Quote From: alleygSex is fun, and sex makes babies. If you are really opposed to having children, then you should not be having sex.
Yes, women have alot of power. We put out or not. We abort or not. I understand how that can seem terribly unfair. But here's the flip side. We carry the baby. We loose bone and blood for them We sit up at night while they cry. We take lesser jobs so we can spend time with them.
Men do none of these things. I have been in a situation where I was on the pill and got pregnant anyhow. I chose to keep my son, how could i not, the creator himself chose me to raise him. I was young and poor and had to take state health insurance (medicaid).
To get the medicaide, I had to tell who the father was, even though he didn't want anything to do with us. I know for a fact that he has a support order against him that he isn't paying.
BUT THAT ISN"T THE POINT
The point is what is best for the baby. I have a child, that fact alters my life permanetly, If the guy has to pay a little child support, then so be it. But if he was so opposed to being a father, he should have gotten himself fixed. Its a quick and easy operation done in an out patient setting.
I have never seen a more stereotypical response in all my life.
For the record, men do not carry the child but they do "sacrifice" when a baby is on the way. I would suggest you open your eyes to that fact. While the men surrounding you may not do this does not make that the reality for others.
As for staying up late with baby, I did that with my children while my wife slept. As for taking a lesser job to spend time with the child, this is a relative decision that each man and woman makes. many men would love to quit their job so they could spend time with their kids, I know I would. however, milk doesn't appear in the fridge by magic. Fact is that I am jealous of the social freedom women have to not work and stay home with the kids. Men don't enjoy that freedom. Do it and people look at you as if there is something wrong with you. Men are "supposed to" earn the money for the family, even if the wife makes enough to support them giving him the freedom to stay home with the kids.
As for the child support, you are right, that isn't the point, especially given the fact that non-custodial mothers are ten times more likely to be a deadbeat parent than non-custodial fathers. They are also treated more leniently when taken to court for non-payment.
So you say the point is "what's best for the baby". Really? Is that really the point? I don't think so. Case in point is the way in which child support is determined. For instance, a woman is put through college by her husband who is not a college grad and therefor makes less money than she does after she attains a job after graduation. They have two kids and a few years later, after engaging in an affair with a colleague, she decides to divorce her husband and marry her lover. She wins custody and though her and her new husband make far more money than her ex husband, the screws are put to him based solely on his income.
He then meets a genuinely good woman who looks past the fact that he has to pay this child support. They get married and have a child. Times are tough so he takes on not one extra job but two. He works as a roofer during the day, bar tends at night and works in a convenience store on weekends. he works a lot of hours per week.
His child support is then recalculated based on his total income from all 3 jobs. Keep in mind that she didn't even need a single dime of child support in the first place. Keep in mind that he took on the extra jobs to improve the life of the woman and child living in his home. keep in mind that even this wouldn't raise their standard of living to anything even close to what his ex-wife and two children enjoy.
Welcome to the life of my best friend. While his wife never wears clothes that are a year old, always has perfect manicured nails and perfect hair, while she always drives a Mercedes no older than 3 years old, lives in a lavish new construction home, etc... My friend can barely afford to keep his clunker running, wheres thrift store jeans and T-shirts and lives in a shoddy small two bedroom apartment in a bad part of town. This all that he and his wife who also works can afford.
What is best for their child? personally I think the court should look at the situations that both children live in and make adjustments as needed to improve the life of a child if they can?
My friend has two girls with his ex and a boy with his present wife. The boy lives a drastically different lifestyle than his half sisters. When they come over, they make fun of him because he isn't wearing the latest designer clothes and shoes. While they wear new looking Reebok's, he wears brand X from Payless shoes. They think this is funny. They question why they are having sloppy joes on Friday instead of steak because they always have steak at "mom & dad's" house.
To add insult to injury, the mom let's them pick out expensive things such as bikes. Yes I witnessed this. They decide what they want, then the mom tells them to approach their dad to by it for them. Oddly, he has to tell them that he can't afford $500.00 for two bicycles for them. So the mom then "come though" and buys it for them.
Again, what is best for the children? Do these girls really need $500.00 bicycles while their half brother doesn't even have one for lack of money? Do they need child support to buy them Reebok's that mom can afford without the child support while the boy's mom and dad wonder how bills will get paid?
No, lady you are dead wrong, the real point is that groups like NOW are strong organizations that fight for the rights of women, not the child. Men enjoy no such political organization to be a balancing factor. Men's groups are fractured because men are not good followers. They start their own small organization instead of all of them joining one large organization. So now can get things done for women unopposed.
Think of it like two people getting divorced and only one has an attorney. Think of it like only having one strong political party while the population is equally split between republican and Democrat.
Simple fact, is the most intelligent part of your post was an acknowledgment in passing that things are not fair.
(Original Air Date: 04/21/06) Being a parent is hard enough, but what happens when Mom and Dad can't agree on how many kids to have, how to raise 'em and how to get ‘em to sleep? Sometimes, it can lead to an all-out baby war! Matt's baby battle ended up in front of a judge and made headlines. He was ordered to pay child support for the baby he had with his ex-girlfriend, but he says he shouldn't have to cough up the money because she told him she wasn't able to get pregnant, and he told her he didn't want to be a father. He, his attorney, and the director of the National Center for Men discuss the lawsuit they filed, known as “Roe v. Wade for Men,” arguing that men should have a constitutional right to avoid fatherhood. Next, Dan says even though he and his wife, Lisa, already have four children, he wants just one more. Lisa has been pregnant on and off for 11 years and says she's closed for baby business. Will Dr. Phil help Dan see Lisa's point that four is enough? Then, a frustrated husband is camping out on the roof of his house and living in a tent. He refuses to go back to his bedroom until his wife moves their kids out of their bed and starts paying more attention to him. Can Dr. Phil get him to come down the ladder? Plus, a sleep expert has a simple method for getting your child to sleep through the night. See the plan in action! Share advice and talk about the show here.
