Conference quark::mennotes

Re: .0

>II. The prospective father has the fundamental right to participate
>with his partner-in-conception in any decision affecting the future
>of the fetus he helped create.

I don't agree with this.  The fetus is in the woman's body, not the man's,
and it should be her decision whether or not to abort it.

				-- Bob

I could agree with this as a general statement of the way we would like things
to be, but I have several problems with it, both specific and general.

For example,

>II. The prospective father has the fundamental right to participate
>with his partner-in-conception in any decision affecting the future
>of the fetus he helped create.
>...
>VI. The prospective father has the right to personal guardianship
>of the fetus when required to protect the well-being of the fetus
>or to preserve the right to custody.

It seems to me that VI contradicts II, since it seems to give the father a veto
power over any abortion decision.  This is not what I mean by "participate in."


As a philosophic statement, I think it is too one-sided, full of talk about
"fundamental rights" without any corresponding statements about
responsibilities.  These are not limited to all the usual responsibilities of
parenthood.  For example, I believe that men and women have a responsibility to
avoid unprotected sex outside of marriage.  This would greatly decrease,
although not eliminate, the incidence of the problems that .0 is addressing.  I
also believe that people in a serious relationship have a responsibility to
discuss the questions that .0 raises, and to terminate the relationship if they
find serious disagreement.  This would also greately decrease the incidence.  I
think a culture which supported these responsibilities would also have a lot
less illegitimacy, divorce and unhappy marriages.


As a practical statement, I think it is either meaningless or dangerous.  It is
meaningless if it is meant as just another statement of rights which we never
expect any government to enforce.  It is dangerous if we expect a government to
enforce it.  If these rights were enforcable, any relationship between a man and
a woman could be dragged into court at any time.  Any man could accuse any woman
of his acquaintance of violating his Fundamental Right I.  Any man could accuse
any pregnant woman of his acquaintance, woman with a child or woman who has had
an abortion of violating his Fundamental Right IV.  The woman might reasonably
claim a fundamental right of privacy.  How could the courts settle these
conflicts? 


I would agree that men are already subject to some arbitrary interference from
the courts, based on equally vague "Fundamental Rights."  I am opposed to
subjecting men to this, so I must also oppose subjecting women to it.  I prefer
to be both right and consistent.

re: .1

|I don't agree with this.  The fetus is in the woman's body, not the man's,
|and it should be her decision whether or not to abort it.
|				-- Bob

           Yeah, the HUMAN BEING (possible male, too) is in the woman's
           body, but also came from the man's, right?  
           
           Steve
           [who believes the ultimate discrimination (male or female,
           black or white) is abortion]
           
           PS- It's so much easier to call the baby an "it", isn't it?  I
           guess it somehow makes us feel less guilty about murdering.

As .0 makes clear with 

>WHEREAS, the question of the participation of the prospective
>father in any decision to abort is a separate and distinct matter
>from those positions normally identified as "pro-choice" and
>"pro-life"; and
>
>WHEREAS, individuals may in good conscience fully embrace either
>position and still hold to the heartfelt principle that conception
>and pre-natal participation, as a vital part of a man's role in
>parenting, should be respected along with all the other facets of
>his parenting role; and

this declaration is intended to be independent of pro-choice or pro-life
positions.  

The strongly pro-life position expressed in .3 makes the declaration
meaningless.  Neither the man nor the woman would have any rights with respect
to termination.

.3>           PS- It's so much easier to call the baby an "it", isn't it?  I
>           guess it somehow makes us feel less guilty about murdering.

Those of us who do not believe that a fetus is a person, or that abortion is 
murder, call the fetus an "it" not because it is easy, but because it correctly
expresses our beliefs.  

   With all due respect... I find it hard to believe that its possible to
   talk about pre-natal rights without any consideration for the abortion
   camps.
   
   The differences between "it" and "baby" can't help but radically
   change the picture when talking about pre-natal rights.  The earlier
   note talking about "baby" and not "it" made it clear (to me anyway)
   that "it" versus "baby" is an integral part of whose rights must be
   considered.
   
   IMO,
   
   - Tom
   

Re: .4

>this declaration is intended to be independent of pro-choice or pro-life
>positions.  

That may have been the intent, but I don't think the declaration
accomplished this.  The declaration in .0 is incompatible with both the
pro-choice and pro-life positions on abortion.

Pro-choice position: woman can choose whether or not to abort

Pro-life position: neither man nor woman can choose to abort

Declaration position: woman and man must jointly decide whether to abort

It's not clear in the declaration what happens if one party wants to abort and
the other does not.  My interpretation of .0 is that it's saying that both
parties should have to agree to the abortion, so either the man or the
woman could veto the decision to have an abortion.  This means the woman
could be prevented from having an abortion even though she wanted one,
which is incompatible with the pro-choice position.

The alternative interpretation is even less palatable: that the abortion takes
place if either the man or the woman wants it.  This would mean that the
woman would be forced to undergo an abortion even if she wanted to give
birth, because the man wanted he to abort.

I'd be willing to go along with the idea that the man should notified and
consulted if the man and woman were married or in a committed relationship,
but I believe the final decision should the woman's.  Where the man and
the woman are just casual sex parters who no longer have a relationship at
the time that abortion is considered, I *don't* think the woman should
have to consult with the man before having the abortion.  I'm undecided
about whether the man should have to be notified in this situation.

I do agree with the statement in .2 that "men and women [both] have a
responsibility to avoid unprotected sex outside of marriage", and I would
add, "or a committed relationship".

				-- Bob

>================================================================================
>Note 192.6  DECLARATION OF THE FATHER'S FUNDAMENTAL PRE-NATAL RIGHTS !    6 of 6
>GRIM::MESSENGER "Bob Messenger"                      40 lines  27-SEP-1995 13:32
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
>I'm undecided
>about whether the man should have to be notified in this situation.

>				-- Bob
    
    You don't mean this do you? The man does not even deserve to be
    notified even if he has no say. Can you say Sperm donor... or drone.
    Do you have children? Do you have any sons?
    
    Steve

>>I'm undecided
>>about whether the man should have to be notified in this situation.
>    
>    You don't mean this do you? The man does not even deserve to be
>    notified even if he has no say. Can you say Sperm donor... or drone.
>    Do you have children? Do you have any sons?
    
No, I don't have any children.  Yes, if I impregnated someone I'd want to
be told about it.  I guess I'm just worried about abusive situations where
the woman doesn't want to have anything to do with the man who impregnated
her, or doesn't want to reveal the identity of the father.

				-- Bob

|the woman doesn't want to have anything to do with the man who impregnated
|her, or doesn't want to reveal the identity of the father.

Well, isn't that convenient?  How about the equally abusive situation in
which a manipulative woman intentionally gets pregnant, carries to term,
and sues the man "who impregnated her" for child support?  Perhaps he
should have a similar right to anonymity?  In my experience, the frequency
of such incidents is at least similar...

Funny how the laws protect only the woman's right to choose a pregnancy.

tim

>How about the equally abusive situation in
>which a manipulative woman intentionally gets pregnant, carries to term,
>and sues the man "who impregnated her" for child support? 

That sounds like a really good reason for getting to now somebody before
getting into a sexual relationship.

    How about some kid, who is carring to term a child, knowing that she
    might not get aid, and now, starts looking up names in a phone book to
    determin the new father.... an internet story....
    

"intentionally gets pregnant"?  All by herself?  That should make medical
news!

				Steve

    
>"intentionally gets pregnant"?  All by herself?  That should make medical
>news!
    
    Intentionally gets pregnant as in "Hey, its ok, I'm 'safe'. Don't
    yout trust me"?
    
    fred();

    >Don't yout trust me"?
    
    Do you?
    
