| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
||||||
| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
|
||||||
| The Alley |
|
Doing the Right Thing |
|
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan 
|
Jane is a woman who enjoying sex has been sexually active since the age of eighteen when she acquired her first prescription of birth control pills. One of her favorite places for meeting male sexual partners is the “Consenting Adults Who Don’t Want Kids One Night Stand Club”, ( the name is prominent above the front door and on each of the walls inside), By virtue of the CAWDWKONSC she has had innumerable sexual encounters with a variety of men, but over the course of ten years has tended toward a favorite dozen, (each of whom during their conversations have expressed their vehement aversion to children). During that ten year period Jane has on three occasions thought it would be nice to be a mother and consequently has deliberately gone off birth control for a period of two weeks during which she slept with each of those favored dozen at least once resulting in a pregnancy. However, upon discovering her condition, Jane changed her mind and had an abortion performed. Then at twenty-eight, Jane again decided that being a mother would be nice, again went off birth control and for a two week period slept at least once with each of her favored dozen, after meeting them as usual at the CAWDWKONSC, as well as once with Elmer who before their evening together, (after meeting at the CAWDWKONSC when he like the others expressed his distaste for children), had never met her before. Jane finds out she is pregnant and decides she will have the baby. She takes all thirteen men to court to have their DNA tested to determine who is the father. Upon determination, the man, whose sperm it is determined it was, offers to pay all expenses for an abortion which Jane refuses. Who is responsible for the child? Who should pay, how much, how long and for what? |
||
| © Copyright 2004 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved | |||
Larry C
since 2001-09-10
Posts 10286United States |
I think they should all pay... |
||
SEA 
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 2000-01-18
Posts 22676with you |
I think her behavior is disgusting and she should not be allowed to keep the child. I think it should be taken from her and adopted by responsible people who don't play with their lives, and the lives of others including an innocent baby. Then I think she should have to have her tubes tied. That...is what I think, of that. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Whoever won Jane's nasty little lottery should pay. Men are just as capable of birth control as women. Perhaps the poor slob could sue the management of CAWDWKONSC. May they all stand before Judge Judy in a two hour primetime special. Don't want kids? Don't have sex. Even condoms aren't completely fool proof. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Karen, women, rightfully, fought and won their right to choose. But where and what are men's rights on this issue? Let's forget the club scenario above for a moment. Let's say a young man takes all the precautions, he's under the assumption she's under birth control but being responsible uses a condom for added measure. If the condom breaks, why is the man responsible for the support of an unplanned child? Many will say, well you choose to have sex you live with the consequences, well shouldn't a woman who also decided to have sex, and then decided to have a stranger's baby live with the consequences? I understand the reasoning behind the laws that exist, and in most cases I'd agree with you Karen. But in certain cases, like the one mentioned or exploitive situations, laws meant to be fair and balanced have instead swung completely to the other side of the spectrum and now it's men whose rights are being infringed. |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
Well, the one who shouldn't pay..is obviously the child. Her behavior and those who play this game are NOT responsible adults, and should probably all have their parenting rights removed. But the sperm donor? He lost the game financially, since he chose to play it. I'm inclined to question whether or not this selfish woman should keep this child, but unless she proves legally to be unfit, she will be allowed to keep this child, and that man will have to pay child support for 18+ years. Hopefully for the child, someone who will really love and CARE for him/her will step up and take over, but it doesn't sound like that will be the case. Is this a for real situation, or hypothetical? Perhaps all these people should step away from the parenting game, because everyone loses when this kind of behavior goes unchecked. I am NOT opposed to sexual freedom, just that with it, should come the responsibility and a willingness to accept the consequences. For one thing, I'm really just as concerned about STD's as this reckless conceiving of children. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I just have to shrug and say "tough", Raph. One cannot pass on the responsiblity for something so vital to someone else. Trust me, I'm not wanting to hold a baby shower for Jane. But men need to understand and be held accountable for the same fact that women have lived with for centuries. I tell ya what tho, I'll support your right to have your wee wee tied tight. In fact, brace yourself, that too could be a reality television show. sigh. and everybody can save their breath, because there ain't nobody on this planet that can convince me that sex isn't a mutual agreement that should share mutual responsibility. I say it again. You don't want kids? Don't have sex. Um, unless you're God. (None of ya'll are God, are ya? and if you are, please leave my tired womb alone.) I've had all the miracles I can stand for one lifetime.  (and yes, I'm having a crappy day  ) |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
