Quite true. Do you think a Father should have the ability to divest himself of responsibility for the child prior to the child’s birth if he files an Affidavit, in Court, stating that he wants for the baby to be aborted, but the Mother doesn’t want that?
I appreciate the sentiment, well, the first part anyway.
I would suggest that if a woman is not physically forced to have unprotected sex, then there is nothing forcing her to have unprotected sex, regardless of her access (or lack thereof) to birth control. She could just not have sex.
I agree with you, though it is very difficult to selectively legalize abortion. I will say that one problem I have occasionally heard of to take place is for a male to rely on the oral statement of a female that she is on some form of birth control, such as pills. I would say it is still his fault for not wrapping it up, but it is still quite misleading for a female to say she is on BCP’s when she is not.
=D> =D> =D> =D> =D>
Encore!!!
Thank you for both your reasonableness and for engaging me in this discussion.
Minnesota Time
I disagree with that, you have to crunch the numbers in terms of what sort of assistance the women receive, when single, in addition to the child support that the guy is paying compared to the standard of living she had when she was married to him.
For instance, if a guy were to be the only one working in his family and he made $30,000 where the wife was unemployed, and they got divorced where she continued to be unemployed:
1.) The kids had free healthcare in any case. MinnesotaCare will assist both parents when both parents are married with significantly reduced premiums. The Mother will keep her MinnesotaCare after the divorce, but…uh-oh…Daddy loses MinnesotaCare by $48. Married, they may not have more than $20,000 in total assets, single, he may not have more than $10,000 in assets.
house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/mncare.pdf
2.) The guy will pay $795/month in child support.
childsupportcalculator.dhs.state … lator.aspx
3.) The Mother will no longer pay anything for rent if she gets on income-based housing because no income = no rent. She will also pay nothing for utilities.
4.) Filling in the proper information here:
snap-step1.usda.gov/fns/index.jsp
It would seem that the Mother will get $325-$335/month in food stamps.
5.) The Mother (if she at least has a G.E.D.) will get free access to college education, but no bonus cash in Minnesota. She is expected to come up with 46.3%, but the amount she is not expected to come up with will more than cover tuition/fees/books, just no extra money.
6.) The childcare costs will undoubtedly be covered for college:
getreadyforcollege.org/gPg.c … fa0f2a72f9
I’m going to use 60% of my personal housing expenses to determine this, just for the Hell of it to see how she does:
1.) $795 child support * 12 = $9,540
2.) $330 foodstamps * 12 = $3,960
3.) My mortgage payment is $509, so let’s say that reasonable rent would be $305.4…12 = $3,664.80…and that’s actually impossibly low.
4.) My Electric/Heating bill budget amount is $348 so let’s say $208.80 * 12 = $2,505.60
5.) My cell phone bill (they get free cell phones with limited minutes) is $60/month, so $36 * 12 = $432
6.) My trash bill is $18/month, so $10.80 * 12 = $129.60
7.) I’ve also filled out the form, just to see, and such an individual would (still) qualify for $123/month cash assistance. (It’s Federal) $123 * 12 = $1,476
***Ultimately, you have a value income…that I’ve intentionally low-balled of $21,708 for not working while the ex-husband will see $15,084 of his money after child support and taxes are taken out of the equation. Except, she doesn’t have to do anything for that and gets to dictate when or not he gets to see his kids. In the meantime, he’s going to pay numbers for his cost-of-living closer to what I pay than what I’ve intentionally low-balled for the ex-wife.
Again, there is NOWHERE for rent with three bedrooms for $305.40, in fact, one of the reasons that I bought a house is because it is cheaper for me every month than renting actually was, so you can really add another $2,500 to her.
NOW, let’s factor in these school benefits:
Okay, you pay $184.04/credit hour at Dakota Technical College:
dctc.edu/future-students/pay … /index.cfm
The single Mother will have to take at least 15 credit hours to be considered full-time, so $184.04 * 15 = $2,760.60
That’s per semester as DCTC runs by semester, so the value on that is $8,281.80/year. (Three per year)
That brings the single Mother’s value up to $21,708 + 8,281.80 = $29,989.80/year. Her value for going to college for 20 hours a week has now exceeded the husband’s value further.
I am having trouble finding childcare costs anywhere, so I found some numbers for Dakota County. It looks like they get $6.32/hour for a school-age kid. There are now 35 academic weeks (or so), so you are looking at $6.32 * 35 * 20 = $4,424
edocs.dhs.state.mn.us/lfserver/ … -6441A-ENG
Her new value is $34,413.80/year. She is worth only $3,586.20 less per year than I am where I work 65 hours/week and SUPPORT a family of four and she does nothing except attends classes 20 hours/week. Furthermore, I also have taxes taken out and make student loan payments of $121/month. When it is all said and done, she’s worth more than I am.