    DougO

    reply .14
    
>    >Don't yout trust me"?
>    
>    Do you?
    
    Only a tubaligation, and I even know one woman who has gotten pregnant
    (althought not intentionally) after one of those.
    
    fred();

My position is that each partner should take responsibility for contraception.
If the man doesn't want a possible pregnancy to result, he should at least
use a condom, and at most abstain.  Trusting the other partner with this
responsibility is irresponsible.

						Steve

    And what of the irresponsible woman? Should men be punished for their
    irresponsible deeds? 

    

>My position is that each partner should take responsibility for contraception.
>If the man doesn't want a possible pregnancy to result, he should at least
>use a condom, and at most abstain.  Trusting the other partner with this
>responsibility is irresponsible.

    "But don't you trust me?  How can we have a close relationship without
    trust"?  At which time my reaction, but probably not most men, would be
    to run like he-double-eck.  Even after having my finders burnt to the
    second knuckle it may be a difficult call.

    Need I remind you that if you are married, if she gets pregnant by
    another man or by artificial insemination, _you_ are still legally
    responsible for the child.

    Which brings me back to a question that asked once before that
    generated many responses about my character, but no direct answers:
    With the way the laws and courts, etc are today, why do men
    bother?

    fred()

    
    rep .18
    
    >With the way the laws and courts, etc are today, why do men bother?
    
    I'd say it's because the drive to reproduce is very strong,
    or "love" is blind, things will always be this rosy, she's
    such a nice person, she'd never do that to me...
    
    As for abortions, they've always happened, if societies don't allow
    it, the rich still can get them, so poor women die on the table.
    Before they knew how to perform them, if you had a girl and you 
    didn't want a girl, you left it outside somewhere, or threw it
    into a river, etc.
    
    Not that I'm really for abortion, I'm glad I don't need to worry 
    about making that decision, I don't think I could choose to have
    one, if I was a women.  I'd probably carry to term and give "it"
    up for adoption.  But I'll never know.
    
    But I'm not going to force women to carry to term a baby they don't
    want.  They can decide the morality of aborting, and deal with the
    psychological consequences, if any.
    
    /art
     

Punished?  Don't recall using that word.  If their irresponsible action leads
to an unwanted consequence, then they must accept responsibility for said
consequence.  Babies are VERY expensive....  Indeed, the one thing that seems
to have gotten through to my 11 year old son on this topic is how much it
would cost him should he have "a mistake".

Our society is already punishing women for having babies they can't support
on their own, and much more punishing legislation is in the works.  I don't
at all agree with the rigid formulas used for child support awards nowadays,
but the underlying concept is sound.

					Steve

.20                                                                     I don't
.20 at all agree with the rigid formulas used for child support awards nowadays,
.20 but the underlying concept is sound.

	If you don't agree with the rigid formulas, what do you think should
be done.   Do you think the formula awards too much for support, or too
little or just isn't flexible enough ?   Should the judge just have broad
latitude to set support ?

	It seems to me that it's often the case of a rock and a hard spot.
Typically there is a family which doesn't have enough money to live
together, and then living expenses are increased by having to support
two household instead of one, and this costs more, but there is no more
money.   And to make matters worse child care becomes even more difficult
because now there is only one full time adult in the home to provide
care/supervision.

	In Massachusetts, I understand (and I may be wrong) that in a divorce
marital property is supposed to be divided evenly.   Marital property
includes almost everything acquired during the marriage, but may not include
things brought to the marriage.   Thus even if only one partner had a job
which earned a salary, or if the two salaries were very different, things
like the equity in the marital home (or vested pension benefits acquired
during the marriage) are supposed to be divided equally.    In a nofault
situation this seems fair to me.

	Also in Massachusetts, I understand (and I may be wrong) that
roughly 1/3 of the noncustodial parents normal salary is allocated to child
support.   So roughly the kids get 1/3, the taxman gets 1/3 and the non
custodial parent gets 1/3 to live on.    In Massachusetts, if the custodial
parent has a salaried job which exceeds $15k/year the 1/3 the NCP pays gets
reduced proportionally.   This seems sort of fair.   Do you disagree ?
(I understand that in NH if the CP works, the NCP's liability may INCREASE ?)

    The CPs wadge increases, and the child support for the NCP doesnt
    increase if the NCP is a woman. Been there. Done that!!:)
    
    

Part of the problem as I see it is that CS awards assume that the CP is not
able to pay anything towards maintenance of a home for the child, pushing
the entire burden on the NCP.  It does NOT cost 1/3 of gross salary to
properly provide for one child on top of other living expenses!

Another problem is that there is no accountability - too many NCPs know that
their CS money goes for everything BUT the child's needs, and the NCP has
no leverage whatsoever.  The government isn't interested, since all it cares
about is that the CP isn't a "drain on the public welfare".

Consider this absurd but all too real situation.  A couple with one child
gets divorced - their individual incomes are nearly identical and 
"upper middle income", they split assets down the middle.  If one parent
gets full custody, the courts will automatically assess the NCP child support
in the amount of 1/3 gross income, even though it's clear that the CP
certainly doesn't need that amount of money to support a household.  The
relative assets of the parents are not taken into consideration (unless there
is a wide disparity, and even then not always).

Another part of the problem is indirectly caused by men who don't involve
themselves in caring for their children until it is "too late".  The large
number of men who just abandon their families, especially when the mothers
are poor, weights public opinion in the mothers' favor, and the men are
considered "walking wallets", if they can be found.  That this situation
does not apply to ALL divorce cases is ignored.  A woman can decide that she
likes her new boyfriend better than her husband, keeps the kid, house, car
and wrings the husband dry - and nobody blinks an eye.

There are no easy answers to this, though if more men fought for and were
awarded shared physical custody, child support would be less of an issue.

					Steve

.23                                                  A woman can decide that she
.23 likes her new boyfriend better than her husband, keeps the kid, house, car
.23 and wrings the husband dry - and nobody blinks an eye.

	This is certainly one of the scenarios that seems awful to me.
But what can be done ??????    How do you write a law that cuts off this
woman, and not the woman whose husband decided at mid life to run of with
some floozy or that he'd rather be gay ???   Most divorces are done as nofault.

.23                                                   A couple with one child
.23 gets divorced - their individual incomes are nearly identical and 
.23 "upper middle income", they split assets down the middle.  If one parent
.23 gets full custody, the courts will automatically assess the NCP child support
.23 in the amount of 1/3 gross income, even though it's clear that the CP
.23 certainly doesn't need that amount of money to support a household.

	In Massachusetts, the guidelines would set the order at approximately
1/6 not 1/3.   New Hampshire is different.

	I really don't know what fraction of a normal families income would
be spent on children.   In my family, when money was available it was usually
spent first on kids and then on adults.    Certainly having children in
the family increases the size of the apartment or house which is necessary,
increases the food bills (how much do teenagers eat?), increases clothing bills,
and even increases the amount of gas and repairs to keep the family car
going.   Do you know any studies which would suggest a better figure ??

	Another way of looking at this is to observe that the CP is going to
attempt to maintain the same life style for the child after the divorce as
before.    If the CP doesn't work, this means maintain the same life style
on half as much income, which sure sounds tough to me.

.23 Part of the problem as I see it is that CS awards assume that the CP is not
.23 able to pay anything towards maintenance of a home for the child, pushing
.23 the entire burden on the NCP.

	Where a pattern had been established that one parent works outside
the home and the other doesn't (and apparently at the time this was acceptable
to both parties) it's my understanding the courts are not anxious to interfere.
IMO, especially when the fault of the divorce (which is hard to establish) is
the NCPs this is probably reasonable.   But it is also a trap for the CP,
because if the CP remains outside the workforce the CP will hit their 40's or
50's with no job, and in Massachusetts, limited possibilities.

