah illa' Allah: Muhammad rasul Allah."
.

User: "Ray Fischer"

Title: Re: Question 26 Jun 2005 01:36:06 PM
COL RSJ <Nakedrunner70@yahoo.com> wrote:

If the woman has total control of her body.

Strawman.

If she can throw away or
have the baby as she please. Why the heck should guys be stuck with
18 years of payments for something that was her choice.

Good question, but better addressed in soc.men.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: "Attila"

Title: Re: Question 26 Jun 2005 06:03:12 PM
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 12:22:48 -0500, COL RSJ <Nakedrunner70@yahoo.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<ovotb11qgh3hqd0brp22ueo80g4kjj43f3@4ax.com> wrote:

If the woman has total control of her body. If she can throw away or
have the baby as she please.

There is no baby before birth.

Why the heck should guys be stuck with
18 years of payments for something that was her choice. Myself, I
have never had kids out of wedlock and all the kids we had in marriage
are grown. But I find it really unfair the way the system is set up.

You are looking at the payment as if it is a penalty for being a
parent. Society observes a child exists (no matter how that existence
occurred) and someone must be responsible for the expenses necessary
for raising that child. It would be in the best interest of the child
to insure that both parents support the child. That is what occurs.
Usually the non-custodial parent provides money while the custodial
parent provides food, housing, and so forth.
The details can be argued endlessly.
.
User: "COL RSJ"

Title: Re: Question 26 Jun 2005 08:26:41 PM
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 19:03:12 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 12:22:48 -0500, COL RSJ <Nakedrunner70@yahoo.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<ovotb11qgh3hqd0brp22ueo80g4kjj43f3@4ax.com> wrote:

If the woman has total control of her body. If she can throw away or
have the baby as she please.


There is no baby before birth.

Why the heck should guys be stuck with
18 years of payments for something that was her choice. Myself, I
have never had kids out of wedlock and all the kids we had in marriage
are grown. But I find it really unfair the way the system is set up.


You are looking at the payment as if it is a penalty for being a
parent. Society observes a child exists (no matter how that existence
occurred) and someone must be responsible for the expenses necessary
for raising that child. It would be in the best interest of the child
to insure that both parents support the child. That is what occurs.
Usually the non-custodial parent provides money while the custodial
parent provides food, housing, and so forth.

The details can be argued endlessly.

Ny gripe is that until she squats out the kid I have no say. If it is
her chooice to sleep with me, then she needs to be the one using birth
control. If she gets pregnant, and I have no say if she keeps my
child or not, I think it was her choice and should be her
responsibility. That being said, if I ever had that happen to me, I
would fight in court for full custody.
--
"La ilah illa' Allah: Muhammad rasul Allah."
.
User: "Attila"

Title: Re: Question 27 Jun 2005 04:45:41 AM
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 20:26:41 -0500, COL RSJ <Nakedrunner70@yahoo.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<s9lub117acj7ngaoe88rjt65g1jgoqp800@4ax.com> wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 19:03:12 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 12:22:48 -0500, COL RSJ <Nakedrunner70@yahoo.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<ovotb11qgh3hqd0brp22ueo80g4kjj43f3@4ax.com> wrote:

If the woman has total control of her body. If she can throw away or
have the baby as she please.


There is no baby before birth.

Why the heck should guys be stuck with
18 years of payments for something that was her choice. Myself, I
have never had kids out of wedlock and all the kids we had in marriage
are grown. But I find it really unfair the way the system is set up.


You are looking at the payment as if it is a penalty for being a
parent. Society observes a child exists (no matter how that existence
occurred) and someone must be responsible for the expenses necessary
for raising that child. It would be in the best interest of the child
to insure that both parents support the child. That is what occurs.
Usually the non-custodial parent provides money while the custodial
parent provides food, housing, and so forth.

The details can be argued endlessly.


Ny gripe is that until she squats out the kid I have no say. If it is
her chooice to sleep with me, then she needs to be the one using birth
control.

That attitude is somewhat antiquated.

If she gets pregnant, and I have no say if she keeps my
child or not, I think it was her choice and should be her
responsibility.

True enough, but society says that is not a reason to punish the child
by forcing it to live at a lower standard of living than it would if
there was a family unit involved.

That being said, if I ever had that happen to me, I
would fight in court for full custody.

