Men Abortion and Choice - Page 26

DanaC · 08-20-2007, 10:25 PM

Bizarre that she gets alimony off you if youhave the kids.

I know the system is fucked. Both here and over there. Mostly things stay out of the CSA unless the mother is claiming benefits of some kind, or if one or the other party ask fo rthem to be involved (I think is how it works). Usually things are decided through the courts instead. But even though they are usually fairer they still aren't entirely fair.

For example, I have a friend, D, who continues to pay alimony to his ex-wife as his contribution to the costs of raising his son and also as a recognition of the time she took out from her career to be a full time mum. He has done so since they first started divorce proceedings nearly 10 years ago, throughout the four years of strung out divorce and on through the five years since that was finalised. Kid's now just turned 17.

On the surface of it that sounds quite fair. Except that she earns significantly more than he does, because she's a fairly senior teacher (she may even be a headteacher, I'm not sure) whilst his social work payscale froze for several years because he went into union work. So, whilst he is earning less, driving a shit little car and going into debt in order to buy a season ticket for their team for him and his son, she's living a much easier life, having, as far as I can tell, been barely inconvenienced in her career by the two or three years she spent at home.

At the same time, I had a colleague a couple of years back whose abusive ex managed to secure visitation rights to the children and she had to wave them off in the car twice a week with a man she couldn't really trust with their safety. Why did the court not take her fears seriously? Because she was a housewife and he was a businessman, imo.

The truth is it's very difficult to get anything like a fair and amicable settlement unless both parties are trying to come to such a thing. The problem with an adversarial system is that it presupposes a winner and a loser.

yesman065 · 08-20-2007, 10:26 PM

thanks rk, but it is more than ok - I know that I am doing the right, just and morally correct thing in this situation - I have faith that all will work out in the end. It usually does.

Yeah Dana - its a shame that a system had to be designed so that a friggin father is compelled to take care of his own kids. I cannot fathom that level of irrisponsibility - even though I see it everytime I go to the domestic relations office.

08-20-2007, 10:27 PM

The kids were adults.

08-20-2007, 11:03 PM

There is an important quote in here about excusing his actions as "temper" or "maleness" and "taming/civilizing him to find the prince within being our (females) job".
Hmmmmmm?

DanaC · 08-21-2007, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Yeah Dana - its a shame that a system had to be designed so that a friggin father is compelled to take care of his own kids. I cannot fathom that level of irrisponsibility - even though I see it everytime I go to the domestic relations office.

In fairness to men, they don't have a monopoly on irresponsibility. I think it's just that actually carrying the child kind of concentrates the female's mind a little to the new responsibility. We (females) have the help of a bunch of very powerful hormones which guide the maternal instincts, unless you happen to be one of those poor lasses who don't bond with their baby.

xoxoxoBruce · 08-21-2007, 03:51 PM

Hormones and a corrupt legal system.

DanaC · 08-21-2007, 03:57 PM

What has a corrupt legal system got to do with a woman wanting to take care of her baby?

xoxoxoBruce · 08-22-2007, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC

What has a corrupt legal system got to do with a woman wanting to take care of her baby?

The corrupt legal system decides who must support her efforts, whether they want to or not.

08-21-2007, 04:49 PM

As already stated, if a man wants to "abort" his responsibilities to an unwanted situation he should be allowed to... no no problem.
It's all the mother's choice now, she is in COMPLETE control and that is the way it is supposed to be, right?
The man is just the sperm donor.

08-22-2007, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

As already stated, if a man wants to "abort" his responsibilities to an unwanted situation he should be allowed to... no no problem.
It's all the mother's choice now, she is in COMPLETE control and that is the way it is supposed to be, right?
The man is just the sperm donor.

BTW, I am making a point... I don't agree with this at all, once two people make a baby it is their job to care for it.

9th Engineer · 08-22-2007, 11:21 AM

Why are these women carrying kids to term that they can't pay for who have been fathered by deadbeats? 3/4 of the entire point of legal abortion is avoiding this shit.

bluecuracao · 08-22-2007, 12:44 PM

Because they can't afford to pay for abortions, maybe?

TheMercenary · 08-24-2007, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

Why are these women carrying kids to term that they can't pay for who have been fathered by deadbeats? 3/4 of the entire point of legal abortion is avoiding this shit.

The other thing is that we have complete cultures of women now believing that having the baby is more important than having the father, or any father of any of their 4 kids from different fathers, not being involved and that has completely acceptable.

Cicero · 08-24-2007, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

The other thing is that we have complete cultures of women now believing that having the baby is more important than having the father, or any father of any of their 4 kids from different fathers, not being involved and that has completely acceptable.

"Complete Cultures of Women?" Weird.

Last I heard the baby is more important. Or is that just me?

I'm beginning to believe that some people around here only believe in a woman's right to be blamed for any occurence. As long as it is conveniently applied to everything that is unholy.

What a smack in the face Merc....A lot of women are abandoned or have to leave with their kids because of violence....and you accuse them of making a poor choices. This is really insulting Merc.

DanaC · 08-22-2007, 04:55 AM

yes indeed. But the point that Yesman had raised was the fact that he has encountered a lot of men who don't want to step up and he seemed disgusted that enough men don't want to support their children that it requires a whole department to deal with it. My point was merely that it would be unfair to judge men harshly compared to women on this, given that women get a bunch of hormonal help when the pregnancy starts.

08-21-2007, 03:51 PM	#6
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Hormones and a corrupt legal system. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

08-22-2007, 11:21 AM	#11
9th Engineer Bioengineer and aspiring lawer Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 872	Why are these women carrying kids to term that they can't pay for who have been fathered by deadbeats? 3/4 of the entire point of legal abortion is avoiding this shit. __________________ The most valuable renewable resource is stupidity.

08-20-2007, 10:25 PM	#1
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	Bizarre that she gets alimony off you if youhave the kids. I know the system is fucked. Both here and over there. Mostly things stay out of the CSA unless the mother is claiming benefits of some kind, or if one or the other party ask fo rthem to be involved (I think is how it works). Usually things are decided through the courts instead. But even though they are usually fairer they still aren't entirely fair. For example, I have a friend, D, who continues to pay alimony to his ex-wife as his contribution to the costs of raising his son and also as a recognition of the time she took out from her career to be a full time mum. He has done so since they first started divorce proceedings nearly 10 years ago, throughout the four years of strung out divorce and on through the five years since that was finalised. Kid's now just turned 17. On the surface of it that sounds quite fair. Except that she earns significantly more than he does, because she's a fairly senior teacher (she may even be a headteacher, I'm not sure) whilst his social work payscale froze for several years because he went into union work. So, whilst he is earning less, driving a shit little car and going into debt in order to buy a season ticket for their team for him and his son, she's living a much easier life, having, as far as I can tell, been barely inconvenienced in her career by the two or three years she spent at home. At the same time, I had a colleague a couple of years back whose abusive ex managed to secure visitation rights to the children and she had to wave them off in the car twice a week with a man she couldn't really trust with their safety. Why did the court not take her fears seriously? Because she was a housewife and he was a businessman, imo. The truth is it's very difficult to get anything like a fair and amicable settlement unless both parties are trying to come to such a thing. The problem with an adversarial system is that it presupposes a winner and a loser.

08-20-2007, 10:26 PM	#2
yesman065 Banned - Self Imposed Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 1,847	thanks rk, but it is more than ok - I know that I am doing the right, just and morally correct thing in this situation - I have faith that all will work out in the end. It usually does. Yeah Dana - its a shame that a system had to be designed so that a friggin father is compelled to take care of his own kids. I cannot fathom that level of irrisponsibility - even though I see it everytime I go to the domestic relations office.

08-20-2007, 10:27 PM	#3
rkzenrage Guest Posts: n/a	The kids were adults.

08-20-2007, 11:03 PM	#4
rkzenrage Guest Posts: n/a	There is an important quote in here about excusing his actions as "temper" or "maleness" and "taming/civilizing him to find the prince within being our (females) job". Hmmmmmm?

08-21-2007, 03:57 PM	#7
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	What has a corrupt legal system got to do with a woman wanting to take care of her baby?

08-21-2007, 04:49 PM	#9
rkzenrage Guest Posts: n/a	As already stated, if a man wants to "abort" his responsibilities to an unwanted situation he should be allowed to... no no problem. It's all the mother's choice now, she is in COMPLETE control and that is the way it is supposed to be, right? The man is just the sperm donor.

08-22-2007, 12:44 PM	#12
bluecuracao in a mood, not cupcake Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 3,034	Because they can't afford to pay for abortions, maybe?

08-22-2007, 04:55 AM	#15
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	yes indeed. But the point that Yesman had raised was the fact that he has encountered a lot of men who don't want to step up and he seemed disgusted that enough men don't want to support their children that it requires a whole department to deal with it. My point was merely that it would be unfair to judge men harshly compared to women on this, given that women get a bunch of hormonal help when the pregnancy starts.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)