shrugs |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Yikes. Sorry for the snipe. But seriously, if all the guy has to do is add some financial support, he should consider himself lucky. The wee wee thing was uncalled for, Raph. I apologize. (I just realized was forty minutes past medication time.)  sigh But yes, and just as an added thing, "Pulling out" is not an effective method of birth control. It's not even effective sex. Sorry I ranted. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Nay problem, you're entitled and as I said most times I'm inclined to agree with you. I did grow up under a single mother. It's simply my opinion that certain situations merit different outcomes. I believe in balance. Too many things we've applied as a society to correct the mistakes of the past have, instead of creating balance, swung to their extremes. |
||
|
Skyfyre Senior Member
since 1999-08-15
Posts 1906Sitting in Michael's Lap |
quote: I will agree that the laws for child custody and support are about 90% biased toward women; however, the man *did* choose to have sex and is therefore just as responsible as the woman in question for the result. Was she underhanded about the birth control bit? Yes, but I'd be willing to bet that he *didn't* use a condom in this case. Bottom line, you don't want the responsibility of kids, don't put the onus of birth control on your partner - take care of it yourself. If you want to be 100% sure, just don't have sex. Furthermore, if these men were so dead-set against children but determined to be sexually promiscuous, why not have a vasectomy? It's fairly non-invasive, reversible, and you can be back to work in a day. Heck, in most cases it's performed on an outpatient basis for heaven's sake. A much more comfortable option - and vastly less prone to complications - than a woman having her tubes tied. Or having an abortion, for that matter. quote: I'm assuming here that the "consequences" are the raising of the child. The mother in question has committed herself to that, has she not? Otherwise she won't be getting any support from the father. You wanna play, you might have to pay. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: They both chose to have sex, that's my point, both parties are responsible quote: First off, I distanced myself from the original example by using my own. One where the onus was put on the male. That's the situation I'm discussing, where the man does the right thing and is still punished. quote: This is the problem, once we get to the consequence, pregnancy, the woman has a choice. She has the right to choose abortion, adoption or raising the child. But the men involved have no say at all. So because of an accident, despite his precautions, he's now forced to financially support a child(no small task) of a stranger? I don't think it's as cut and dry, simple or fair as 'You wanna play, you might have to pay' |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
There's not a woman alive who wouldn't like to see more parity, Raph. (Huff an orange through your nostril, or pass a bowling ball out of your anus, and we'll talk.  )But seriously, the "right" that you speak of has been short-lived, and is in serious jeopardy even as I type. (as you well know, George W. doesn't have an agenda when it comes to Supreme Court appointments, and yeah, right  )Would that morality could be legislated. Attorneys would be outlawed. I am more sympathetic than you might think, however. I've had a few male friends who were heartbroken by just the opposite--they did not wish for pregnancies to be terminated. And I concede, that is a point that befuddles me. Heart-breaking, but I have to maintain that there is no surety--and the choice for men begins before conception. Women don't always have that choice. I agree, lots of gray areas, but as things are, I have to stand by my initial opinion. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
a woman choosing to be a single mother through artificial insemination takes on, with that choice, the financial responsibilty of raising her child. or are you implying that a sperm donor should legally, be financially responsible for the child? I'd call that unfair, likewise i think it's unfair that a man who took all the necessary precautions, be fiscally responsible when those precautions fail. to be responsible for a child whose upbringing he will have no input on, will never be a part of his life, or he may well never see depending on the decision of its mother? and k? on behalf of all men i apologize for being unable to bare children.. sighs was that shot necessary? c'mon K if you remember our conversations you know how much i talked of my life growing up and the fierce respect i have for my mom raising us alone. i know first-hand the reasons why the laws are necessary but, as a man i also realize a need for balance for those who take the precautions. i have a gut feeling no matter how carefully worded my responses they'll be misinterpreted as chauvanistic |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Raph, I think this is where your argument falls apart, because "all necessary precautions" would have to include abstinence. Anything less is just "some" precautions, and that ain't cutting it. I find the original question to be in poor taste and so contrived as to be inane, but the issues are nonetheless real ones. I'm glad the responses (so far) have been more tasteful (mostly), and we've managed to keep this obviously mature topic out of the Mature Content section. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Let me provide some insight into why. My adolescence was spent in the time before the general availability of birth control pills and legal abortion. If by virtue of a relationship the female of an unmarried couple became pregnant, there was intense, if not irresistible, social, (as well as internal moral), pressure on the male to marry the female regardless of whatever might have been his feelings since he was held equally if not more responsible for the pregnancy and the child that would be consequent. A few years ago, in conversation, an MBA in his mid-twenties vehemently denied any male obligation beyond that, if any, the male chose to acknowledge, on the argument that since the woman was now wholly free, (with 99.9% effectiveness), to decide whether or not she would during sex make herself susceptible to pregnancy, and, (with 100% effectiveness), whether a pregnancy would continue, the man was thereby equally freed of any obligation beyond that he consented to. Now I’m sure that MBA would never make such remarks in mixed company. But I’m equally confident that there has been a change of attitude on the subject from my generation to his, and I suspected, with less confidence, a schism between the sexes on the issue. Therefore the hypothetical, (though these days not that far fetched). John |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Ah, we Janes are just so unpredictable, with all our vascillating back and forth. 'Who is responsible for the child? Who should pay, how much, how long and for what?' They are both responsible, they should both pay equal amounts of money until the child is 18 years old for the necessities of its upbringing. Is that simple and direct enough for you? Oh, and by the way- what do you think? And um... you know, men also heve the decision on how vulnerable they will make themselves during sex, with the knowledge that condoms can fail. And women do occaisionally lie. Believing blindly that a woman who says she is on the pill is on the pill is every bit as dumb as believing it when he says "I'll pull out." (And, -smiling at Karen here- that it'll even be worth your while... never mind, I'll stop there.  )Raph: "a woman choosing to be a single mother through artificial insemination takes on, with that choice, the financial responsibilty of raising her child. or are you implying that a sperm donor should legally, be financially responsible for the child?" No, not if the woman intentionally impreganted herself with the knowledge that she would be paying baby's way all on her lonesome. There's a difference between a planned pregnancy and an "oops." "I'd call that unfair, likewise i think it's unfair that a man who took all the necessary precautions, be fiscally responsible when those precautions fail." But a woman who took the precautions of birth control is going to be responsible, whether she likes it or not... and not only fiscally, but she has to loan out her uterus for 9 months, deal with morning sickness, the agony of childbirth, the possibility of not being paid while on her maternity leave or getting paid less (we don't all have good benefits, y'know) and the overwhelming responsibility of shaping a new life. And the man is only responsible for that first part? Why are they whining? "to be responsible for a child whose upbringing he will have no input on, will never be a part of his life, or he may well never see depending on the decision of its mother?" Well, I was a product of an "Of, I forgot to take my pill" sort of thing, and I saw my dad all my life. Not all single mothers will deny fathers the right to see their kids... I don't even think most will. I mean, it's possible... but that's what the legal system is for (or is supposed to be for, at least- I don't know how well that works out in practice.) |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: Of course Ron, but I'm speaking of the necessary precautions within the context of having sexual relations. i.e. If you are going to have sex, this is the way to go about it. quote: If, once it's understood that you are pregnant, you're given three options and the option you choose is giving birth is that not somewhat planned? Moreso then the male who has absolutely no say on the outcome. Again i'm not talking of all cases, let's set social taboos/religious/ethical cases aside. I can't fathom why anybody would want to have the child of a stranger without full knowledge of their genetic and psychological makeup simply for the sake of having a child? If a woman decides to take on the responsibility of single motherhood of a child conceived from casual sex partners and one night stands, why is it the fiscal responsibility of a stranger who becomes the 'father' by way of, essentially, an errant sperm. I know that