.23 Another problem is that there is no accountability - too many NCPs know that
.23 their CS money goes for everything BUT the child's needs, and the NCP has
.23 no leverage whatsoever.

	While it would be nice if the two parents could sit down and make
mutual decisions about child care, it's tough to have a democracy with two
people.   One of the parents has to have the final say, and that ends up being
the CP.   All too often bickering about kids and how support should be
spent is just a continuation of the parents inability to work together.
My lawyer tells me this is why the courts won't touch it.    If the CP is
really spending most of the support on the new SO and ignoring the children,
perhaps the NCP has a case (difficult) for getting custody based on neglect.


	Please don't get me wrong.  I think there is room for reform.
But at this point, I'm not sure what concrete suggestions to make to my
representative.

.23 There are no easy answers to this, though if more men fought for and were
.23 awarded shared physical custody, child support would be less of an issue.

	This is a little tricky.   Often in a divorce the CP ends up with
the house, and the NCP may not be set up to handle shared physical custody.
(and schemes where the NCP and CP share the marital home on an alternating
basis are just plain nuts in my view).   I think the potential here is
that when the kids get older, (can be left alone after school, etc) there
may be room for a change to shared physical custody, and a corresponding
change in support arrangements.    The CP might see it differently.

>================================================================================
>Note 192.8  DECLARATION OF THE FATHER'S FUNDAMENTAL PRE-NATAL RIGHTS !   8 of 24
>GRIM::MESSENGER "Bob Messenger"                      13 lines  27-SEP-1995 14:4--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>I'm undecided
>>>about whether the man should have to be notified in this situation.
>>    
>>    You don't mean this do you? The man does not even deserve to be
>>    notified even if he has no say. Can you say Sperm donor... or drone.
>>    Do you have children? Do you have any sons?
>    
>No, I don't have any children.  Yes, if I impregnated someone I'd want to
>be told about it.  I guess I'm just worried about abusive situations where
>the woman doesn't want to have anything to do with the man who impregnated
>her, or doesn't want to reveal the identity of the father.
>
>				-- Bob
    
    I could say wait till you have sons, but simple fairness dictates
    otherwise. This is a non acceptable position for the father AND the
    child when he/she grows up. This IMHO is a basic problem with our
    society; men are considered drones...
    
    I changed my mind: Wait till you have a son then try to explain:
    
    	Why he should NOT be notified
    	Why he has to sign up for the Selective Service or loose Givmint
          Bennies
    	Why he (assuming white or asian) can be descriminated against and 
    	  treated as a group, given group guilt, but must judge everyone
          else as an individual
    
    Wait: I have had these talks with my sons and they are ANGRY!
    
    Steve
    
    PS Slavery was considered OK in the past too though a small group
    objected

>.23                                                   A couple with one child
>.23 gets divorced - their individual incomes are nearly identical and 
>.23 "upper middle income", they split assets down the middle.  If one parent
>.23 gets full custody, the courts will automatically assess the NCP child support
>.23 in the amount of 1/3 gross income, even though it's clear that the CP
>.23 certainly doesn't need that amount of money to support a household.
>
>	In Massachusetts, the guidelines would set the order at approximately
>1/6 not 1/3.   New Hampshire is different.

I don't think so.  It depends on how much they're making, but the CP gets $15K
free, off the top before anything reduces the NCP's support amount.  And besides,
she can decide to marry, get pregnant, have another kid, and simply retire - no
further financial responsibilty to her existing kids whatsoever, and the NCP has
to make up the difference.  (This is in Mass., not elsewhere).  There's also an
uplift for teenagers, which means the NCP can end up paying over 38% of gross, and
the CP can just retire, or at least until the kids are out of college!

In general, women in our society are not held financially responsible for their
own children, even when they're perfectly capable of supporting them, in part or
in whole.  In other words, there's no such thing as a deadbeat mom, you have to
have a penis to be a child support deadbeat.

>	Where a pattern had been established that one parent works outside
>the home and the other doesn't (and apparently at the time this was acceptable
>to both parties) it's my understanding the courts are not anxious to interfere.
>IMO, especially when the fault of the divorce (which is hard to establish) is
>the NCPs this is probably reasonable.   But it is also a trap for the CP,
>because if the CP remains outside the workforce the CP will hit their 40's or
>50's with no job, and in Massachusetts, limited possibilities.

What?  Why is that reasonable?  Why SHOULDN'T the mother be responsible - the
divorce means the old 'understanding' has ended!  The CP's are just as responsible
for supporting themselves and their children as the NCP's!  When the CP is male,
he doesn't get to stay home with the kids while she pays half her take-home pay in
child support!

There's no way this system can be characterized as fair - even in states that are
more reasonable than Mass (which is the worst I've ever heard of).

tim

        re .24 

>	While it would be nice if the two parents could sit down and make
>mutual decisions about child care, it's tough to have a democracy with two
>people.   One of the parents has to have the final say, and that ends up being
>the CP

    The problem here is not about how the money should be spent on the 
    kids, but that so much of the money never goes to support the
    kids.  There should be accountability that rent divided by family
    members times number if kids is going on the kids.  Same with
    food.  Also accountability that support is being spent on cloths,
    school, medical, etc, etc.  Believe me, I've seen plenty of cases
    where there was no way the money was going to take care of the
    kids.

    This is also part of the "deadbeat dads" situation.  Studies have shown
    (it's been a long time since I've seen them though) that a significant
    number of NCP fathers would gladly pay child support if they could
    be sure the money was going to the kids.  

    You don't have to be a male to be a "deadbeat parent".  My ex owes me
    well into five figures now.  I've put all the money collected so far
    into a savings account for college.  All $395 of it.  

    fred();

>.23	   In Massachusetts, the guidelines would set the order at approximately
>.23 1/6 not 1/3.   New Hampshire is different.

>.26 I don't think so.

I have used as a reference Non-custodial Parents Conference entry 280.1 which
lists Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines.

Note .23 referenced an "upper middle income" family.   Using those guidelines,
if we assume each of the parents earn $50k/year, and assume one child say age
6, the basic order is 27% assuming no discretion of the judge.   Then the
formula is

		    50k
		____________  *  27%  =  15.88%
		50k-15k+50k

		
If we assume each parent earns 75k/yr we get

		    75k
		____________  *  27%  =  15%
		75k-15k+75k


.26                                                                      And besides,
.26 she can decide to marry, get pregnant, have another kid, and simply retire - no
.26 further financial responsibilty to her existing kids whatsoever, and the NCP has
.26 to make up the difference.  (This is in Mass., not elsewhere).

	My understanding is that if a NCP were to intentionally become
underemployed, the judge would be inclined to maintain the original order.
And in no event should the order be less than $50 /month.   Your experience
may be different, and if it is, it would suggest there had been a
violation of the guidelines.   If this is true, perhaps your lawyer
can explain why.


	Do we want to discuss cases where the guidelines are being
abused (e.g. not applied equally to men and women), or should we discuss
what the guidelines should be ??  Is the roughly 1/3 for families where
the NCP earns up to 75k too large or too small ??  What should it be ???

    Abuse of this is a common thing. I can site you case after case after
    case. And the message we get from Steve's, Doug-O's, and the tribe,
    that reps much of the thoughts and wishs of N.O.W., 'quit whining, and
    take it like a man.....'.

Re: .29

George,  you misrepresent my position, NOW's position, and probably Doug's
as well.  I've made several suggestions as to how to start on the path to
correcting the inequities.  What have you done besides whine?

				Steve

    
    re .30

>What have you done besides whine?

    I'd say George has not only made "suggestions" but is one of the few
    who have actually _acted_.  Not only on his daughter's behalf, but
    on the behalf of others as well.

