What Would You Think If... Posted: 01-26-07 09:44am
...It was legalized again for spouses or
boyfriends to kick their pregnant partners
in the stomach to terminate an unwanted
pregnancy?
I've been reading a lot of stories lately
on another forum I frequent about men
whose partners sabotaged their protection
(poked holes in the condoms, stopped birth
control without telling hubby/bf, removed
diaphragm, claimed infertility or
sterility, etc.), and I began to wonder if
these victims (which these men are) would
give their lying partners a swift boot to
the gut if it wouldn't be considered
assault.
I realize it sounds brutal, but think
about it from the perspective of the man
who was taking precautions to prevent
pregnancy as much as possible - some men
are not willing to give up their lives for
a kid they don't want, and some turn out
being awful and potentially neglectful
parents due to their partner's deception.
If a woman wants a baby, she can go to a
sperm bank, but many selfish b*tches want
to make sure they have a steady source of
income to support that baby, which means
roping in a sperm donor, preferably
through marriage. Why should anyone be
stuck caring for something they don't want
just because someone else wants it? How
is this fair to the men?
This is sort of along the lines of the
"roe v. Wade for men" thing, but I have
no idea how effective that's going to be
considering that 'everyone must love
babies'. Honestly, any woman who is
heartless enough to deceive the man she
loves like that deserves to be kicked in
the stomach and have the fetus destroyed.
If abortion ever gets outlawed nationwide,
we will probably see more kicking of
pregnant women anyway.
This does not mean I advocate abusing
women or pregnant women - but I do
advocate giving men deceived into
parenthood a chance to get out of their
situations by some means (i'd prefer it to
be legal rather than physical, but it's
hard to prove deception in terms of an
unwanted pregnancy). And in terms of my
hypothetical question, this would be a
privilege given to only the woman's
partner - if anyone else gave her the
boot, they would be brought up on charges
of assault, endangerment, and so forth.
Thoughts?
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4047 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 143
Thanked:13
Re: What Would You Think If... Posted: 01-26-07 14:20pm
cambion
wrote:
...It was legalized again
for spouses or boyfriends to kick their
pregnant partners in the stomach to
terminate an unwanted pregnancy?
I've been reading a lot of stories lately
on another forum I frequent about men
whose partners sabotaged their protection
(poked holes in the condoms, stopped birth
control without telling hubby/bf, removed
diaphragm, claimed infertility or
sterility, etc.), and I began to wonder if
these victims (which these men are) would
give their lying partners a swift boot to
the gut if it wouldn't be considered
assault.
I realize it sounds brutal, but think
about it from the perspective of the man
who was taking precautions to prevent
pregnancy as much as possible - some men
are not willing to give up their lives for
a kid they don't want, and some turn out
being awful and potentially neglectful
parents due to their partner's deception.
If a woman wants a baby, she can go to a
sperm bank, but many selfish b*tches want
to make sure they have a steady source of
income to support that baby, which means
roping in a sperm donor, preferably
through marriage. Why should anyone be
stuck caring for something they don't want
just because someone else wants it? How
is this fair to the
men?
cambion, thank you for this topic. The
thread "father's rights" went into this a
little as well.
I have long felt that being "pro choice"
not only meant for women, but for men as
well. In the spirit of attempting to
create equality within the sexes, I feel
that if a woman has a choice regarding her
pregnancy and potential parenting, than
the man should as well. But I have two
conflicting opinions about this, and i'm
trying to work them out.
First, I don't know how this would be
implemented, but theoretically you could
give the father the same time frame the
woman has to choose. For the sake of
keeping it simple just right here, let's
say 12 weeks (since it's 'easiest' to
obtain an abortion within this time frame
-i think). He has three months to give
up his parental/adoptive/child support
rights. He must attend mandatory
counseling so he understands what he is
doing, and then he may sign some hard and
fast document about it.
There has to be some kind of proof that
the woman has notified the man of the
pregnancy. He will not have any say in
her decision to keep/abort/adopt, but he
will have a say in his future regarding
parenting.
My second opinion is not so clear...But
it has to do with women and poverty, and
their children growing up poor. Women
clearly carry the burden of poverty in
this country. Allowing fathers the
ability to squelch their obligation of
financially paying for their offspring
will only increase women's plight. This
will be detrimental for the children as
well. I think that the basic idea of
child support stems from society's state
of mind that women are supposed to have
children, and should not be 'punished' for
doing what is natural and necessary to the
society.
I don't know which of these two opinions
of mine ethically and/or morally trumps
the other. Help!
cambion
wrote:
...This is sort of along the
lines of the "roe v. Wade for men"
thing, but I have no idea how effective
that's going to be considering that
'everyone must love babies'. Honestly,
any woman who is heartless enough to
deceive the man she loves like that
deserves to be kicked in the stomach and
have the fetus destroyed. If abortion
ever gets outlawed nationwide, we will
probably see more kicking of pregnant
women anyway.
i understand that you are not advocating
physical abuse of women, but I just want
to clarify that no woman, not to mention
the fetus (who may not be destroyed by the
act but have to live a life of
physical/mental impairment) deserves a
kick in the stomach because she deceived
her mate. She needs counseling, and he
needs a good lawyer!
|
Cambion
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 Nov 2005 Posts: 747
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 01-26-07 15:12pm
Quote:
my second opinion
is not so clear...But it has to do with
women and poverty, and their children
growing up poor. Women clearly carry the
burden of poverty in this country.
