Drea

Thanks Angus I was thinkin' "Stubborn Old People" or something like that

"Insulting the integrity..." You mean me lumping you in with weak women? I did not say "guyser you are an idiot". I did not insult you personally. In almost every post in this thread you have insulted me directly. What does SOP stand for? While I may insult your so-called integrity.... you flat out insult. Directly. Personally. And I am still wondering about that injunction before birth... Cheers! Edited to add: It's funny how you are the one who can't get over the anger, yet the one who gets insults thrown at them is forgiving.... funny isn't it? I never stay angry very long. Life is far too short to remain in an angry state.

Stop insulting me please. Thank you in advance. Cheers! Drea

Life isn't fair. I will be the first to admit that we have yet to reach true equality between the sexes and that life is not fair for women because they are the ones to bear the burden of choosing what to do with a pregnancy. But that does not mean that women are walking wombs and men are walking wallets. As human beings, we are much more than that. I don't have time now, but maybe over the weekend I will try to find some stats... just check out some father's rights forums/websites. It's a real eye-opener. Until I got involved in the case stated earlier, I had no idea how courts treat men or how difficult it is for a man to obtain custody (even when the mother is considered unfit).

Well the Black Dog has spoken. Boy was I wrong! I can't believe it -- I am going to call my lawyer and see if I can get money out of my son's father. Never mind that he makes 50% of what I make -- he frigging owes his kid. Rather than worrying about whether or not he can feed the four children that live with him -- I think he should buck up -- after all he gave the child 50% of his DNA so he owes me bigtime. And him paying money will improve their relationship exponentially! Suddenly my son will have a father who "cares", who "wants" to come for his birthdays... Wow... if only I would have known this 14 years ago! Black Dog, where was your sage advice when I needed it!? /sarcasm Black Dog -- what about cases such as the above example? Of course none of you will even mention it because it doesn't fit in your perfect pink world of good mommies and bad daddies. You are all so worried about the child yet never mention that money does not replace a loving parent. And many many women purposefully keep the father out of the child's life (except for his money). Family court is not fair to men so why on earth should life be fair to women? If women want equality, they should step up to the plate IMO.

bumped to see if anyone can respond to the questions I posed, sans *insults... *tis a challenge...! But I just know you can do it!

Dig them up then. I do not believe I "incited" hatred towards anyone. Of course there are some that think that disagreeing or criticism is hate speech. Those people are part of the problem not the solution.

But one should not be able to incite hatred under the guise of free speech. There must be a line drawn.

Are you still angry? I got over it as the tone of my post indicates (non insulting to anyone including you). So it would be great if you could do the same. Sorry Guyser, then I am unfamiliar with injunctions before birth. If you would explain, perhaps I would understand. You can breathe easy... I am a marketing agent. But I do expect that some would think this type of case would mean nothing as it paints the female in a bad light. The fact is that many men have had similar experiences. What are your thoughts on the case I described? Would the child and father have been better off if never introduced to one another? By the way, the child support payments have been lowered to $235/month. The $400 was an agreement the male and female came to... but the courts determined the new amount. How much "fatherly love" does that $235/month buy that little girl?

You must have missed my post about that one case. It's kind of long but it's an easy read. As I stated earlier, I believe that child support should occur in some (but not all) cases. Not at all. But the woman who shows up years later... why? Why not tell the father right away? Why not have him involved immediately? Unless she didn't want him involved in the first place but she "changed" her mind or otherwise found out it was more difficult than she had thought? In the case example I pointed out that the male was happy to find out he had a daughter and more than pleased to help raise her, monetarily and emotionally. But when it didn't go the way the female wanted she screamed "child abuse!" and got the courts to side with her. So for the little girl's first 9 months of life, the female was ok with raising her on her own. Then three years later she is back to being able to raise the child on her own and ruins the father's life (sex abuse accusations will do that). Now the little girl believes that her father sexually abused her (her life ruined too?). Both her and her father would have been better off if the female had simply not told him about her. By the way, it is the rare man that will tell you that family court is fair to fathers.

An injunction does nothing when the judge believes the woman's accusations. Case in point: - Female comes to male with 11 month old baby girl. - Female and male have not seen one another for 20 months. (had been together one weekend) - Male gladly accepts the fact that he has a daughter. Female and male agree to visitation and $400 per month child support. - Happy every-second-weekend visits go on for two years. - One Sunday little girl cries and hugs her daddy "I wanna stay wiff my daaaaddddy!" she wails as female tries to take her home. - Two weeks later male tries to pick up child but is denied. Female says "go talk to social services" - Male goes to social services and is told that he cannot see child because he sexually abused her. - Male goes to police to ask them to investigate. - Stops child support payments. - Police investigate* find accusations unfounded. (I read the transcripts and female was very angry with male) - Child gets taken away from mother (see below) - Male goes back to court. - Court stayed for one year. - One year later male goes back to court. Judge says "you can see child on supervised visits if you agree to go for treatment". - Male refuses supervised visits and treatment on the basis that the RCMP found the accusation of sexual abuse to be false. - Male gets wages garnisheed. - Male catches up with payments. - Male calls lawyer. Lawyer says the judge's decision stands. *it gets much more convoluted than this point form list. In the transcripts I read that the female was found to be living with a convicted pedophile and social services had taken the child. Female cried her eyes out in court saying "I left the pedophile" as is promptly given full custody of the child. This man would have been so much better off if he had not known of his child's existence until she was old enough to find him. And this is just ONE case of many. So with my personal experience, and the cases I have reviewed -- my opinion stands. It is a single woman's responsibility to ensure she does not get pregnant. And if she does she should do the right thing for herself and her child (if she decides to keep it).

What I've been saying is that a woman has many many more birthcontrol choices than a man. Men's Birthcontrol options: Abstinance Condoms Vasectomy After pregnancy choices for men: None Women's Birthcontrol options: Abstinance Vaginal Condoms Sterilization The Pill The Patch The Shot IUD Sponge Rhythm Method After pregnancy choices for women: Morning After Pill Abortion Give up for adoption Keep Men simply don't have the choices that women have and therefor their culpability should be less than the woman's. That's all I'm saying. I'm all for supporting people who need help, just not those who won't help themselves or don't take responsibilty for their actions.

I believe in taking responsibility for one's actions. Obviously you two don't. Obviously you two think that adult women shouldn't be responsible for their actions. Perhaps you believe that women should not be "allowed" to make the decision to keep, give up or abort. Should the clergy make that decision for them? The government? Their brothers? Fathers? Obviously you believe women are too weak to take care of themselves or their children. And I do not see how your failures as women are my problem. A single woman who meets a single man at a bar and ends up pregnant is fully responsible for that pregnancy and if a child results. Why can you two not understand this very simple concept. And obviously you live in a very sheltered world and have never seen a man's life go down the crapper financially because he has to support children he never wanted. How naive of you both. It is all about the woman as she is the one who decides. Again, this is a very simple concept...

Injunction: …Ban …Order …Command …Ruling …Sanction …Embargo …Restriction … what do you really mean guyser? is this a beat-around-the-bush way of saying you are trying to get me "banned"?

I never said I was against ALL child support -- just for one night stands. If a couple has a relationship and then she gets pregnant, of course they should discuss it. Yes I am. Thanks! Implied what consent? Did he "consent" to me keeping the child? Did he "consent" to me aborting it? No. He implied/consented nothing as it was not his decision to make. Do you not see how this works? ... I will spell it out for you. *sigh* 1. woman gets pregnant 2. woman decides to keep, give up or abort. 3. man has no say in this decision making process 4. duh How what works? Human being's plumbing? what? Do you need a lesson in the birds and the bees hon? ...The man sticks his organ into a woman and sometimes it makes the woman's tummy grow big. But only if she decides she wants a big tummy... she doesn't have to if she doesn't want to. No, hon, the man only decides to put the organ in, all other decisions are made by the woman.

Yessiree From personal experience. I got pregnant. Told the fellow I was keeping it no matter what he thought. He was not interested in a relationship with his child. I never went after child support as I believed it was MY responsibility to raise the child as it was MY decision to keep him and it was MY fault I got pregnant. I was not on birthcontrol. I am the first one to admit that it was a mistake -- the best mistake I've ever made. And yes I raised him on my own until I met his stepfather eight years ago. So yes, dear arguers, I have lived this. What, do you believe women are so weak that they cannot do it on their own? Well boohoo for the weak women. I have never denied access... on the contrary I have tried to help father and son build a relationship. When the father makes promises (See you on your birthday!) and then doesn’t show up… what can one do but move on for the sake of the child. Go ahead and "slam" me. (we know you waaaaannnna!) I did the right thing. Oh, and when I got pregnant, I and I alone had the choice whether to abort, give up or keep -- his "father" had no say in it at all.

How many times am I supposed to search for her words? Iin the last thread I had to go back and copy and paste her words twice... I am not doing it again... t-o-u-g-h luck. I guess some people simply forget what they type -- and that is my problem in what way exactly? No matter what some people will argue -- If I say the sky is blue, others will say it is cyan... Don't cry over it for pete sake.

not my fault your memory isn't what it used to be. Sheesh.

I was being entirely facetious BD. In another thread AW had commented on how men should not be held responsible when faced with a willing partner... and now she is saying the opposite... I was just calling her on it. I have advocated for men (liase with lawyers, family maintenance) regarding family issues. Seems men get the short end of the stick in family maintenance agreements.

Oh reeeeeaaaalllly? But if they are confronted by someone who "begs for it", who could blame them right?

Whatever. Women never get pregnant on purpose... Men always want babies with their Saturday night "chew your arm off dates"... Right AW? The thread is about abortion. Men do not have a choice, women do. If a woman doesn't want the child, she can abort or give it up. What can the man do if he doesn't want the child?

But she didn't seem to "need" or want the father in the first place so why come to him later. She made her bed (by having the child without telling him) and now she can lay in it. Weird? What is weird about men not paying for 20 years for a one-nighter? Why don't you just call men "wallets" and be done with it -- that's all you believe they are put on this planet for is to pay for irresponsible women. (all those who get pregnant from a one nighter are irresponsible -- unless of course their plan is to find a sperm donor and raise the child alone. Huh? I don't think the man who takes a woman home from the bar really wants to have a baby. You sound like my g/friend's mom from years ago "If she didn't want a baby, what was she doing screwing?" The woman is ultimately responsible if she gets pregnant. It's her body. It's her choice. All the guy can do is pray the condom works and pray that if it doesn't, the woman just goes away quietly to have an abortion or raise her mistake on her own. Of course, but in the beginning she made the choice to keep it without a father. And now that times are tough he has to pay...? Untrue. Many times a woman cries "abuse" and the courts believe her. How does a weekend father wipe his 2 year old daughter's ass without touching it? The police ask "did daddy touch your bum?" Happens more often than you'd think. That is why father's advocacy exists. You see the world through beautiful rose coloured glasses. Must be a lovely veiw.

We are toast. All of us. Because of the idiot sticks at America's helm. If Hillary wins, the Dems will lead -- if Obama wins, the Repubs will lead. Either way Iran is going to be nuked. Hillary is the sameoldsameold and Obama is just too new (too young, too black, too Muslim, too smooth, too "groupielike" popular and too centrist to be elected by Americans. no matter who is elected, the US is so screwed -- and by default so are we.

edited to answer AW's questions If a woman does not tell him for months or years, why didn't she in the first place? Why is she all of a sudden in need of money? She was fine at first, so what happened to cause her to suddenly need the support of the man? Sorry to answer your question with another question, but that's the way it goes Many men are not "allowed" to see their children for the reasons I stated already. Should we punish men for having sex with willing (old enough and unprotected) women? The thread is about abortion. A man has no say in whether or not his fetus is aborted so why should he have to pay if she decides to keep it -- he does not get to make this decision, she does. She has all the power to destroy his life forever. She chooses to have a child and put this burden upon herself. He has two choices -- abstaining from sex or using a condom. Her choices are multitude: Abstinance, The Pill, Vaginal Condom, Sponge, Birth Control Patch, Birth Control Shot, Rhythm Method, IUD, Morning After Pill, Abortion. And if a grown woman is too stupid to use these methods (or combination of) then she really should suck it up and do the responsible thing -- whether that be aborting the child or keeping it -- her mistake, her decision.

He cannot choose whether to abort or not. So he should not be "50% responsible" -- keeping the child is not his choice, but hers and hers alone even though he played a part in the creation of it. Condoms break or fall off and there are no other temporary methods available for men at this point in time. A vasectomy for a 25 year old guy seems a tad harsh IMO.