    Sich'em George!

    fred();

    Weeelll..... I was not the person who has mention the whines there
    Steve. And insofar as the postions of N.O.W. I think that you have made
    yourself very clear to the reading and writing public. 
    
    As Fred has stated. What I have done, is hopefully set a fair example.
    I still give support to many who wish to ask for help. And still keep
    in contact with those who have been thru it. Gee. I guess I would like
    some cheese with that wine.:) Still, I have not read anything positive
    to support a cause that the feminist have been hammering upon us. All I
    have read dear Steve is more of the same old same old about being a
    neanderthal, male.....
    
    
    

The case of both parents making $50K - $75K is pathological, i.e. rare. 
Typically, the CP is the mother, and makes much less than the father.  Try
looking at the numbers where the CP makes $30K, the NCP makes $70K, there are
two or three kids, and one of them is a teenager.  Then the C.S. can approach
38% of gross...That means the CP's income rises to $55K (much of it tax-free)
and the NCP's income drops below $45K, all of it taxable.  And he's still
held responsible for additional things like college expenses...and SHE get's
the tax deduction for the kids!

Why should the CP get a $15K break, but the NCP doesn't?  Why should the CP
be allowed to simply retire, with no further financial responsibility to HER
children whatsoever (note that if the NCP remarries and stops working, HE'll
be crucified as a deadbeat dad).  Why shouldn't the mother even be held
responsibile for her own livelihood?  The rules are clearly biased along
gender lines.

tim

Re: .31

I'd love to read of examples of George's actions (and suggestions).  Please
point them out.

				Steve

    re .34
    
    Might start with SSAG::NON_CUSTODIAL_PARENTS.
    fred();

    Anytime you wish to meet me off line, at a coffee shop, your place or
    mine there Steve. I can also show you some case work that has been done
    by self and others.....:)
    

response to .33

Our discussion started with 
.23  Consider this absurd but all too real situation.  A couple with one child
.23 gets divorced - their individual incomes are nearly identical and 
.23 "upper middle income", they split assets down the middle.  If one parent
.23 gets full custody, the courts will automatically assess the NCP child support
.23 in the amount of 1/3 gross income, even though it's clear that the CP
.23 certainly doesn't need that amount of money to support a household.

So I stated
>.23	   In Massachusetts, the guidelines would set the order at approximately
>.23 1/6 not 1/3.   New Hampshire is different.

and now you want to claim
.33 The case of both parents making $50K - $75K is pathological, i.e. rare.
The "absurd" situation being discussed was "upper middle income" with nearly
identical incomes.   You can't refute this with an example with disparate
incomes !


But anyway lets look at the case of CP earns 30K and NCP earns 70K with
three teenage kids.  As I read the guidelines, the basic order
would be 33 + 15% of base = 37.95%.   But then this is adjusted
for the combine incomes so that the result looks like.

	   70
	________  * 37.95% = 31.25%
	30-15+70

Do you see an error in my arithmetic ??   Or do I misunderstand the
guidelines ??

If we assume the tax rate is 35% (state and local) then we have
	NCP wages = 70K
		    21.7 support (31%*70k)
		    24.5 taxes
	NCP gets    23.8
While	CP wages =  30K
		    21.7 support
		    10.5 taxes
	CP gets	    41.2
(The gap is probably wider than this because the CP gets to file as
head of household and may be in a lower bracket, etc.)
But, it's also true that the CP has the expense of providing food, shelter
and clothing for three teenagers.

If you think the guidelines are wrong, please propose a different formula,
and then lets send it to our law makers.   I don't believe there are
guidelines about college expenses.   What should the guidelines be for
this ??

Thanks for the pointers - I hadn't seen anything in this file (and I don't
read the NCP file.)

				Steve

    
    re .38

>Thanks for the pointers - I hadn't seen anything in this file (and I don't
>read the NCP file.)

    Might give it a try sometime.  If nothing else, it gives you an idea
    what you're up against as a parent these days.  Take a giant economy 
    size bottle of anti-acid's with you when you go.

    fred();

    And here I thought that potty training was the best reason to never
    have kids...

I am a parent, I have shared physical and joint legal custody of my son, and
have been dealing with this for almost ten years now.  Thankfully, I
managed to sidestep most of the problems which divorced fathers so frequently
encounter - I don't attribute all of this to luck.  I also recognize that
my situation is unusual, but I think a lot of the things I managed to do right
could help others going into a divorce/custody situation.  Unfortunately,
very little of it is applicable after the fact...  I have tried to give tips
here and in HUMAN_RELATIONS where I can.

					Steve

    But, not all of the divorce cases run as well as yours. Many men have
    done their 'Batan March' thru the house, thru courts, thru life. And
    sometimes, there is little or no help for their causes. Count your
    blessings that it did go the way its going. 
    
    I slept in alleys, trees, cars, and dumpsters avoiding cops, dogs, and 
    the ex as I tried to prove that my daughter was in danger of the ex's 
    beau, who IS a self admitted childmolester. I have it on paper to his 
    admittance..... and it is now documented in the NH court system....

Re: .37

Of course it's unfair.  Why does the CP get a $15K break?  And what on earth
makes the state think that 38% of the NCP's gross is a fair rate (in the case
where the CP is volutarily unemployed)?  It surely has no basis in actual
costs!  Besides, she can get a job!   

At the very least, the CP should have equal financial responsibility - either
give the $15K break to both parties or neither...

tim

    re .41

    Having shared physical custody alleviates a _lot_ of the problems.
    However, at this time, I think shared physical custody is even
    rarer than sole custody by the father.  It is rarely given unless
    the mother agrees.  Shared physical custody takes a lot of cooperation 
    between both parents.  Often more cooperation than was present in the 
    marriage.  My congratulations to you if you can make it work, and
    my envy of you of an ex who is intelligent enough, mature enough,
    and willing enough to make it work.

    My 9 1/2 year odyssey through the courts is documented largely in NCP. I
    won because I was incredibly tenacious and incredibly lucky, but the
    luck would not have mattered had I not been ready to act on it. One of
    the things I ran into to my dismay was the almost total lack of support
    or advice for those going through the grinder.  Therefore one of the
    things that I promised myself was that I owed a debt to those who did
    stand beside me in those times to pass on my experience, strength, and
    hope as best I could to those going through the process.

    Another of those who have stayed to help out by whatever means he could
    after being drug through "the cruel spa" has been George.  As such, I
    give him my sincere thanks and respect.

    fred();

    Steve,,,,, one more... I am still working on a Supreme court case
    against a local GAL. Gonna be a fun one.:) The issue is not to make all
    people from this day forward to write with their left hands. Its to
    make GALs accountable for their work. Your held accountable for your
    work, Fred is for his, Doug-O is too, and so is self. But, GAL's are
    imune to prosucution for their work if they are oppointed to a case...
    That is wrong, and hopefully the local Fathers United, Just Might make
    it work. As you know, Steve, GALs become the ex's second attorney. Not
    working in the real interest of the child. So, can I have some cheese
    with that wine?:P
    
    

George,

I wish you all the best in your efforts.  The system IS broken, I fully
agree.

Fred,

In New Hampshire, at least, shared physical custody is supposed to be 
"the norm" unless circumstances dictate otherwise.  At least this is what
I have been told.  You are 100% correct that it takes incredible cooperation
to make it work, and that this is very unusual.  I would also point out that
it also takes involvement from when the child is born, not a revelation
after divorce papers are served.

					Steve

    Revolation for both happens when its a done deal.... some think its a
    gold mine, as others know its the mine shaft.....
    
    But, then again, 70% of all divorces are iniciated by women. So, 70% of
    all divorces are from us neanderthal men...?
    