While in the minority it is not unheard of for the father to gain
custody and the mother to pay child support.
.
User: "COL RSJ"

Title: Re: Question 27 Jun 2005 07:00:47 AM
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 05:45:41 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 20:26:41 -0500, COL RSJ <Nakedrunner70@yahoo.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<s9lub117acj7ngaoe88rjt65g1jgoqp800@4ax.com> wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 19:03:12 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 12:22:48 -0500, COL RSJ <Nakedrunner70@yahoo.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<ovotb11qgh3hqd0brp22ueo80g4kjj43f3@4ax.com> wrote:

If the woman has total control of her body. If she can throw away or
have the baby as she please.


There is no baby before birth.

Why the heck should guys be stuck with
18 years of payments for something that was her choice. Myself, I
have never had kids out of wedlock and all the kids we had in marriage
are grown. But I find it really unfair the way the system is set up.


You are looking at the payment as if it is a penalty for being a
parent. Society observes a child exists (no matter how that existence
occurred) and someone must be responsible for the expenses necessary
for raising that child. It would be in the best interest of the child
to insure that both parents support the child. That is what occurs.
Usually the non-custodial parent provides money while the custodial
parent provides food, housing, and so forth.

The details can be argued endlessly.


Ny gripe is that until she squats out the kid I have no say. If it is
her chooice to sleep with me, then she needs to be the one using birth
control.


That attitude is somewhat antiquated.

If she gets pregnant, and I have no say if she keeps my
child or not, I think it was her choice and should be her
responsibility.


True enough, but society says that is not a reason to punish the child
by forcing it to live at a lower standard of living than it would if
there was a family unit involved.


That being said, if I ever had that happen to me, I
would fight in court for full custody.


While in the minority it is not unheard of for the father to gain
custody and the mother to pay child support.

In my area men winning custody is up around 30%. Slowly things are
changing. Slowly.
--
"La ilah illa' Allah: Muhammad rasul Allah."
.
User: "osprey"

Title: Re: Question 27 Jun 2005 05:46:54 PM
COL RSJ wrote:

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 05:45:41 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 20:26:41 -0500, COL RSJ <Nakedrunner70@yahoo.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<s9lub117acj7ngaoe88rjt65g1jgoqp800@4ax.com> wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 19:03:12 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 12:22:48 -0500, COL RSJ <Nakedrunner70@yahoo.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<ovotb11qgh3hqd0brp22ueo80g4kjj43f3@4ax.com> wrote:

If the woman has total control of her body. If she can throw away or
have the baby as she please.


There is no baby before birth.

Why the heck should guys be stuck with
18 years of payments for something that was her choice. Myself, I
have never had kids out of wedlock and all the kids we had in marriage
are grown. But I find it really unfair the way the system is set up.


You are looking at the payment as if it is a penalty for being a
parent. Society observes a child exists (no matter how that existence
occurred) and someone must be responsible for the expenses necessary
for raising that child. It would be in the best interest of the child
to insure that both parents support the child. That is what occurs.
Usually the non-custodial parent provides money while the custodial
parent provides food, housing, and so forth.

The details can be argued endlessly.


Ny gripe is that until she squats out the kid I have no say. If it is
her chooice to sleep with me, then she needs to be the one using birth
control.


That attitude is somewhat antiquated.

If she gets pregnant, and I have no say if she keeps my
child or not, I think it was her choice and should be her
responsibility.


True enough, but society says that is not a reason to punish the child
by forcing it to live at a lower standard of living than it would if
there was a family unit involved.


That being said, if I ever had that happen to me, I
would fight in court for full custody.


While in the minority it is not unheard of for the father to gain
custody and the mother to pay child support.


In my area men winning custody is up around 30%. Slowly things are
changing. Slowly.

Here in Delaware we still have a long way to go. There is a lot of
double standards and discrimination against men.
Example:
As I said before, I work in a prison. In our female facility, Baylor,
mothers are allowed to spend weekends with their children. They have a
special room for the mother and the child with beds.
Fathers do not get this opportunity. They get maybe 45 minutes and if
they are really good for six months they may get a few hours with an
honor visit.
In the state of Delaware they feel its important for both child and
mother to maintain contact. While that may be true, it's also
important for the father to maintain contact as well. So why does the
father get the short end?
Custody battles, yes some fathers are getting custody but it's very
rare.
There is a long way to go to make this an equal process. Frankly, men
need to do what women did with the women's movement. Men need to gather
together and make a strong movement.
.
User: "COL RSJ"