sounds callous but that's not my intention. Here's my point, while the female(like the male) didn't choose pregnancy, she did choose motherhood whereas the male is thrust into fatherhood quote: First let me clarify, I think some of you may be under the mistaken impression that I'm against child support in an unplanned pregnancy. I'm simply saying that the law is unbalanced towards to men when both parties made are guilty of the mistake. Second, I'm not taking a chauvanist approach and saying 'guys shouldn't take the rap'. But in cases where the male did everything in his power to protect himself maybe there should be either ,caps on the financial responsibility or arbitration where responsibility and decision-making is evened out. quote: But this is a problem, often the legal system is skewed in favour of single mothers. Again, with reason, reasons as the child of a single mother I approve of. But there's little balance in the system. Sow hat started with noble intentions can be a nightmare for men. I'm not talking of careless men, men who used or abandoned women and children, I'm talking about responsible men who tried to take precautions while enjoying sex. That's why i said in the case of strangers and 'oops' pregnancies, some sort of arbitration and decision by males should be factored into the outcome. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Hush, I am neutral, and rightly so; can’t have kids. John |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I think that if a pregnancy is the outcome of sexual relations, whether the pregnancy was planned or unplanned, the responsibility, and financial obligation, rests with BOTH participants in the act. No method of birth control is 100% reliable. The only 100% reliable course of action is abstinence. |
||
|
Skyfyre Senior Member
since 1999-08-15
Posts 1906Sitting in Michael's Lap |
quote: But it is cut and dried. We are born men or we are born women. As women, we realize that if we choose to have sex, protected or otherwise, there is a chance that we will become pregnant. As men, you realize that if you choose to have sex, protected or otherwise with a fertile female partner, she may become pregnant - at which point you will have no say in the matter of whether or not that child is born. These men knew this going in. The woman obviously didn't ask her male partners to have vasectomies, and she would have been out of her rights to insist upon it, just as her partners are out of their rights to compel her to abort the child. All moral arguments aside, abortion is a surgical procedure. Would you allow another person to compel you to have surgery against your will? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Denise, “No method of birth control is 100% reliable.” and Skyfyre, “Would you allow another person to compel you to have surgery against your will?” Please each of you come up with what would be the MBA’s, (his actual name was Tom), reasoning response, and your rejoinder. John |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: Not at all what I was implying, by choices I meant a roles child-rearing, visitation rights etc. The point I made in a later reply, is that there should be arbitration and/or caps on the amounts on financial verdicts |
||
|
Skyfyre Senior Member
since 1999-08-15
Posts 1906Sitting in Michael's Lap |
Michael and I had this conversation earlier, and we were able to agree on the point that a man should be responsible for his child, no matter what the circumstances of that child's conception. We also agreed that the woman's actions were underhanded and agreed that, for several reasons, the woman in your example was probably not fit to raise the child. She surely isn't starting the baby out with any kind of sound family structure. However, that is another issue. It is a simple matter of biology that women have more choices to make regarding sex and pregnancy than men. Men have the choice to expose themselves to being parents by having sex. Contraception aside (because no contraception is 100% reliable), that is the only choice they have. Women, on the other hand, have two choices to consider: the decision whether to have sex and, in the case of pregnancy, the decision whether to have a child. In my opinion, arguments whether or not it is "fair" that a father who does not want a child has no say in whether or not it will be born (as opposed to aborted) are moot; a decision to have sex with a female partner is one that says, "I know that this action may result in pregnancy, and I accept that risk." There are no mysteries, no guessing about where babies come from anymore, right? The sad fact is that people who are unfit to be parents have children every day. However, seeking to absolve the men of their responsibilities to the child simply because modern women have a potentially dangerous, psychologically scarring, morally anguishing alternative to childbirth is frankly ludicrous. |
||
|
Skyfyre Senior Member
since 1999-08-15
Posts 1906Sitting in Michael's Lap |
quote: I suspect we may be more agreeable on this subject than you realize. I do not believe that having children should be a viable form of self-support for a single woman, unless she is a surrogate mother or some similar thing. If a woman decides to have a child, she should be required to make efforts of her own for the financial sustenance of that child - staying at home and drawing welfare and child support "so she can be a better mother" doesn't cut it with me. Acceptance of her fair share of the financial burden of raising a child is part of a woman's decision to bear that child. If she is unwilling to accept that burden, the child should be aborted or put up for adoption at birth. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