She is financially better off than she was with her husband. Her husband is FAR worse off financially. The value she has as a family of three exceeds the value that they had as a family of four. He works, she doesn’t. Everything she has is Government-provided, nothing he has is Government-provided, and in fact, since he cannot claim the kids, he will have to pay Federal and State (Especially State) taxes that he will not get back…something he did not have to do before as far as Federal was concerned. In Minnesota, he still would not be refunded everything he paid in State tax as a family of four.
She’s worth more than him annually sitting at home doing nothing (144%)! If she goes to college, she is worth 228% of what he takes home per year.
I don’t think my wife will ever divorce me, but just in case, I am never moving to Minnesota…
I rest my case.
You’re absolutely right. Most people equate Socialism to Communism, or Socialism to a Welfare State. When I say I am a Socialist, people think I am mildly retarded, but they have no idea what Socialism is really supposed to consist of. Let there be no question that an individual MUST work in my system, unless he/she is married, then he/she has the option not to work provided the spouse works.
It does, but you really have to pick and choose your spots. For instance, did you know that Schwann’s can now accept the foodstamp card in the State of Ohio!? It’s a home-delivery food service with prices that are…less than reasonable for someone on foodstamps. Great food. I’ll buy some of their ice cream and mixed vegetables when I am in a high-roller mood. Couple of times a year.
Ain’t that the truth.
Why can’t women just have political opinions and we accept that? Why do we need to seek some explanation other than that they are thinking human beings, and make up their minds in much the same way as men do?
For what it’s worth women have a long history of political activism. They have been there since the beginning of the labor violent labor struggles. Were talking 19th century, well before woman’s suffrage. They fought side by side with men, and did a lot of organizing and writing. They were threatened, beaten, imprisoned and sometimes killed along with men. I know nothing but feminine leftest faggotry.
Same goes for the civil rights movement. Killed, put in prison, etc. But they couldn’t have been doing this for social justice, because segregation was demeaning and wrong. No only men can have a social conscience, right boys?
The fact is, just about every time there has been a struggle for human rights or social justice, women have been a big part of it, and willing to make equal if not greater sacrifices than men.
The woman’s Lib movement came about in the 1970’s largely because women who were active in the civil rights movement of the 60’s were pissed off. They were pissed off because even though they were working just as hard in the cause, the men gave them the shit jobs like getting coffee and stuffing envelopes. So they stood up for themselves and accomplished a lot.
Now here we are today, some forty years later. Still questioning their motives, still marginalizing them. And the crazy thing is they don’t talk anywhere near as much shit about us as we do of them. You can bet your ass that if we have another social justice issue that needs fighting, the women will be there fighting hard by our side. God knows we need them.
well i apologize for getting it wrong then, but that’s how the statement came across to me in the context of the posts that immediately preceded it, which were discussing child support.
fair enough
This is actually a pretty astute observation. I do love short posts.
If a guy does not want the child he can always sign away his parental control, he can dissapear there are other legal things a guy can do. A woman will become a slave to society , a second class citizen , a walking incubator. Society effectively says she is no longer in control of herself. She is owned by law as an incubating slave. Is that what you want for women?, for a daughter? Once law removes the woman’s right to choose, then what other private civil liberties will be taken? Sorry you can’t marry a black person or a white person, there are just too many of that kind around. Oh and hey anyone with genetic flaws must have surgery to remove their ability to have children. So yea, lets enslave women’s bodies as incubators. Sounds right to me… Do you really want kids to be born from mothers that did not want them? what sort of things will that walking incubator do during pregnancy? Stop her you say??? Well then we have to imprison her til the baby is born to protect that little life… hmm. Sure that is a wonderful society.
Something along those lines, yeah. There ought be a legit, legal way for the father to opt out, as there is for the mother. If there is a right to choose then men should have it too.
Perhaps make the bureaucratic hurdles that much higher each time to help deter serial impregnaters.
I don’t think he can just do that if she demands a paternity test, though. If he doesn’t want rights to the child to begin with, all he need do is refuse to sign the birth certificate, but provided the child is alive, I don’t think that does anything to eliminate his need to pay support.
The right to choose what? I’m really finding myself having to repeat that I am Pro-Choice in this thread a lot. I mainly disagreed with your use of the term, “Slave.” My point is not that abortion should be illegal, it is that if they make abortion illegal, then the only thing anyone is a slave to is not having sex if you REALLY are not prepared to get pregnant or get someone pregnant. I’ve been having sex for quite some time, but before I was married, I was prepared for the possibility that if I fucked up and got someone pregnant before I was ready to impregnate someone that I would have to get two jobs and take care of the situation financially.