    Thanks Steve, I will keep you in mind if and when I get to go to D.C.
    for this case. .)
    

    
    In Colorado the movement to make shared physical custody the norm
    was met with shrieks of "you will be forcing women to maintain 
    relationships with abusive men".  So instead, joint legal custody
    was made the norm.  Joint legal custody is a joke.  The "primary
    custodian" is still nearly always the mother.  Joint legal custody
    gives you access to some legal documents like school records, and
    ability to get medical treatment for your kids, but little else.

    There have been some improvements, however, in the child support
    area in that overtime and second jobs cannot be part of the 
    gross income for the child support orders.

    fred();
    

	Steve,

	Re: Shared Custody being the 'norm'.  Yes, that is until the 
	ex realizes the gravy train (read $$$$) under those circumstances.
	Then all the crap comes out about how you are a bad father, etc. to
	gain custody of the kids and get CS.  On a personal level, my ex and
	I agreed to 50/50 custody of our 3 children.  Before we got a chance
	to implement - my oldest (13 years old) decided (for HIS reasons) to
	live full time with his Dad.  When I went to my ex with this 
	proposition she agreed with all the reasons why he should stay with
	his Dad ...... and then said "As long as it doesn't change the money
	you have to pay."  Rather than argue with her I took the child and
	still give her the money.  

	Chuck

    gee... imagine that... most of the times, men get beaten up on that
    issue. Money. And that custody for dads are not a nurturing, caring
    issue... more finance.... I had that tossed in my face.
    
    

    
    I got burnt by that one too.  My oldest daughter wanted to come live
    with me.  Theex agreed for a time of one year providing that I continue
    full payments.  I also had to continue full child support payments
    during the 2-3 months each summer that the kids were with me.

    After I got custody of my kids, one of the first things I did was to
    file to have my child support payments dropped.  Which was granted.
    A few months later I got a letter from the state of Minnesota saying
    that I still owed them two months child support.  I sent them copies
    of the Change of Custody Orders and the Relief of Child Support Orders.
    Registered mail, return receipt.  A couple months later I got another
    letter stating that if I didn't pay up, they'd garnishee my tax return.
    I telephoned the person in charge, then asked to speak to their
    manager, then told the manager to go review the papers I'd sent, and
    that if they touched my tax return they'd find themselves in Federal
    court faster than they could say AFDC.  Nothing more happened.

    The bottom line is--what did they do to her for fraudulently collecting
    AFDC for those two months?  Zilch!

    If I'd just waited until they grabbed my tax return, I'd probably be 
    a millionaire by now.  Sigh, such is life ;^}.

    fred();

You should be able to go back to court and get the agreement modified if your
son is now living with you.  A "family practice" lawyer in Nashua once said at
a presentation that many fathers (typically) don't think of or bother to
request a modification when the circumstances change materially.

				Steve

    I know a man, his name is Ron. He live in Littleton NH. He HAS custody.
    And has had custody for the last 4 years! HE PAYS child support to his
    NCP ex wife!!! An order decree'ed by Marital Master Peter Borque!!! He
    decided to let it ride for a few months before he could get more money
    up to fight it. Welp... after 3 years, a bunch of money that just about
    broke the guy. He has finally got the privilage in the granit head
    state, the honor Not to Pay child support@!! He is not going to fight
    for child support. He says by the time he gets that honor. The kids
    will have grand children....

    Cross posted from NCP since so many do not read that file.
    
   <<< SSAG::DISK$ARCH2:[NOTES$LIBRARY.QUOKKA]NON_CUSTODIAL_PARENTS.NOTE;2 >>>
              -< Welcome to the Non-Custodial Parents Conference >-
================================================================================
Note 214.1                    CHILD SUPPORT REVIEW?                       1 of 1
CSC32::HADDOCK "Saddle Rozinante"                    80 lines   5-OCT-1995 08:47
                     -< Colorado Child Support Commission >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Last night was a meeting of the Colorado Child Support Commission in
    Pueblo, Co.  I attended.  Some of the point's I hit on:

    Support:
    Support guidelines are too high.  I can support my kids _and_ send them
    to private school for less than I would be required to pay under the 
    guidelines.

    Accountability:
    Need more accountability from CP that the CS payments actually go to
    support the kids.  When the CP claims that all they can find is a 
    minimum wage job (if any), and your kids continually show up hungry,
    dirty, and in rags while the CP is driving a new car, it's not hard
    to figure most of the "support" is not reaching the children.

    Welfare:
    What is the difference in "deadbeat dad" and "welfare mother".  Do
    not both have the responsibility to work and support their kids?
    I lambasted one woman who was crying about her deadbeat ex and how
    her current husband had to support her kids.  Where was _her_ 
    responsibility to support her kids?

    Even after mother is off of welfare, Social Services will continue
    to confiscate child support payments until all back payments owed
    them are caught up.  Children receive nothing until back payments
    to Social Services are caught up.

    Married:
    In Colorado, if a man is married and the wife gets pregnant by any
    means, even artificial insemination or another man, the husband is
    held responsible for the child.  This is WRONG!

    College:
    It is discriminatory to make divorced parents provide "support" for
    college while married parents are not.  There should be some proof
    provided that the child is actually enrolled, attending classes, and
    making grades.

    Visitation:
    Visitation is the CHILD'S RIGHT as well as the NCP's right.  There 
    should be more penalties for violation of visitation.  States will
    support collection of CS but not enforce visitation.  States will
    not extradite CP from another state for contempt of court.  Yet they
    will support other states child support orders.

    Custody:
    It may be time to consider giving custody of children to parents who
    are willing and able to support the children.  Colorado law says that
    custody is to go the parent who serves the best interest of the child,
    but for some reason that is still considered to be the mother in the
    vast majority of cases.

    Deadbeats:
    Penalties for being one dollar short are the same as not paying at all.
    One man said he had been two dollars short on his payment and it cost
    $750 to get the record straightened out.  So if you can't pay full
    amount, why pay anything?
    
    Collections:
    More "deadbeat parents" would be willing to pay if there was more:
    	1) Enforcement of Visitation
    	2) Accountability of CP for support
        3) Guidelines were less punitive and more to what a person could
           pay and still maintain a standard of living.
	4) Incentives for making at least partial payment.
    
    Many of these points were echoed by several of the other attendees.

    Social Services (Human Services) took a lambasting from both sides.
    One man there said he has quit Social Services because of all the B.S.

    No lawyers or judges were in attendance.

    We may have made at least one impact.  State Senator Gigi Dennis, who
    was at the meeting, said, on the radio this morning, that more had to
    be done to collect child support  _and_ to make sure support paid was
    actually reaching the  children.

    fred();
    

    Visitation:
    
    I have heard to many 1st person horror stories about this.
    
    Unless the CP has a statement from a board certified doctor that the child
    is too (better be good and) sick to be with the NCP, then it should be
    a crime equal to non-paument of child support. And OBTW, a Dr charged
    with falsifying above looses his/her license to practice in the US
    forever.
    
    And the CP charging sexual abuse to prevent visitation shall forefit
    custody if the NCP is found not guilty or face the prison term that the
    NCP would have faced had he/she been found guilty.
    
    Steve

    A suit of 'Aleination with intent bla-bla.. forgot that line. But, such
    charges have been levied upon CP's for such things. Even one against a
    CP's new beau! He, the beau, got his panties sued off his bottom side
    for the interfernce of visitation.
    
    Still it goes on, and still many give up when they should be standing
    up to it all.
    

    I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but....
    
    Violation of Visitation is one area where it is useful to be able to
    file your own court papers.  It really isn't all that hard.  It costs
    about $1000 to hire a lawyer, and you may have to nail the CP 
    several times before the court will finally do something or he/she
    gets tired of paying a lawyer and comes to believe you will not put
    up with the b.s.

    In the past NCP's were reluctant to fight for visitation because the
    CP would usually retaliate (and be granted) with an increase in 
    child support.  Now that the child support cannot be increased 
    beyond the guidelines, that problem is greatly reduced.  Make sure 
    that you are up on your child support, thought.  Even though the law
    says that they are separate issues, they will hammer you with it if
    you are behind.

    Make sure you have a case, though.  Make sure you have _evidence_.
    The courts do not want to hear she-said-she-did.  They want 
    hard evidence.  One of the easiest ways to do this is to (as I am
    famous for in NCP) DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT.  Personal logs,
    journals, diaries, etc are admissible evidence if you keep them 
    current.  Then every time the CP slams the door in your face or 
    slams down the phone on you it is just one more nail in _his/her_
    coffin.  Dated video tapes taken by a friend of her slamming the 
    door on you are also good.  You should document several incidents
    to establish a pattern.

    I had my ex thrown in jail twice for violation of visitation.  It
    helped to finally ruin her credibility with he court.  A third
    attempt for non payment of support was thrown out because I was 
    unable to prove she was working and able to pay.

    One final word.  Make sure you have a legitimate case or it can 
    backfire big time.  You forced to pay her attorneys fees, etc.
    If you have a really good case, though, then you can probably 
    sue the pants off of the for something or other for interfering
    with the child's and your rights.  Present the case as a violation
    of the child's rights as well as a violation of your rights  (which
    it is).
    
    fred();

    re note .45:
    
    "GAL" At first I thought you were just making a negative statement
    about some woman. Then I realized what G.A.L. stood for - Guardian
    Ad-Litum, correct?
    
    Why is it you say the GAL was one with your ex? Did the GAL do an
    assessment? 
    
    jeff

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
         F R I E N D S   O F   C H O I C E   F O R    M E N   # 8

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
                                                                  
              Secret Case Terminated Parental Responsibilities
                   Stainless Steel Chastity Belts for Men 
                                Media Watch
                        Celebrity Paternity Suits
          Men Forced Into Fatherhood Can't Choose the Kid's Last Name
              Nearly 1/3 of U.S. Births are to Unwed Mothers
                                  Quotes
                  Choice for Men on Bumpers and T Shirts
            Vasectomy Requires Wife's Consent in Many U.S. States
      Proposed Colorado Law Automatically Gives Custody to Unwed Mothers
             Why I Believe We Should Legalize Choice For Men
                Constitutionality of Establishing Paternity
                          Administrative Stuff
                   Famous Israeli Case May be Reheard
       At Least 3 States Don't Permit Rape as a Defense to Paternity
       Calif Senator Proposes to Make Grandparents Pay Child Support


              ================================================
              Secret Case Terminated Parental Responsibilities
              ================================================

A case already exists where a man's parental rights and responsibilities
were terminated, and no adopting father was waiting in the wings! In case
you're just tuning in, that's the goal of Choice for Men. Perhaps you're
wondering WHY you haven't heard of this case until now.... Because the 
case was "depublished", to prevent it from being cited as precedent. 
Nonetheless, the case terminated the non-custodial parent's rights, while
leaving those of the custodial parent squarely intact. The case was in the
California Reporter as:

    "In re JOSHUA M., a Minor, DONNA M., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. 
    James G., Defendant and Respondent.* No G009147. Court of Appeal, 
    Fourth District, Division 3. Oct 23, 1990". 


              ================================================
                   Stainless Steel Chastity Belts for Men 
              ================================================

Until our law makers come to their senses and legalize Choice for Men, 
there's always male chastity belts!

                          Tollyboy Products,
                          P.O. Box 27,
                          Dronfield,
                          S18 6DN
                          England


                                ===========
                                Media Watch
                                ===========

John Leo wrote an article for the The Washington Times' National Weekly 
Edition, May 15 - 21, 1995, which said that in addition to the U.S., Japan 
and Britain also allow single women to conceive with donated sperm, thus
condoning raising children by single parents. So if it's OK for children to 
have one parent, what "compelling state interest" is the U.S. using to
justify forcing men into parenthood and child support? I attribute it 
to male bashing.

ABC News broadcast a news special on Fatherhood in June and they refused
to broadcast the man's side of the story of how he was forced into fatherhood!
They really messed up. They FEATURED the side of the woman who forced him
into fatherhood! I suggest sending them a fax through the email gateway 
which simply says you "expect" them to broadcast the man's side of the 
story too. You don't have to hit them over the head. Here's the email 
address which goes to their fax:

     [email protected]   

Marilyn vos Savant's column in Parade magazine recently said she sympathizes
with the many men who are trapped into fatherhood, and that it would be fair
to make fatherhood a role to opt *into*. She's a genius. Coincidentally, 
she agrees with our position.

The July 6, 1995 issue of USA Today reported that entertainer Naomi Judd 
cuckold her ex husband Michael Ciminella into having her high school 
friend's baby, Wynonna. Wynonna Judd's biological father is actually 
Charlie Jordan, a high school classmate of Naomi Judd. Studies have found 
that between 1% and 30% of men are victims of non-paternity.

The Boston Globe reported on July 15th, 1995 that fathers of 64% of the
illegitimate children born in Massachusetts admit paternity, as opposed
to an average of 40% for other states. Keep in mind that preliminary 
Government data shows that 2/3 of these men don't intend to cause
conception.

Mel Feit, the director at the National Center for Men was quoted in the
April 3rd 1995 Washington post as saying that men who are forced into 
fatherhood '"feel raped. They lose everything they worked for all their 
lives. In many cases they had agreement with the woman to not have a baby 
and when she changes her mind they call me up and say "How can she do this 
to me?"'.

                        =========================
                        Celebrity Paternity Suits
                        =========================

Isiah Thomas, the former Detroit Pistons star, may have his 1987 paternity
case re-opened. Thomas first agreed to pay the woman about $52,000, plus
about $2,800 a month until the child turned 18, and then to a final payment of 
$100,000. Thomas' lawyer, Patrick Freydl, said the the issue is "ripe for 
a Supreme Court review" and "I don't think the case would have ever been 
filed if the Pistons hadn't won two championships in a row. I think that 
should be obvious to anyone."

Another basketball star, 6 foot 7 inch Chicago Bulls player Scottie Pippen,
was ordered by Circuit Judge David Delgado to make a one time payment
of $10,000 to his former girlfriend Sonya Roby for birth expenses. Roby 
is also seeking payments of $11,500 a month from Pippen. That adds up to
real money pretty fast.


      ========================================================
     Men Forced Into Fatherhood Can't Choose the Kid's Last Name
      ========================================================

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in Gubernat and Deremer's
case that the last name selected by the parent with physical custody 
(almost always the mother) will be presumed by the courts to be in the 
child's best interests. So, not only are the courts permitting men 
to be forced into fatherhood by contraceptive failure, contraceptive 
fraud, and statutory raping of boys, but now the guys who are forced 
into fatherhood won't even have a child named after them. Sit down, shut 
up, and pay. Tragically, in this case, the father killed himself and the 
child.


            ==============================================
            Nearly 1/3 of U.S. Births are to Unwed Mothers
            ==============================================

A new report from the National Center for Health Statistics found that
births to unwed mothers are still increasing, and as of 1992 account for
30.1% of all U.S. births. Other preliminary government data has found that
2/3 of men involved with women like these didn't intend to cause conception. 


                             =================
                                  Quotes
                             =================

                      Male bashing is a hate crime.

                              Save the males.


                  ======================================
                  Choice for Men on Bumpers and T Shirts
                  ======================================

Peter Zohrab <[email protected]> has "ASK ME ABOUT CHOICE FOR MEN" 
in large yellow letters on his back car bumper, and I have several T shirts
which say "Legalize Reproductive Choice for Men". I REALLY like wearing them.
Let me know if you'd like one. <[email protected]>


          =====================================================
          Vasectomy Requires Wife's Consent in Many U.S. States
          =====================================================

Here's another legal blunder. Not only do the current laws permit men to be 
forced into fatherhood by contraceptive failure, fraud and even rape, but
in many U.S. states, men can't even get a vasectomy without their wife's 
consent! Any Constitution of a nation of free people must define the 
word "liberty" broadly indeed, including the right for decide for themselves
in matters as private as procreation. These laws NEED to be overturned!


    ==================================================================
    Proposed Colorado Law Automatically Gives Custody to Unwed Mothers
    ==================================================================

A proposed Colorado law says:

IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ORDER OR JUDGMENT REGARDING CUSTODY ISSUED BY A
COURT WITH COMPETENT JURISDICTION, THE MOTHER OF A CHILD BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK
HAS LEGAL CUSTODY OF SUCH CHILD UNTIL A CUSTODY ORDER HAS BEEN ENTERED OR
THE CHILD IS EMANCIPATED.

Great. 2/3 of these men are first forced into fatherhood, then would have 
to fight to have access to the kid.


             ===============================================
             Why I Believe We Should Legalize Choice For Men
             ===============================================

A constitution of free people must have a broad definition of liberty indeed,
including the right to decline parenthood absent a compelling state interest.
As long as adoptions and sperm donorship are legal for single parents, the
benefits of a second parent's income do NOT rise to the level of a 
"compelling state interest" which justifies state meddling in personal 
decisions of procreation.


                  ===========================================
                  Constitutionality of Establishing Paternity
                  ===========================================

Judge Johnathan Hayes in Weld County District Court for the State of Colorado
has ruled C.R.S. 14-14-104 is unconstitutional. This is the legislative
authority for the county department of social services to establish
paternity, in addition to establishing child support and recovering AFDC 
expenditures. The reasoning was that it violates due process and equal 
protection.

                         ======================
                          Administrative Stuff
                         ======================

I can now be reached at [email protected]. This is also the address to send
email to if you want to be added or removed from the FOC distribution list.
The Choice for Men WWW homepage has also moved, to http://www.nas.com/c4m


                   ==================================
                   Famous Israeli Case May be Reheard
                   ==================================

The Israeli Supreme Court ruled 4-1 earlier this year that a divorced woman 
may not implant eggs fertilized by her ex husband without his consent, 
and thereby force him into fatherhood. It was a good ruling for our cause,
and concurred with the 6/1/92 Davis v. Davis, Tennessee Supreme Court ruling,
but conflicts with the opinion of New York Supreme Court Judge Roncallo, 
who said a "husband's rights...end with ejaculation" in the case of Kass v. 
Kass.. Judge Roncallo is retiring. Good riddance.

The NEWS is that an expanded panel of _11_ judges of the Israeli Supreme
Court will decide if the expanded panel should REHEAR the Israeli case. 


     =============================================================
     At Least 3 States Don't Permit Rape as a Defense to Paternity
     =============================================================

Boy's who are victims of statutory rape by older women have been forced
into fatherhood in two states that I'm aware of: Kansas and Missouri. A
Massachusetts family law attorney has informed me that Mass. also allows
statutory rape to force boys into fatherhood. I'm starting to wonder if
any state laws protect boys.


        =============================================================
        Calif Senator Proposes to Make Grandparents Pay Child Support
        =============================================================

California Senator Diane Feinstein has proposed legislation that would 
make the parents of boys named in paternity suits liable for their child's
child support payments. I suppose "force grandparenthood" is a logical
extension to "forced fatherhood". That's "progress" for you. I [am] disappointed
that Californians were dumb enough to elect her.


                          LEGALIZE CHOICE FOR MEN!

                         for more information contact

 NATIONAL CENTER FOR MEN  P.O. BOX 555 OLD BETHPAGE, NY 11804 (516) 942-2020

                           http://www.nas.com/c4m

    Just one question.
    
    Why doesn't this group advise and encourage use of condoms by men who
    are not ready for fatherhood?
    
    Careful use of a condom, and knowlege of one's partners' cycles are the
    best prevention for "forced fatherhoss"
    
    meg

    
    re .60.  But, but, but why do you need that, she sobbed,  don't you 
    _trust_ me.  How can we have a relationship without _trust_.
    
    As I've said before,  If men ever do start thinking with their brains
    instead of their sex organs, women are going to be in deep do-do.
    
    fred();

    RE .60   Meg
    
>    Just one question.
>    
>    Why doesn't this group advise and encourage use of condoms by men who
>    are not ready for fatherhood?
>    
>    Careful use of a condom, and knowlege of one's partners' cycles are the
>    best prevention for "forced fatherhoss"
>    
>    meg
    
    Just one question.
    
    Why doesn't NOW advise and encourage use of condoms by women who
    are not ready for motherhood?
    
    Careful use of a condom, and knowlege of one's partners' cycles are the
    best prevention for "forced motherhoss"
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    This was obviuosly a deflection. The question is about basic
    reproductive choices, freedon and alike, like those available to women. 
    
    Indentured servitude is illegal, is it not?
    
    

.62>     Indentured servitude is illegal, is it not?

It is.  But responsibility is also important.  The state has, IMHO, an interest
in enforcing parental rights and responsibilities, equally on both parents.

.60>    Careful use of a condom, and knowlege of one's partners' cycles are the
>    best prevention for "forced fatherhoss"

Chastity also works, as do several other alternatives.

.59 raises a lot of issues.  I agree with the author on some but not on others. 
A few comments:

.59>Keep in mind that preliminary 
>Government data shows that 2/3 of these men don't intend to cause
>conception.

I know of two ways to learn something about my intentions: ask me what I
intended or look at my actions.  In my experience, my actions are a better guide
to my intentions.  What method did this study use?

.59>Other preliminary government data has found that
>2/3 of men involved with women like these didn't intend to cause conception. 

What is meant by "women like these"?  What are these women like?  This looks
like stereotyping to me.

>     At Least 3 States Don't Permit Rape as a Defense to Paternity

I agree with him completely on this one.  Statutory rape of a boy should be a
bar to a paternity claim against him.

    Fred,
    
    In this day and age, a man should be volunteering to share in
    contraception.  who can argue with someone who loves them enough to
    prevent passing on of any number of things besides children?
    
    NOW does encourage use of condoms, particularly between couple who
    aren't aware of each other's STD status, who wouldn't?  Maybe you
    should try reading some literature instead of making up facts in your
    mind about what NOW is about.  
    
    In my mind a man who isn't careful with his half of the DNA to make a
    baby may well find himself "involuntarily" a parent.  (I say
    "involuntarily" as having unprotected sex is volunteering oneself for
    all kinds of things, beyond paternity.
    
    meg
    meg

    RE: .61  Fred

    / re .60.  But, but, but why do you need that, she sobbed,  don't you 
    / _trust_ me.  How can we have a relationship without _trust_.

    Some men do simply blame their own irresponsible behavior onto others
    in this manner.  ("I wanted to be responsible for my own birth control,
    but she wouldn't let me.  <waaaaaaaah!> ")

    / As I've said before,  If men ever do start thinking with their brains
    / instead of their sex organs, women are going to be in deep do-do.

    If fewer unplanned pregnancies and abortions are 'deep do-do' for women
    from your perspective, I dare you to encourage men to try it by being 
    more responsible for their own birth control anyway!  

    Do it to punish women, if you must, but DO THIS (one way or another.)