"I do not believe that having children should be a viable form of self-support for a single woman, unless she is a surrogate mother or some similar thing. If a woman decides to have a child, she should be required to make efforts of her own for the financial sustenance of that child - staying at home and drawing welfare and child support "so she can be a better mother" doesn't cut it with me." I do sigh in sympathy, but realistically, we have a government that is already arguing the question of when life begins--now we are to argue motivation of conception? I don't think I want my government to go there. I don't want them in my doctor's office, nor I do want them in my bedroom. In my offhand reply, I suggested that the father of the child sue the management of the club that guaranteed free sex, with no ramifications. I don't know of such a club. I'd be surprised too, to learn that such a club existed. Simply because, and I guess I have to amend my initial answer now, the club would have to be legally responsible if they guaranteed a "sex with no consequence" atmosphere, and a resulting alliance would then indeed hold them liable. I would assume that such a club would indeed cover their legal ass...ets. But I can picture Judge Judy, telling the father of the child, "Provide support--then sue THEM." Yes, we all know where babies come from. But where do they go? I repeat: "Would that morality could be legislated." |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: This is the type of situation I've been speaking of. The laws are in place for good reason, as the son of a single mother i applaud them. But in instances like your example above, there has to be a balance in the courts decisions. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I agree, too. But on the flip side, I can site a man who had conceived 8 children by age thirty, and he was the youngest grandpa in our group. How could he afford to raise all those children? Simple. He was a gifted mechanic, and only took money "under the table." And despite what has been implied, child support is based on capability. Now, a guy like this? Should he have to undergo court-ordered vascectomy? |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Raph- There was a thread a while back ago about how if women are legally able to abrogate their responsibility to an unborn child by abortion, shouldn't men legally be allowed to say "Nope. Not doin' it!" I don't have the link- does anyone remember this? I think it's a very interesting point, but with an obvious problem. If a man puts a sperm in a womans body, and it happens to fertilize an egg that implants in her womb, then by default the decision is in her hands. And until laws regarding abortion or child support change, a man has to accept that having sex with a woman, under any circumstances, inherently has potential to change his entire life due to an unplanned pregnancy, birth, or abortion. It's half his chromosome, and it damn well better be half his money, too. Skyfyre made a comment that really made me think, too: 'However, seeking to absolve the men of their responsibilities to the child simply because modern women have a potentially dangerous, psychologically scarring, morally anguishing alternative to childbirth is frankly ludicrous.' Abortion isn't quite as simple as saying "I'm not going to be responsible for a baby." It's undergoing a surgical procedure that says "I am going to be responsible for aborting this fetus." I am personally against abortion, and not just because I think it's immoral- it's because I think it hurts women in ways that they don't need to be hurt because someone dealing with the crisis of an unwanted pregnancy is already hurting enough. There are physical risks and emotional aftermaths. Now, take the man who wants to not be responsible for a child. And since most guys trying to weasel out of child support are not the ones trying to hang around and raise their kids, we'll assume he is not planning on pursuing his visitation rights or anything- in short, the only thing he has to lose is money. Situation A: pay up. Situation B: don't pay up. Hard choice, huh? Especially when you have so much invested in it... I mean, C'mon. The only physical threat would be if the mom's new boyfriend or brother decided to try to beat you up or something. There would be no legal threat. Morally, emotionally? If you don't want her to be pregnant, perhaps wanted her to get an abortion, don't want to see your child, and don't want to pay her, chances are the only thing you really care about in this situation is how much of your paycheck gets docked. John- if you're neutral, why did you ask the question? And why in the hell would anyone care what Tom thinks? Or what we think he would think? Or about what degree he has? Try answering some questions for once. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