Allowing fathers the ability to squelch
their obligation of financially paying for
their offspring will only increase women's
plight. This will be detrimental for the
children as well. I think that the basic
idea of child support stems from society's
state of mind that women are supposed to
have children, and should not be
'punished' for doing what is natural and
necessary to the
society.
thanks for the reply, birch.
I'm a bit torn on the issue as well. On
one hand, children of any age should not
be forced to grow up poor and neglected
due to insufficient funds. On the other
hand, a child should not have to grow up
in a home where it's not wanted by both
parents.
I was wondering if perhaps the twelve
week-mark would be too short. What of the
women who try to be conniving and withhold
the information of their pregnancy from
their partner until around five months or
so to avoid being coerced into aborting?
What if there are suspicions of the child
not being the husband's/bf's biologically
and the man wanted a paternity test while
the fetus was still in the uterus (is
there not a certain time during the
pregnancy that is the minimum to check for
paternity...That is beyond twelve weeks)?
I think your suggestion of giving men the
power to legally sign away their parental
rights is a great idea, but perhaps twelve
weeks is a little short.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 01-26-07 16:43pm
cambion
wrote:
Quote:
my second opinion
is not so clear...But it has to do with
women and poverty, and their children
growing up poor. Women clearly carry the
burden of poverty in this country.
Allowing fathers the ability to squelch
their obligation of financially paying for
their offspring will only increase women's
plight. This will be detrimental for the
children as well. I think that the basic
idea of child support stems from society's
state of mind that women are supposed to
have children, and should not be
'punished' for doing what is natural and
necessary to the
society.
thanks for the reply, birch.
I'm a bit torn on the issue as well. On
one hand, children of any age should not
be forced to grow up poor and neglected
due to insufficient funds. On the other
hand, a child should not have to grow up
in a home where it's not wanted by both
parents.
I was wondering if perhaps the twelve
week-mark would be too short. What of
the women who try to be conniving and
withhold the information of their
pregnancy from their partner until around
five months or so to avoid being coerced
into aborting?
i think my opinion on that would be that
the woman would not be able to ask for
child support, if she was just getting
pregnnt for that purpose. But you have
something interesting in the wording
there...
I do understand the women who withold the
info, because they don't want to abort and
they don't want to be forced to. However,
along the lines of the woman who pokes
holes in condoms... She shouldn't be able
to ask for child support.
Quote:
what if there
are suspicions of the child not being the
husband's/bf's biologically and the man
wanted a paternity test while the fetus
was still in the uterus (is there not a
certain time during the pregnancy that is
the minimum to check for paternity...That
is beyond twelve weeks)? I think your
suggestion of giving men the power to
legally sign away their parental rights is
a great idea, but perhaps twelve weeks is
a little
short.
|
Jules
Moderator
Joined: 19 Aug 2006 Posts: 3795 Location: Merrie Englande, UK
Thanks: 87
Thanked:71
Posted: 01-27-07 03:35am
How would you prove that a woman had
sabotaged birth control?
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4047 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 143
Thanked:13
Posted: 01-27-07 10:41am
cambion
wrote:
Quote:
my second opinion
is not so clear...But it has to do with
women and poverty, and their children
growing up poor. Women clearly carry the
burden of poverty in this country.
Allowing fathers the ability to squelch
their obligation of financially paying for
their offspring will only increase women's
plight. This will be detrimental for the
children as well. I think that the basic
idea of child support stems from society's
state of mind that women are supposed to
have children, and should not be
'punished' for doing what is natural and
necessary to the
society.
thanks for the reply, birch.
I'm a bit torn on the issue as well. On
one hand, children of any age should not
be forced to grow up poor and neglected
due to insufficient funds. On the other
hand, a child should not have to grow up
in a home where it's not wanted by both
parents.
I was wondering if perhaps the twelve
week-mark would be too short. What of
the women who try to be conniving and
withhold the information of their
pregnancy from their partner until around
five months or so to avoid being coerced
into aborting? What if there are
suspicions of the child not being the
husband's/bf's biologically and the man
wanted a paternity test while the fetus
was still in the uterus (is there not a
certain time during the pregnancy that is
the minimum to check for paternity...That
is beyond twelve weeks)? I think your
suggestion of giving men the power to
legally sign away their parental rights is
a great idea, but perhaps twelve weeks is
a little
short.
i just felt that 12 weeks was enough time
to tell someone-you know you're pregnant
(of course there would be exceptions) and
you need to figure out what you're going
to do. I have a hard time with women who
wait five months to get abortions. The
sooner, the better, for all parties
involved.
There has so be some way to "motivate"
women towards telling the man she's
pregnant. Maybe he has to know by a
certain time in order for her to be
eligible for future child support? He
has to sign a notarized document by the
end of the first two/three months, and
then he has a couple weeks to decide?
As far as paternity tests in-utero go, I
saw a couple sites that said you can start
testing at the 10th week.
Then there is alwasy the unfortunate
situation of the woman who wants the
child, cannot afford it, and the father is
a an abusive jerk. She tells dad, he
agrees to financially support her, but
does father "priviledges" come along with
that?