If you’re interested in what I want for my daughter, I want my daughter not to have sex before she is married. I also want my son not to have sex before he is married. It will be made very clear to them that if they get pregnant or impregnate someone, (gender-dependent) that they will need to take responsiblity for their actions and will have to find their own place to live as soon as they turn eighteen…if they get pregnant/impregnate someone before that. If they are already eighteen, they will have sixty days to find a place to live for themselves. If they do not get pregnant/impregnate anyone, then they are responsible only to themselves and may live with me for as long as they like for a negligible amount of rent after they turn eighteen and are out of H.S., they will certainly have to be in college, have a job or be looking for a job, though. They will not have to pay anything at all if they are in college or between jobs.
I mean, you can’t have your kids living with you after they have kids, or it just completely creates a culture in the household that makes that acceptable and easy for them to do. Life’s not meant to be easy. If they fall on tough times like a job loss and it’s temporary, that’s fine, but there will be a contract specifying the maximum amount of time they (and their kid[s]) can live with me.
Illegalizing abortion is a far cry from illegalizing interracial marriage, there are any number of Civil Rights laws that prevent that from happening.
The rest of your post is too much of an extreme deviation of the actual subject, especially given that I have stated I am, actually, Pro-Choice for me to want to address. If you really have a huge problem with it, then move to a different State. That’s a boycott, of sorts. Federal funding on many things is population-based and they will also no longer get your tax dollars.
Well, it takes two to get pregnant. I think a guy should wear a condom and a woman who does not want to get pregnant should also use some form of birth control. Never trust the other person, in that regard.
Anyway, I think the suggestion is basically reasonable. She’ll have plenty of advance notice that she is on her own if she does not go through with the abortion as the guy has stated, legally, that he would prefer an abortion. We might get some dissenters on this one, UPF, but it seems pretty fundamentally fair to me.
Sorry, I still have the malware operating that underlines things or shows them in blue, but link to games.
That said, I still wonder why the thread has gone from its title to a discussion of unwanted pregnancies, the right to abort, and a father’s responsibilities.
If a man doesn’t want to impregnate a sexual partner, he should either abstain from sex or wear a condom. (Thanks, Anita, for trying to remind men of their equal responsibilities.) Why should a man expect a woman to have total responsibility in the matter? Guys, there’s an easy answer to unwanted pregnancies–Keep it zipped! Or donate money for research into, and development of, male contraceptives. Or both. Just who is totally responsible for sexual activity? Why expect women to do anything you’re not willing to do, as well.
In the State of WA., the divorced mother, if working, is required to provide for the children in the same proportion of her income as her divorced husband. Washington is an equal opportunity state! If a man is required to give 10% of his income to his child, the woman is required to give 10% of her income to the child, as well. I don’t know about paying college tuition plus living expenses to an unmarried mother, but I find that excessive and wonder why any state would do that, since States’ tax money is a large portion of human services. I suggest learning how Federal tax monies are allocated to the states before making any further comment. If any state provides welfare money for both living expenses and college tuition, just how much of it comes from Federal taxes and how much comes from State taxes. Either way, it’s up to the citizens of the State, through their representatives, to change the way the money is allocated.
What does being a woman have to do with leftist ‘liberalism’–nothing. Just as many women are right-wing conservatives.
Just another reminder, guys, keep it down and covered rather than bare and raised. Otherwise, you share the consequences.
I think the left overall makes more emotional appeals than the right, thus drawing women in (though both left and right are one and the same to me). The left has always been seen as the caring sharing side and the right the austere, stern father-type figure. I do wonder if more men are liberals these days too, what with feminism and such.
Pav, I use the word slave because the Government forces the woman to be what she is not, an incubator. And,and civil right laws can’t change??? Really??? Right and left are fighting to change those laws constantly.
I must not have realized that abortion is naturally occurring. Did the Government force both the male and female to have sex, too?
Oh, but the right makes emotional appeals to nostalgia, father figure worship, the idealized fatherland, fear of difference and a bunch of other archetypal images. As deontologists they have to appeal to emotion.
Pav, women can abort spontaneously. But that’s irrelevant,
Given the turn this thread has taken, I still ask how many men are willing to take on the restrictions to sexual freedom that they expect women to take on–including abstinence? That’s a pretty simple question, isn’t it?
Moreno, you’re correct when you say, “…but the right makes emotional appeals to nostalgia, father figure worship, the idealized fatherland, fear of difference and a bunch of other archetypal images.” That’s what, imm, makes the right extremely dangerous, because none of those emotional appeals have a whole heck of a lot of either validity or relevance in today’s world. At least the Left is trying to be realistic. Why shouldn’t insurance companies cover the cost of birth control? Insurance companies take our money and supposedly pool it to provide coverage to their insured. Are they also in the business of dictating rightist ‘morality?’ Are the insurance companies ‘father figures?’
You know what I meant.
I don’t expect anyone to do anything except be prepared to face the consequences of their actions, with sex or anything else. I also think that men, even those who do not want to be parents, should own up to the consequences. I’m Pro-Choice. I really don’t see anything extremely conservative about my position except my problems with the lengths to which the State goes to support some women.
In addition to that, I don’t think that men who are not abstinent really expect women to be abstinent. It would be quite difficult for men to not be abstinent if they were…
If we had control over our body fertility then you would be correct about accepting consequences, force them to be parents. Right?? I mean thats what we want is it not? Humans being parents to children they niether want nor love due to religious beliefs or government regulations. Oh boy that sounds just fun for the kids. Of course they can put all those unwanted kids up for adoption. Considering those mothers that did not want the child probably did not exactly injest healthy things for the kid while she was carrying it, we are looking at many, many kids that will really be screwed up… should we then force people that can adopt to adopt? Oops scratch that, we arrest the moms and keep them in a cage protecting the unborn. So there will be plenty of healthy kids to go around. I don’t know why but, my mind goes to the orphan trains. Pav I really do like you alot, you are a good guy. but on this, no man should decide or have a vote, you all just do not have the same position. I know you are pro choice but you really do lean towards prolife for all. We can’t be forced accept consequences when we have little to no control. Sure abstenance should be practiced I agree that is what we should teach first last and always. But really to ignore the body’s hormonal sex drive is just asking for unwanted kids. Girls do not get on birth control because they fear their parents will find out or they can’t afford it, boys don’t wear condoms because well, hell face it a boy thinks with the wrong brain and gets excited at the spur of the moment, all things intelligent rush out of their big brain. Young people are driven to be sexual critturs one way or another. Many cases they can’t even begin to be rational. Your kids maybe the exception but, counting on that could make things tougher on your kids. So how can we force consequences of parenting on to them? yet, that is what prolife right tolife people do. A totally conservative view based on religious ehtics by males predominantly. Women do tend to be Left on this view. Its the ones that side with the conservative view that are screwed up IMO
I don’t have a lot of time to respond this week, but there were a couple of things Kris mentioned that I’d like to briefly address.
Kris,
Society and the government don’t force women to be incubators, biology does. And although it’s not especially eloquent, that’s exactly what women are, incubators. Which is why, through the eons, women have always been more selective - we bear the greater burden of a sexual encounter and we have since the dawn of humanity. That is another one of those facts of life that we can’t change.
For just about all of us, neither society nor the government forces us to have unprotected sex.
You are usually one who argues vehemently for personal responsibility, it’s a little surprising that you’ve done a 180 where pregnancy is concerned.
I have to disagree. Men absolutely should have a voice here. They are not as invested the conception of a child, but they are invested. I don’t think a man is entitled to decide for a woman, but he should be part of the decision-making process and should have some input.
Are you really sure you want to take that position? We wouldn’t begin to accept that particular line of reasoning from a rapist.
Again, where’s the personal responsibility? (As I mentioned in an earlier post, I’m not, of course, speaking of those situations where a woman has zero access to birth control.) But for the vast majority of cases in the Western world, why can’t/shouldn’t we be held accountable for our actions where sex is concerned?
Pav, I will get to your excellent post re:MN specifics, I promise!
We do have control over our fertility, by not having sex at all. Furthermore, even if MS decides to illegalize abortion, then one of the consequences of pregnancy would be that you have to go to some neighboring State to get an abortion, that’s all. I’m not advocating Pro-Life, adoption, or forcing anyone to be a parent or to adopt. I think that life starts sometimes after conception, but before birth, I haven’t decided quite where. In any case, I’m Pro-Choice.
I like you too, but I disagree with you saying that I lean Pro-Life. I couldn’t be less Pro-Life. If you look at my positions on the issues, you’ll see that I am an Economist before I am anything else and it is obvious that someone relegating themselves (potentially, and often) to a lifetime of welfare does not benefit the economy in any way whatsoever. I would seek to have policies that most minimize the effects of unwanted pregnancy on the Economy, and abortion is one of those policies. I think when these girls go to the Health Department, or Doctor, or whatever, they should be presented with a list of nearby abortion clinics and gynecologists alike and make their own choice based off of that.
I disagree on condoms and that’s where personal responsiblity comes in. I wrapped my little friend up, so, if I got someone (prior to my wife) pregnant it would have been an accident but still my responsibility.
I don’t think they are, “Screwed up,” and I do think that the whole thing should be put to a vote of the populace of a State, or what have you. Social Conservatives, even if male, have the right to have opinions on the issues, though. As much as I would like to say, “Pffftttt,” to Religious Ideologies (particularly those that contrast with policies that would generate a strong Economy) you’re talking about generations of beliefs that have been passed down that culminate in the opinions that these people share. It matters to them, and in this country, people have the right to express their views on things that matter to them.