"Abortion isn't quite as simple as saying "I'm not going to be responsible for a baby." It's undergoing a surgical procedure that says "I am going to be responsible for aborting this fetus." I am personally against abortion, and not just because I think it's immoral- it's because I think it hurts women in ways that they don't need to be hurt because someone dealing with the crisis of an unwanted pregnancy is already hurting enough. There are physical risks and emotional aftermaths." See what I mean? You tiptoe in, white-cottoned cape and make perfect sense. smiling wide  |
||
|
Skyfyre Senior Member
since 1999-08-15
Posts 1906Sitting in Michael's Lap |
quote: I understand. When my son was born, almost a year to the day after my daughter, I had exactly two more children than I could afford. Their father was about as useful as tits on a bull, but I knew this before I had my children. Adoption was not an option for me. Abortion even less so. I bonded with my daughter the moment I first felt her flutter beneath my heart - giving birth to her was the single most defining moment in my life. When my son snuck up on me, there was no thought in my mind except that I would soon be a mother of two, and I'd damn well better turn my life into something worthwhile because it wasn't just my own sorry behind that I was responsible for now. I worked. I went to school. I took care of the finances and supported, to the best of my ability, my children and their father who could not hold a job. When I finally asked him to leave, it was with no strings; he could call or visit the children whenever he wanted, but I neither required nor desired his help raising them, financial or otherwise. He didn't call them for two years. When they finally did speak, it was because I got their father's telephone number from a mutual friend and I called HIM. I missed out on about 75% of my childrens' lives even when they were living with me ... if my mother weren't such an angel I'd never have been able to manage it. As it was I could barely earn enough for rent and bills, despite working a full time job and often overtime. WIC bought the childrens' forumula and food stamps bought their food. My social worker said she couldn't imagine how I managed to be a single mother to two children and still work AND go to college. I told her I couldn't understand how some women could be a single mother and NOT work and/or go to college to better their lives and that of their children. How they could set such a fine example of "Why work? Money comes in the mail." My point is that the leeches on the system are easy to spot. They get jobs exactly as often and for as long as they absolutely have to in order not to get their aid suspended. They may start school (in order to avoid working) but they never finish. And they keep having children. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
hush I'm not disagreeing with you, I've tried to clarify any misunderstandings my comments may have caused and am suggesting a need for a fairer way to determine or cap financial responsibilty. quote: K I remember listening to a case last year where a stay at home father was divorced from his 6 figure salary corporate wife. Not only did the stay at home father not gain custody, but was forced to pay support. It's not always fair, balanced or based on capability. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Well, this happened to a close friend of mine here recently. He and his girlfriend, who already had several children, was homeschooling, not working, and living off of another friend's wages, domicile, pantry, and graciousness, engaged in protected (him) sex, with his belief she was on birth control pills. Part of a relationship is trust, so he believed her. She becomes pregnant. So he quits college, starts selling paper crack (Magic cards) on Ebay, and petitions for more work hours. She does nothing. Then, several weeks later, she decides on an abortion without ever consulting him, never caring for how he felt, and expects, nay, demands that he foot the bill. So he saved up, made all the phone calls, made all the appointments, drove the six hour roundtrip to Phoenix twice, and paid for the procedure, gas, meals, everything. And he never complained, at least not to her. She repays gratitude by turning off her ringer and making him a pariah from their circle of friends. He changed his life for her. She changed nothing. He was all set to do whatever it took to support his child, her, and her 3 children. Thankfully, due to her series of actions, which all carried their own consequences, she is no longer a current concern. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Nodding agreement with this: "My point is that the leeches on the system are easy to spot. They get jobs exactly as often and for as long as they absolutely have to in order not to get their aid suspended. They may start school (in order to avoid working) but they never finish." It's been almost two decades since I was part of THAT system, but I do recall, my sister, having to refuse jobs, because her husband was in prison, and the pay she was offered wouldn't amount to the same amount of support she received -- and by law? She could not refuse a job offer. Basically, an indentured servitude. We cried. We lied. We made it through. How do you find monies for one decent interview outfit, when every penny goes toward just SHOES for the kids' schoolyear? But...it can be overcome. It took my whole family though. Some people don't have that option. And damn those bad shoes hurt. sigh...I think I drifted offpoint, but then again? maybe I bulls-eyed it too.  |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