There are so many different situations
it's difficult if not unfair to lay a hard
and fast rule down.
purestgreen
wrote:
how would you prove that a
woman had sabotaged birth
control?
this could be absolutely impossible, which
is why there would be a mandantory "i told
him within the certain timeframe" document
and then he has the option to make a
decision. If she didn't, no $.
|
Jules
Moderator
Joined: 19 Aug 2006 Posts: 3795 Location: Merrie Englande, UK
Thanks: 87
Thanked:71
Posted: 01-27-07 12:32pm
birch
wrote:
purestgreen
wrote:
how would you prove that a
woman had sabotaged birth
control?
this could be absolutely impossible, which
is why there would be a mandantory "i told
him within the certain timeframe" document
and then he has the option to make a
decision. If she didn't, no
$.
of course that would mean that no man
would be able to make a claim that a woman
tricked him so no woman in her right mind
would let the co-creator of her child off
the hook financially unless he was a
danger to her and the child and she wanted
nothing to do with him.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 01-27-07 13:25pm
purestgreen
wrote:
how would you prove that a
woman had sabotaged birth control?
i said those were just my opinions. But
just to humor you ...
You can look at pill cases, you can look
at condoms. I know it's not a perfect
answer and i'm not claiming it to be. I
am simply saying it is an idea.
|
Jules
Moderator
Joined: 19 Aug 2006 Posts: 3795 Location: Merrie Englande, UK
Thanks: 87
Thanked:71
Posted: 01-27-07 13:40pm
eiri
wrote:
purestgreen
wrote:
how would you prove that a
woman had sabotaged birth control?
i said those were just my opinions. But
just to humor you ...
You can look at pill cases, you can look
at condoms. I know it's not a perfect
answer and i'm not claiming it to be. I
am simply saying it is an
idea.
i wasn't asking you specifically, .Eiri,
it was a general question related to the
topic.
you are right though, the methods you
described certainly aren't perfect and
there is no way of proving it unless the
woman confesses. Therefore, there is no
way a man could ever legally force a woman
to abort on the basis that she hoodwinked
him. Besides which, such a thing is
against the woman's human rights, as much
as enforced pregnancy would be.
|
Amaria
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 11 Jan 2007 Posts: 47
Posted: 01-27-07 21:48pm
About the 12 weeks option... Men would
soon learn to dissappear off the face of
the planet after having sex with a woman,
just as some do to avoid child support....
Therefore, even if a woman had gotten
pregnant "accidentally", and tried to find
him to tell him, he hides from her for 12
weeks - voila! - he doesn't have to pay
child support!
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 01-28-07 01:53am
purestgreen
wrote:
eiri
wrote:
purestgreen
wrote:
how would you prove that a
woman had sabotaged birth control?
i said those were just my opinions.
But just to humor you ...
You can look at pill cases, you can look
at condoms. I know it's not a perfect
answer and i'm not claiming it to be.
I am simply saying it is an
idea.
i wasn't asking you specifically, .Eiri,
it was a general question related to the
topic.
you are right though, the methods you
described certainly aren't perfect and
there is no way of proving it unless the
woman confesses. Therefore, there is
no way a man could ever legally force a
woman to abort on the basis that she
hoodwinked him. Besides which, such a
thing is against the woman's human rights,
as much as enforced pregnancy would
be.
you should never be able to force someone
to abort anyway, because it is her body
and a life inside of her. I'd never meant
for that to be the implication of my
words, I simply meant that the man
wouldn't have to pay child support.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4047 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 143
Thanked:13
Posted: 01-28-07 14:53pm
amaria
wrote:
about the 12 weeks option...
Men would soon learn to dissappear off
the face of the planet after having sex
with a woman, just as some do to avoid
child support.... Therefore, even if a
woman had gotten pregnant "accidentally",
and tried to find him to tell him, he
hides from her for 12 weeks - voila! -
he doesn't have to pay child
support!
i'm not sure you understand...He has to
sign away his rghts so he doesn't have to
pay child support. It's in his best
interests to stick around.
She has to show "reasonable attempts".
If she/lawyers/law enforcement cannot find
him, then he cannot sign away his 'rights'
so he is up for paying support.
|
Amaria
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 11 Jan 2007 Posts: 47
Posted: 01-29-07 02:45am
birch
wrote:
amaria
wrote:
about the 12 weeks option...
Men would soon learn to dissappear off
the face of the planet after having sex
with a woman, just as some do to avoid
child support.... Therefore, even if a
woman had gotten pregnant "accidentally",
and tried to find him to tell him, he
hides from her for 12 weeks - voila! -
he doesn't have to pay child
support!
i'm not sure you understand...He has to
sign away his rghts so he doesn't have to
pay child support. It's in his best
interests to stick around.
She has to show "reasonable attempts".
If she/lawyers/law enforcement cannot find
him, then he cannot sign away his 'rights'
so he is up for paying
support.
no, I don't think I do understand... Do
you mean any man should be able to sign
away his rights to a child and make the
woman alone responsible for the child?
Wow! Think of all the dead beat dads who
would love that!... I'm sorry, but it's
already overly acceptable for a man to go
around "spreading his seed" and whatever
diseases he has obtained from numerous one
night stands... Something like this line
of thought would truly make this a "man's
world".
|
Meandering Away
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 06 Jul 2005 Posts: 535
Posted: 01-29-07 11:43am
amaria
wrote:
birch
wrote:
amaria
wrote:
about the 12 weeks option...
Men would soon learn to dissappear off
the face of the planet after having sex
with a woman, just as some do to avoid
child support.... Therefore, even if a
woman had gotten pregnant "accidentally",
and tried to find him to tell him, he
hides from her for 12 weeks - voila! -
he doesn't have to pay child
support!
i'm not sure you understand...He has to
sign away his rghts so he doesn't have to
pay child support. It's in his best
interests to stick around.
She has to show "reasonable attempts".
If she/lawyers/law enforcement cannot find
him, then he cannot sign away his 'rights'
so he is up for paying
support.
no, I don't think I do understand... Do
you mean any man should be able to sign
away his rights to a child and make the
woman alone responsible for the child?
Wow! Think of all the dead beat dads
who would love that!... I'm sorry, but
it's already overly acceptable for a man
to go around "spreading his seed" and
whatever diseases he has obtained from
numerous one night stands... Something
like this line of thought would truly make
this a "man's world".
what a sexist post this is, considering
that women are the paragon of virtue, so a
woman who does not wish to be a mother is
exercising choice whereas a man is a dead
beat dad, get real you sexist pig.I am
sick of hearing its a mans world, no
chance, men do not have a law in place to
make sure they get paid the same as his
work mates, even if he cannot do the job,
men have only just got the right to
paternal leave, in most cases of law a
womans word is taken over a mans, is there
a law in place so that men have the right
to bodily autonomy, no there isn't.What
are you saying that only men spread
diseases or have one night stands, go read
nancy fridays books you may get an insight
into your own sex.Btw what colour is the
sky in your world.
Ps think about this a man doesn't want
children but the woman does can he force
her to abort, no. So the womans right to
bodily autonomy overides the mans human
rights, yet he is a dead beat dad, yet if
she dosen't want it woe betide anyone who
calls her a name, pure sexist hypocrisy.
This is not the first time this subject
has come up and we always come to the same
conclusion and that is males do not have a
say whether they become a parent to pro
choice men have no choice.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4047 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 143
Thanked:13
Posted: 01-29-07 12:15pm
amaria
wrote:
no, I don't think I do understand... Do
you mean any man should be able to sign
away his rights to a child and make the
woman alone responsible for the child?
Wow! Think of all the dead beat dads
who would love that!... I'm sorry, but
it's already overly acceptable for a man
to go around "spreading his seed" and
whatever diseases he has obtained from
numerous one night stands... Something
like this line of thought would truly make
this a "man's world".
i invite you to read my initial post on
this thread. I will copy a part of it
here for your convenience:
birch
wrote:
my second opinion is not so
clear...But it has to do with women and
poverty, and their children growing up
poor. Women clearly carry the burden of
poverty in this country. Allowing fathers
the ability to squelch their obligation of
financially paying for their offspring
will only increase women's plight. This
will be detrimental for the children as
well. I think that the basic idea of
child support stems from society's state
of mind that women are supposed to have
children, and should not be 'punished' for
doing what is natural and necessary to the
society.
hope that clarifies something for you.
cowboys
wrote:
what a sexist post this is,
considering that women are the paragon of
virtue, so a woman who does not wish to be
a mother is exercising choice whereas a
man is a dead beat dad, get real you
sexist pig.I am sick of hearing its a mans
world, no chance, men do not have a law in
place to make sure they get paid the same
as his work mates, even if he cannot do
the job, men have only just got the right
to paternal leave, in most cases of law a
womans word is taken over a mans, is there
a law in place so that men have the right
to bodily autonomy, no there isn't.What
are you saying that only men spread
diseases or have one night stands, go read
nancy fridays books you may get an insight
into your own sex.Btw what colour is the
sky in your world.
Ps think about this a man doesn't want
children but the woman does can he force
her to abort, no. So the womans right to
bodily autonomy overides the mans human
rights, yet he is a dead beat dad, yet if
she dosen't want it woe betide anyone who
calls her a name, pure sexist hypocrisy.
This is not the first time this subject
has come up and we always come to the same
conclusion and that is males do not have a
say whether they become a parent to pro
choice men have no
choice.
cowboys, I invite you to read the opinion
of one prochoicer who agrees with you:
birch
wrote:
i have long felt that being
"pro choice" not only meant for women, but
for men as well. In the spirit of
attempting to create equality within the
sexes, I feel that if a woman has a choice
regarding her pregnancy and potential
parenting, than the man should as
well.
so now that we understand each other (at
least about men choosing to become
fathers), I wonder if you could help
address the needs of single mothers
raising their children in poverty. How
can we alleviate this, and help the
children who are currently born and living
in poverty, partially because of their
father's lack of involvement?
In a related note, I found this article
and thought it was interesting: (i know
it's long, sorry)
__________________________________________
_________________
from the cincinnati enquirer:
the case generated headlines - big, bold,
front-page headlines: young father fights
to save his son from being given up for
adoption by heartless mother.
The spotlight shone on glenn spraggs in
january 2006 when he held himself up as a
model father and stopped his girlfriend,
sharicka watson, from putting their son up
for adoption.
Spraggs said then that if watson didn't
want thomas, he'd fight for the boy. He'd
take the baby himself.
That never happened.
Spraggs blocked the adoption, but he never
followed through on his promises.
Instead, thomas was taken away from the
adoptive family that wanted him and
spraggs dropped his custody bid. That
forced thomas back into watson's care.
Twelve months after the headlines, spraggs
provides no child support for 13-month-old
thomas or his 2-year-old daughter, taylor,
watson said.
His only contact comes when spraggs
baby-sits the children four hours a
week.
Alone, watson struggles to raise two
children, work and get an education.
The 23-year-old winton terrace woman says
she loves her children, but when she looks
at them she can't help but think, "what
if?"
"what if" the adoption had gone through?"
"what if" thomas lived with two parents
instead of a poor single mother?
"what if" she had only a daughter to
support, a prospect that to her seems much
easier than caring for two toddlers.
"if thomas had stayed with his adoptive
family, he would have benefited a lot
more, as well as my daughter," watson
said. "we would be able to do the same
things he would be doing with his new
parents."
spraggs, 25, could not be reached for
comment. Watson doesn't have his current
telephone number. A message left at his
job was not returned.
His lawyer, ken lawson, said spraggs
dropped the matter, thinking he would get
back together with watson.
"glenn did not want to pursue the case,"
lawson said. "he didn't want to maintain
the adversarial relationship, and that's
obviously his choice."
lawson said he has had no contact with
spraggs since last spring.
Watson worried that she couldn't support
two children when she got pregnant with
thomas in march 2005.
As things stood then, spraggs wasn't
always around for her or taylor, but he
resisted talk of adoption, she said.
"i gave him a time limit, a month to show
that he was going to be responsible and
show that he was going to come and help me
with taylor so I would know he would be
there when I delivered," watson said.
Watson said she gave spraggs repeated
chances, something he never admitted when
trying to get custody of his son last
year.
Thomas was born dec. 2, 2005. The days
ticked by with no help from spraggs,
watson said.
Watson dialed adoption link and arranged
for a dayton couple to adopt thomas.
"since he acted like he didn't care and he
wasn't going to be there, I had to do what
was best for taylor and thomas," watson
said.
Watson knew she made the right decision
when she handed thomas to the couple less
than two weeks after his birth, but that
didn't make it any easier. "i cried like
I never cried before," she said.
Spraggs was angry when he stopped over and
found thomas gone, she said.
He was so upset he hired lawson. In
january 2006, he sought custody of the boy
in hamilton county juvenile court.
Agency takes back boy
with the case winding through the court
system, adoption link took thomas away
from his new parents and dropped him off
at watson's place of employment.
Hamilton county common pleas judge thomas
lipps named watson the baby's legal
parent. He said spraggs had no legal
claim to thomas because he didn't sign the
birth certificate and never married
watson.
Spraggs could take a dna test and prove
paternity if he wanted custody.
Lipps temporarily placed thomas with
watson's father, aaron rosemond.
Rosemond took spraggs' side, saying
spraggs had the right to care for his
grandson, and supported his custody bid.
A dna test proved spraggs was thomas'
father, but lawson didn't show up for an
april 4 hearing on the matter.
Then, when lawson and spraggs failed to
show up for the next hearing in may, the
case was dismissed. Custody reverted to
watson.
"i don't think it was anything about him
actually wanting custody; it was him not
wanting me to place thomas," watson
said.
At first, watson said, she cried a lot.
"now, it's like I can't even cry anymore,"
she said. "it's pretty much a done deal,
it is what it is.
"crying over it is just a waste of time,"
she said. "all I can do is better myself
and try to help my kids."
no money from dad
spraggs pays no child support.
Watson called the hamilton county
department of job and family services,
which handles child-support cases. The
agency, she said, was slow and
unhelpful.
Jeff startzman, the agency's assistant
director over child support, said a
hearing was set for last may 31.
Watson's child-support request was
dismissed when watson and spraggs didn't
show up.
Watson had to re-file the request,
starting the process from the beginning,
startzman said.
Child support for both children will be
considered during a hearing scheduled for
march 27.
Watson is frustrated. Court dates were
set within days when it came to thomas'
adoption. Now that it comes to supporting
him, the process takes months.
"i went through all of this over somebody
supposedly wanting custody, and then when
he doesn't help and I need some help with
the financial stuff, I can't get that,"
she said.
Watson said she earns less than $300 a
week in her part-time job at a discount
store.
Job options are limited, she said. She
dropped out of high school, but got her
ged in july.
In september, watson started at national
college in bond hill, where she goes three
nights a week and is working toward an
associate's degree.
She gets good grades, but until she has a
degree, good grades don't translate into a
paycheck.
Watson relies on her mother and sister to
baby-sit.
Just recently, watson said, spraggs
started baby-sitting on thursday nights, a
four-hour responsibility.
At night before she falls asleep, watson
said, she thinks about why she tried so
hard to make a relationship work with
somebody who wasn't willing to make a
commitment.
"i tried so hard to make a relationship
with somebody who wasn't willing to do it,
who is not willing to be there and be
responsible and held accountable," she
said.
She knows her choices affect her
children.
"now, i'm raising them without a good role
model," she said.
"(they have) somebody who isn't doing what
he needs to do and people who think that
that's ok," watson said. "glenn is living
around a lot of people who think that what
he does - the little that he does - is
good enough.
"they think I should be jumping up and
down, clicking my heels together, saying
'thank god I have a baby's daddy as good
as he is'," watson said.
"because some of them don't do as much for
their kids as he does, and that's sad,
because he doesn't do much."
looking back, watson said, things would be
very different if thomas had been
adopted.
"thomas would be doing better, my daughter
would be doing a lot better," she said.
"i would be in a different place
financially and emotionally. We'd all be
in different places instead of going
though all of that."
thomas turned 1 year old last month. He
had no gifts, no party, not even a cake.
no, I don't think I do understand... Do
you mean any man should be able to sign
away his rights to a child and make the
woman alone responsible for the child?
Wow! Think of all the dead beat dads
who would love that!... I'm sorry, but
it's already overly acceptable for a man
to go around "spreading his seed" and
whatever diseases he has obtained from
numerous one night stands... Something
like this line of thought would truly make
this a "man's world".
i invite you to read my initial post on
this thread. I will copy a part of it
here for your convenience:
birch
wrote:
my second opinion is not so
clear...But it has to do with women and
poverty, and their children growing up
poor. Women clearly carry the burden of
poverty in this country. Allowing
fathers the ability to squelch their
obligation of financially paying for their
offspring will only increase women's
plight. This will be detrimental for the
children as well. I think that the basic
idea of child support stems from society's
state of mind that women are supposed to
have children, and should not be
'punished' for doing what is natural and
necessary to the society.
hope that clarifies something for you.
cowboys
wrote:
what a sexist post this is,
considering that women are the paragon of
virtue, so a woman who does not wish to be
a mother is exercising choice whereas a
man is a dead beat dad, get real you
sexist pig.I am sick of hearing its a mans
world, no chance, men do not have a law in
place to make sure they get paid the same
as his work mates, even if he cannot do
the job, men have only just got the right
to paternal leave, in most cases of law a
womans word is taken over a mans, is there
a law in place so that men have the right
to bodily autonomy, no there isn't.What
are you saying that only men spread
diseases or have one night stands, go read
nancy fridays books you may get an insight
into your own sex.Btw what colour is the
sky in your world.
Ps think about this a man doesn't want
children but the woman does can he force
her to abort, no. So the womans right to
bodily autonomy overides the mans human
rights, yet he is a dead beat dad, yet if
she dosen't want it woe betide anyone who
calls her a name, pure sexist hypocrisy.
This is not the first time this subject
has come up and we always come to the same
conclusion and that is males do not have a
say whether they become a parent to pro
choice men have no
choice.
cowboys, I invite you to read the opinion
of one prochoicer who agrees with you:
birch
wrote:
i have long felt that being
"pro choice" not only meant for women, but
for men as well. In the spirit of
attempting to create equality within the
sexes, I feel that if a woman has a choice
regarding her pregnancy and potential
parenting, than the man should as
well.
so now that we understand each other (at
least about men choosing to become
fathers), I wonder if you could help
address the needs of single mothers
raising their children in poverty. How
can we alleviate this, and help the
children who are currently born and living
in poverty, partially because of their
father's lack of
involvement?
in a related note, I found this article
and thought it was interesting: (i know
it's long, sorry)
__________________________________________
_________________
from the cincinnati enquirer:
the case generated headlines - big, bold,
front-page headlines: young father fights
to save his son from being given up for
adoption by heartless mother.
The spotlight shone on glenn spraggs in
january 2006 when he held himself up as a
model father and stopped his girlfriend,
sharicka watson, from putting their son up
for adoption.
Spraggs said then that if watson didn't
want thomas, he'd fight for the boy.
He'd take the baby himself.
That never happened.
Spraggs blocked the adoption, but he never
followed through on his promises.
Instead, thomas was taken away from the
adoptive family that wanted him and
spraggs dropped his custody bid. That
forced thomas back into watson's care.
Twelve months after the headlines, spraggs
provides no child support for 13-month-old
thomas or his 2-year-old daughter, taylor,
watson said.
His only contact comes when spraggs
baby-sits the children four hours a
week.
Alone, watson struggles to raise two
children, work and get an education.
The 23-year-old winton terrace woman says
she loves her children, but when she looks
at them she can't help but think, "what
if?"
"what if" the adoption had gone through?"
"what if" thomas lived with two parents
instead of a poor single mother?
"what if" she had only a daughter to
support, a prospect that to her seems much
easier than caring for two toddlers.
"if thomas had stayed with his adoptive
family, he would have benefited a lot
more, as well as my daughter," watson
said. "we would be able to do the same
things he would be doing with his new
parents."
spraggs, 25, could not be reached for
comment. Watson doesn't have his current
telephone number. A message left at his
job was not returned.
His lawyer, ken lawson, said spraggs
dropped the matter, thinking he would get
back together with watson.
"glenn did not want to pursue the case,"
lawson said. "he didn't want to maintain
the adversarial relationship, and that's
obviously his choice."
lawson said he has had no contact with
spraggs since last spring.
Watson worried that she couldn't support
two children when she got pregnant with
thomas in march 2005.
As things stood then, spraggs wasn't
always around for her or taylor, but he
resisted talk of adoption, she said.
"i gave him a time limit, a month to show
that he was going to be responsible and
show that he was going to come and help me
with taylor so I would know he would be
there when I delivered," watson said.