Title: Re: Question 28 Jun 2005 04:36:50 PM
On 27 Jun 2005 15:46:54 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:



COL RSJ wrote:

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 05:45:41 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 20:26:41 -0500, COL RSJ <Nakedrunner70@yahoo.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<s9lub117acj7ngaoe88rjt65g1jgoqp800@4ax.com> wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 19:03:12 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 12:22:48 -0500, COL RSJ <Nakedrunner70@yahoo.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<ovotb11qgh3hqd0brp22ueo80g4kjj43f3@4ax.com> wrote:

If the woman has total control of her body. If she can throw away or
have the baby as she please.


There is no baby before birth.

Why the heck should guys be stuck with
18 years of payments for something that was her choice. Myself, I
have never had kids out of wedlock and all the kids we had in marriage
are grown. But I find it really unfair the way the system is set up.


You are looking at the payment as if it is a penalty for being a
parent. Society observes a child exists (no matter how that existence
occurred) and someone must be responsible for the expenses necessary
for raising that child. It would be in the best interest of the child
to insure that both parents support the child. That is what occurs.
Usually the non-custodial parent provides money while the custodial
parent provides food, housing, and so forth.

The details can be argued endlessly.


Ny gripe is that until she squats out the kid I have no say. If it is
her chooice to sleep with me, then she needs to be the one using birth
control.


That attitude is somewhat antiquated.

If she gets pregnant, and I have no say if she keeps my
child or not, I think it was her choice and should be her
responsibility.


True enough, but society says that is not a reason to punish the child
by forcing it to live at a lower standard of living than it would if
there was a family unit involved.


That being said, if I ever had that happen to me, I
would fight in court for full custody.


While in the minority it is not unheard of for the father to gain
custody and the mother to pay child support.


In my area men winning custody is up around 30%. Slowly things are
changing. Slowly.


Here in Delaware we still have a long way to go. There is a lot of
double standards and discrimination against men.

Example:
As I said before, I work in a prison. In our female facility, Baylor,
mothers are allowed to spend weekends with their children. They have a
special room for the mother and the child with beds.
Fathers do not get this opportunity. They get maybe 45 minutes and if
they are really good for six months they may get a few hours with an
honor visit.
In the state of Delaware they feel its important for both child and
mother to maintain contact. While that may be true, it's also
important for the father to maintain contact as well. So why does the
father get the short end?

Custody battles, yes some fathers are getting custody but it's very
rare.

There is a long way to go to make this an equal process. Frankly, men
need to do what women did with the women's movement. Men need to gather
together and make a strong movement.

I was born and raised in NYC, saw a lot of guys get screwed. Be glad
you don't live in California. Friend of mine back in 78 got divorced,
his wife made 5 times what he did. Refused child support and the
state took it anyway, then since the wife didn't want it, just kept
it. Poor guy fought for almost 5 years to get his money back. I
still think he should have been allowed to shoot the judge and the
child support assholes that fucked with him.
--
"La ilah illa' Allah: Muhammad rasul Allah."
.







  Page 1 of 1

1

 


Related Articles
Re: Simple question for Ray Fischer
Political Question
question for pro-lifers
the question phil lewis is afraid to answer
One quick question.
A question for those who have used Project Rachel
what is the question
new--question
Anti-choice question
Conservatives ignored soldier's assertion that he came up with armor question himself
question for the abortion haters
question about morning after pill..
=?iso-8859-1?q?Good_morning_or_good_evening_depending_upon_your_location._I_want_to_ask_you_the_most_important_question_of_your_life._Your_joy_or_sorrow_for_all_eternity_depends_upon_your_answer._The_question_is:_Are_you_saved=3F_It_is_not_a_question
=?iso-8859-1?q?Good_morning_or_good_evening_depending_upon_your_location._I_want_to_ask_you_the_most_important_question_of_your_life._Your_joy_or_sorrow_for_all_eternity_depends_upon_your_answer._The_question_is:_Are_you_saved=3F_It_is_not_a_question
Re: =?iso-8859-1?q?Good_morning_or_good_evening_depending_upon_your_location._I_want_to_ask_you_the_most_important_question_of_your_life._Your_joy_or_sorrow_for_all_eternity_depends_upon_your_answer._The_question_is:_Are_you_saved=3F_It_is_not_a_ques
 

NEWER

pg.716     pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER