Should men have "the right to choose"?

Post Reply New Topic

Yeah. . . that.

I think men and women should both share responsibility in providing or caring for the child. And for men who have a children for a second time with a second woman they should face severe penalties for creating 2 or more daddy-less kids.

However I'm not totally on the mom's side as she should have responsible expectations and not demand multitudes of money. Like I know someone who gets $900 a month in child support for one child. But hardly any of it is actually spent on the child or on rent. Mostly she spends it on herself.

I think that many of the social and behavorial problems of this new generation are caused by a feeling of abandonment by their fathers. And it doesn't help the little kids when their dads leave their mothers then the mothers hang out with other single moms and b***h about how bad "men" are. I have observed how that mentally affected the young son of one of my friends.

Before making babies people need to learn how to have a good relationship with one another instead of sleeping around and making casualties out of the children.

I think both genders should be able to have equal say in everything.

Tim

Ain't nobody at all thinking about the best interests of the child.

The only interests being considered are the egos of women who hate men and the dumbshits who believe everything they say.

The only right a father has is the right to write checks.

Take a look at the generation that's grown up since this happened. "Social problems" is a euphemism.

Welcome to feminist heaven.

The CSA in the Uk was one big morbid joke.

It was quite possible to be tapped for up to a third of your total earnings for child support. This creates a Catch 22 situation.

Afriend of mine who is remarried and supporting three children from that marriage got shafted by the courts. He pays out a third of his wages, and gets every other weekend with his daughter. So one day in 14. Because on paper his wages are high, he cannot receive legal aid. However, whilst he is paying out said child support, he cannot afford to take the matter to court. Thus he is trapped with the arbitrary decision of the court, and unable to legally fight it.

Further, the CSA was heavily biased in favour of the mother in almost all cases. It failed to take into account arrangements of a non-financial nature, and was almost completely incapable of tracking down errant mothers who did not pay, whilst crucifying fathers.

It remains to be seen if its successor is any better. I do not have faith it will be.

The problem will always be that the courts seem to believe that a father should be paying all the costs of the child, and apparently supporting the mother as well. I debate that it is fair for the father to end up shelling out for the mothers habits and shopping. If anything, the money should be held in account for the child until it matures, or failing that, be paid out in some form of vouchers, akin to milk tokens. That way mummys new shoes have to come from HER pocket, but the child can still get her shoes from the father.

hmm.
toughy.
I think...either parent has the right to TERMINATE the child if the woman has to be dragged off and sedated by court order.

I'm a woman by the way.

As well, I believe that either parent has equal obligations should it be a living child.

I think both genders should just keep it in their pants however.

So, help me out here- rent and the cost of maining the child amount to far less than nine hundred dollars a month? And if not, how do we decide which money she's spending on herself and which she's spending on the child?

Also, abandoning two kids by the same mother is less of a problem?



Agreed, though ever so much easier said than done. . .

Also, I don't think a third of an income is too much to pay for a child.

When one is actively raising a child, the amount of time/money/general resources one devotes is often much more than a third.

Men should have more rights than check writing. . .

but rights are contingent on fulfilling responsibilities.

If a woman wants out, she has options to eliminate the baby, killing it or abandonment. Both now are perfectly legal.

Once the child is conceived, the father is totally at the whim of the mother. Her choices are the only ones he can accept.

Men do have a choice though. Namely don't have intercourse with a woman. If you're really paranoid, don't even allow a woman to have your sperm. Condoms and vasectomies are choices for a man that can help prevent these babies but they are not perfect. Tough choice.

But once conception occurs. It is the responsibility of both parents to make sure the child is raised properly. Men, it is not a choice for you any longer, regardless if the woman is irresponsible. If the woman chooses to keep it, the welfare of the baby is the most important. Take responsibility, be the father.

That's just the way it is.

I agree with Ticker and Tim_Tex. I think it's terrible that a father who wants his baby to live has absolutely no say and no rights if the baby's mother decides to terminate her pregnancy and it seems in matters of custody mom always gets the kids and dad always gets stuck paying for the kids. I think the responsibility starts in the bedroom (or the car or wherever) when two people make the decision to have sex. Be prepared for the consequences, and if you're not, don't have sex. I believe people think selfishly about children. How will it affect them, not how their decisions and actions will affect the child.

Fact of the matter is, stupid exists in plentiful stores when it comes to people making babies in bad situations. Legislation aims to reduce the burden of parental stupidity on the children brought into those messes...but sadly, it often falls short.

I see where you coming from and I used to think this, it is too easy. I agree with sharing everything except the decision to terminate. I think in some cases it is selfish when one wants to keep the baby. Both pregnancy and abortion carry risk. So it is the mother ultimately that should on decide on these risks. Sometimes it is just not in the child’s interest to be born into abject poverty and to parents that are not ready to have kids.

How could it cost $900 a month to maintain a child unless you are buying multitudes of video games for them every month? My rent plus food doesn't amount to even $900 a month and I live in a high cost of living place. So how can you say a child would cost $900 a month to rent a place with another bedroom and buy a little more food? Maybe in Calif or New York, but in most places no.

Well now I'm not saying I think the man has any right to force a woman to abort. Abortion is not without risks to the mother and technically it is murder. However women should not force their ex boyfriend or exhusband to entirely support the child. Like I know moms who use all their money spending in on themselves and use only the child support for the child or even take part of the child support and spend it on themselves for clothes and new purses,etc. I know a boy whose dad pays $900 a month and the kid sleeps on a mattress on the floor and has no bedroom furniture, but you can bet the mom has a nice bedroom set and and a plasma tv.

The best thing is prevention. Don't make babies till you are married to someone and have known them long enough to determine whether they are good people or nut-cases that you don't want to spend the rest of your life with. Don't say that's hard to do. That's a bunch of B.S. Birth control is the responsibility of both sexes. Keeping your pants zipped is the best prevention there is.

Children require constant supervision and education, both of which can get very expensive and still be in the realm of reasonable.

If she's paying herself half the cost of the constant supervision she provides, that's fair.

What!? Are you saying she should get paid for babysitting her own kid!?

I'm saying that the two parents of a child should equally split the resource cost of "babysitting (their) own kid."