Watson said she gave spraggs repeated
chances, something he never admitted when
trying to get custody of his son last
year.
Thomas was born dec. 2, 2005. The days
ticked by with no help from spraggs,
watson said.
Watson dialed adoption link and arranged
for a dayton couple to adopt thomas.
"since he acted like he didn't care and he
wasn't going to be there, I had to do what
was best for taylor and thomas," watson
said.
Watson knew she made the right decision
when she handed thomas to the couple less
than two weeks after his birth, but that
didn't make it any easier. "i cried like
I never cried before," she said.
Spraggs was angry when he stopped over and
found thomas gone, she said.
He was so upset he hired lawson. In
january 2006, he sought custody of the boy
in hamilton county juvenile court.
Agency takes back boy
with the case winding through the court
system, adoption link took thomas away
from his new parents and dropped him off
at watson's place of employment.
Hamilton county common pleas judge thomas
lipps named watson the baby's legal
parent. He said spraggs had no legal
claim to thomas because he didn't sign the
birth certificate and never married
watson.
Spraggs could take a dna test and prove
paternity if he wanted custody.
Lipps temporarily placed thomas with
watson's father, aaron rosemond.
Rosemond took spraggs' side, saying
spraggs had the right to care for his
grandson, and supported his custody bid.
A dna test proved spraggs was thomas'
father, but lawson didn't show up for an
april 4 hearing on the matter.
Then, when lawson and spraggs failed to
show up for the next hearing in may, the
case was dismissed. Custody reverted to
watson.
"i don't think it was anything about him
actually wanting custody; it was him not
wanting me to place thomas," watson
said.
At first, watson said, she cried a lot.
"now, it's like I can't even cry anymore,"
she said. "it's pretty much a done deal,
it is what it is.
"crying over it is just a waste of time,"
she said. "all I can do is better myself
and try to help my kids."
no money from dad
spraggs pays no child support.
Watson called the hamilton county
department of job and family services,
which handles child-support cases. The
agency, she said, was slow and
unhelpful.
Jeff startzman, the agency's assistant
director over child support, said a
hearing was set for last may 31.
Watson's child-support request was
dismissed when watson and spraggs didn't
show up.
Watson had to re-file the request,
starting the process from the beginning,
startzman said.
Child support for both children will be
considered during a hearing scheduled for
march 27.
Watson is frustrated. Court dates were
set within days when it came to thomas'
adoption. Now that it comes to
supporting him, the process takes
months.
"i went through all of this over somebody
supposedly wanting custody, and then when
he doesn't help and I need some help with
the financial stuff, I can't get that,"
she said.
Watson said she earns less than $300 a
week in her part-time job at a discount
store.
Job options are limited, she said. She
dropped out of high school, but got her
ged in july.
In september, watson started at national
college in bond hill, where she goes three
nights a week and is working toward an
associate's degree.
She gets good grades, but until she has a
degree, good grades don't translate into a
paycheck.
Watson relies on her mother and sister to
baby-sit.
Just recently, watson said, spraggs
started baby-sitting on thursday nights, a
four-hour responsibility.
At night before she falls asleep, watson
said, she thinks about why she tried so
hard to make a relationship work with
somebody who wasn't willing to make a
commitment.
"i tried so hard to make a relationship
with somebody who wasn't willing to do it,
who is not willing to be there and be
responsible and held accountable," she
said.
She knows her choices affect her
children.
"now, i'm raising them without a good role
model," she said.
"(they have) somebody who isn't doing what
he needs to do and people who think that
that's ok," watson said. "glenn is
living around a lot of people who think
that what he does - the little that he
does - is good enough.
"they think I should be jumping up and
down, clicking my heels together, saying
'thank god I have a baby's daddy as good
as he is'," watson said.
"because some of them don't do as much for
their kids as he does, and that's sad,
because he doesn't do much."
looking back, watson said, things would be
very different if thomas had been
adopted.
"thomas would be doing better, my daughter
would be doing a lot better," she said.
"i would be in a different place
financially and emotionally. We'd all be
in different places instead of going
though all of that."
thomas turned 1 year old last month. He
had no gifts, no party, not even a cake.
thanx for the reply I will answer proper
when I get a new keyboard I am using
windows virtual keyboard and its evil lol
my old one died yesterday an I cant find
my spare one.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 01-29-07 13:57pm
amaria
wrote:
birch
wrote:
amaria
wrote:
about the 12 weeks option...
Men would soon learn to dissappear
off the face of the planet after having
sex with a woman, just as some do to avoid
child support.... Therefore, even if
a woman had gotten pregnant
"accidentally", and tried to find him to
tell him, he hides from her for 12 weeks -
voila! - he doesn't have to pay child
support!
i'm not sure you understand...He has to
sign away his rghts so he doesn't have to
pay child support. It's in his best
interests to stick around.
She has to show "reasonable attempts".
If she/lawyers/law enforcement cannot
find him, then he cannot sign away his
'rights' so he is up for paying
support.
no, I don't think I do understand... Do
you mean any man should be able to sign
away his rights to a child and make the
woman alone responsible for the child?
Wow! Think of all the dead beat dads
who would love that!... I'm sorry, but
it's already overly acceptable for a man
to go around "spreading his seed" and
whatever diseases he has obtained from
numerous one night stands... Something
like this line of thought would truly make
this a "man's world".
it's just a comment to how a woman can
abort without the man knowing, so why
should he always have to be
responsible for the kid if she wants child
support? He can't abort it since it's
not in his body, but he might if he could.
So instead, he can sign away his
rights.
It's a reaction to violent feminism that
tries to put all the repsonsibility of
pregnancy on the male, yet gives all
responsibility of reacting to it to the
female (because it's her body!!), but give
him no chance to opt out if she keeps it -
because it's only his fault she's preggers.
I think it's totally unfair. I know
that's a simplification, but I hope you
see the point.
"man makes girl preggger! She can decide
to keep or not, man have no choice since
he's stupid and just wants to control
her!"
i think the choice for him to opt out is a
good one, because he's not controlling her
at all, he's controlling himself.
Forcing him to pay child support is just
like forcing a woman to abort or give
birth. She doesn't want to, and birth
could adversely affect her life.
Think it sounds callous to say "paying
child support could ruin a man's life?"
just remember that pro-life considers
"giving birth could ruin her life!" to
sound just as callous.
It'll make women actually care about brith
control huh? I know they already do.
But maybe men will care too for once.
Also, there'd have to be stipulations for
rape and/or coercion, you know like "you
love me so you won't make me use a condom
right?" that dude would totally still have
to pay child support.
Conversely, the sabatoging woman couldn't
ask for child support no matter what; the
man would get the chance to voluntarily do
it.
Paying child support is right in some
cases, but not all; that's all i'm
saying.
In response to the story above:
once the man opted out, it would be
permanant. He couldn't come back and say
he wanted the child. I also feel the
system needs working on, and that
irresponsible people should be more
thoughroully investigated. It's obvious
the jury didn't know a damn thing about
that man when they agreed with him to halt
the adoption. I would have voted against
him. People think it's important for
babies to be with their "real" parents...
I think it's better for them to be with
parents that are real, and who can provide
for them. My sympathies go out to that
woman.
That man should be arrested for reckless
endangerment of his child. He wanted
responsibility, well, now he should be
forced to take it. But he will never get
his hands on that child, he doesn't
deserve the boy. He should be forced to
pay half of everything he earns, to make
that kid happy. What a loser.
|
Amaria
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 11 Jan 2007 Posts: 47
Posted: 01-29-07 14:44pm
I guess it all depends on the
pro-choicer's opinion (which, as I have
now learned, is many varied), but I
thought the whole pro-choice thing was
about it is her body-her choice... Since
he is not supporting the life functions of
the baby/fetus with his body, he gets no
choice.
Since it now seems to be, a lifestyle
choice (financialy and responsibility), it
seems wrong to say she should even have
the choice of abortion without the
consent/mutual agreement of the father.
Do you see what I am saying? It seems
to me, it is either about her body/her
choice, and the man has no rights or about
a lifestyle choice, and the man also has
every right to inforce his decision.
(cowboys, I do not see how my reply was
any more sexist than speaking of a man
being able to physically abuse a woman
into an abortion. There are "dead beat
dads" out there, and there are men who go
from one night stand to one night stand...
I never said women don't... Just that
it is more socially acceptable for men.
- men are called things like "players"
[like it is all just a game] and women are
called "sl*ts", for the same exact
behavior.)
|
Meandering Away
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 06 Jul 2005 Posts: 535
Posted: 01-29-07 17:06pm
Quote:
"dead beat
dads"
please explain why a man who does not want
a child is a dead beat dad where as a
woman is pro choice
Last edited by Meandering Away on 01-29-07 18:25pm; edited 2 times in total
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 01-29-07 17:08pm
[quote="amaria"]i guess it all depends on
the pro-choicer's opinion (which, as I
have now learned, is many varied), but I
thought the whole pro-choice thing was
about it is her body-her choice...
Since he is not supporting the life
functions of the baby/fetus with his body,
he gets no choice.[quote]
that's the thing... It is her body , her
choice. However, do you think it is fair
that every man who is half the cause of an
accidental pregnancy must pay child
support if the woman choses to give
birth?
Quote:
since it now
seems to be, a lifestyle choice
(financialy and responsibility), it seems
wrong to say she should even have the
choice of abortion without the
consent/mutual agreement of the
father.
if they are not married, there is nothing
bidning him to that baby. If he wants to
care for it, then I actually think he
should have the option to be the adopting
parent after birth, and the woman signs it
away as usual with adoption. I don't know
why this doesn't happen more often. It
seems most men don't want a child any more
than the women who abort do.
Quote:
do you see what I
am saying? It seems to me, it is either
about her body/her choice, and the man has
no rights or about a lifestyle choice, and
the man also has every right to inforce
his decision.
well the thing is, if he choses to not be
the father, that has nothing to do with
her body or her lifestyle. Him signing
away his rights to that child has
absolutely nothing to do with her body.
Quote:
(cowboys, I do
not see how my reply was any more sexist
than speaking of a man being able to
physically abuse a woman into an abortion.
There are "dead beat dads" out there,
and there are men who go from one night
stand to one night stand... I never
said women don't... Just that it is
more socially acceptable for men.
good point.
Quote:
- men are called
things like "players" [like it is all just
a game] and women are called "sl*ts", for
the same exact
behavior.)
...