    RE: .64  Meg

    / NOW does encourage use of condoms, particularly between couple who
    / aren't aware of each other's STD status, who wouldn't? 

    Absolutely right, Meg.  NOW very strongly encourages the use of condoms.

    In the Netherlands, men consider birth control and disease prevention
    to be as much their responsibility as women's responsibility.  I don't
    think it's a coincidence that they also have low rates (per capita)
    of unplanned pregnancies and the lowest abortion rate in the western
    world.

    In this country, too many men fight the idea of taking reproductive
    responsibility (while also screaming about how they are victimized when
    pregnancies occur, even though they did ZILCH to try to prevent them.)

    We need a movement to get men to use birth control whether or not their
    partners are using it.  If both partners use birth control, they have
    a much better chance of preventing pregnancies since each method acts
    as a back-up for the other.

    Every time this comes up, though, some American men make it absolutely
    clear that it isn't fair or reasonable to expect them to control their
    sperm in any way (if they don't feel like controlling it.)

    My hat's off to those American men who DO agree that more men should
    be responsible in this area, of course.

    
>    Some men do simply blame their own irresponsible behavior onto others
>    in this manner.  ("I wanted to be responsible for my own birth control,
>    but she wouldn't let me.  <waaaaaaaah!> ")

    I suppose a woman would never _ever_ do such a thing as trick a man
    into getting pregnant.  yeah right.

>    If fewer unplanned pregnancies and abortions are 'deep do-do' for women
>    from your perspective, I dare you to encourage men to try it by being 
>    more responsible for their own birth control anyway!  

    No deep do-do is like the story I've told several times about my old
    tomcat who has been "fixed" and now has no use for the female cats 
    coming around to share his food dish.  Without sex as a
    weapon/incentive, women would get away with a _lot_ less b.s. than they
    do.  Witness what has happened since society took away the requirement
    of marriage before sex.
    
    Given the state of todays laws, if men thought with their brains
    instead of their sex organs, or if they'd even get their heads out
    of their *&^%'s about what life is going to be for the next 20 years
    or so, there'd be fewer pregnancies of _all_ types.  As soon as Marla 
    Maples got pregnant Donald Trump's @@SS was grass and Marla's lawyers 
    were the grounds-keepers. 
    
    >Do it to punish women, if you must, but DO THIS (one way or another.)

    Actually I think we have the same goal, but for different reasons.

    fred();

    RE: .67  Fred

    // Some men do simply blame their own irresponsible behavior onto others
    // in this manner.  ("I wanted to be responsible for my own birth control,
    // but she wouldn't let me.  <waaaaaaaah!> ")

    / I suppose a woman would never _ever_ do such a thing as trick a man
    / into getting pregnant.  yeah right.

    Getting a man pregnant would be a neat trick indeed.  :/

    Why on Earth would a man use the idea of ALLOWING himself to be tricked
    as an excuse to fail to protect himself from such a trick?

    Why can't more men say, "Darlin', if we don't use this condom, we aren't
    going to make love tonight"?  Are some men programmed that having sex is
    THE top priority (where possible) above all other possible considerations
    including a possible unplanned pregnancy or death from AIDS?

    If so, they need to change this programming.

    // If fewer unplanned pregnancies and abortions are 'deep do-do' for women
    // from your perspective, I dare you to encourage men to try it by being 
    // more responsible for their own birth control anyway!  

    / No deep do-do is like the story I've told several times about my old
    / tomcat who has been "fixed" and now has no use for the female cats 
    / coming around to share his food dish.  Without sex as a
    / weapon/incentive, women would get away with a _lot_ less b.s. than they
    / do.  

    Sex is not the same thing as being pregnant.  The idea is to have the
    sex without accidentally creating a pregnancy or transmitting/receiving
    a disease.  Women would not be in 'deep do-do' if unplanned pregnancies
    and abortions were reduced by men being more responsible.

    / As soon as Marla Maples got pregnant Donald Trump's @@SS was grass
    / and Marla's lawyers were the grounds-keepers. 
                       
    Most women don't rely on pregnancy for their survival.  Far from it.
    Women would not be in 'deep do-do' if unplanned pregnancies and
    abortions could be reduced by men being more responsible.

    / Given the state of todays laws, if men thought with their brains
    / instead of their sex organs, there'd be fewer pregnancies of _all_
    / types.

    Sign men up to use their brains, then.  I dare you.

    // Do it to punish women, if you must, but DO THIS (one way or another.)

    / Actually I think we have the same goal, but for different reasons.

    It would help everyone if more men would take responsibility for the
    prevention of pregnancy and disease.  

    Women would not be in 'deep do-do' if this occurred.  Some men can't
    keep using this excuse to avoid their reproductive responsibilities.

    The one thing I've never understood about the arguments against men
    needing to use their own birth control is the idea that men shouldn't
    have to do it because of the way they perceive they are 'royally
    screwed' if an unplanned pregnancy results.

    If you believe you will be 'royally screwed' if you get someone
    pregnant, ALL THE MORE REASON WHY you should do everything humanly
    possible to prevent it.  It's not a good reason to take risks.

    Women have been encouraged for decades to use birth control.  When
    only HALF of a given couple is concerned about preventing pregnancy,
    though, it's a tougher job to do.  It works a lot better when both
    people are trying to do something about it.

    Oh Susan, there you go again with your broad brush paint job on men
    being irresponsible. When we know that Bullwinkle Moose says, "If it is
    print it must be true". So, who tallied these stats up that American
    neanderthal men are a bunch of sperm shooting cowboys?:)
    
    In reguards to your comment about men being responsible for their acts.
    Weelp... how come the welfare ranks increase with responsible women at
    the help of the family? Remember something about me. I am a landlord,
    and have rented to welfare moms. And I have heard some wounderful
    stories why they are where they are.....
    
    And why is it that there is this thingie that men are a bunch if
    irresponsible neandrethals? And women are pure than driven snow? :)

.70    Oh Susan, there you go again with your broad brush paint job on men
.70    being irresponsible.

OK, I went back and reread 192.65, 192.66, 192.68, and 192.68.   I assume
these are what you are referring to since these seem to be the only
replies Susan has made to this note lately.
Every one of these uses phrases like 

.65    Some men do simply blame their own irresponsible behavior onto others
.65    in this manner.

As I understand the English language, "some", "most", and "all" are different
brush widths.   If you think this statement is too broad, I can only conclude
you think
	No men blame their own irresponsible behavior onto others
	in this manner.
Is my understanding of this correct ???

        re .71

>As I understand the English language, "some", "most", and "all" are different
>brush widths.   If you think this statement is too broad, I can only conclude
>you think
>	No men blame their own irresponsible behavior onto others
>	in this manner.
>Is my understanding of this correct ???

    And how far do you think I'd get if I said something like, "Some women
    are flaming idiots".

    fred();

.72	And how far do you think I'd get if I said something like, "Some women
.72	are flaming idiots".

	Some women are flaming idiots !!   And by the way some men
are flaming idiots.

	Some men physically abuse their domestic partners.  And by the
way some women physically abuse their domestic partners.

	Some men should show more responsibility in matters of procreation.
And by the way some women should also.

	etc.
...
	Not all women/men are flaming idiots.

	Not all men/women physically abuse their domestic partners.

	Some women/men show responsibility in matters of procreation.
...
	The fact that some men OR women do bad things (like abuse their
partners, or not support their children or not show responsibility in
matters of procreation) doesn't mean that all men or women do, and in
particular it doesn't mean that YOU or I do.   Even though I know this,
I sometimes have difficulty remembering it.

	It would help me, and maybe some others, to read your notes if
your notes acknowledged this.

    RE: .70  George

    / Oh Suzanne, there you go again with your broad brush paint job on men
    / being irresponsible.

    Any man who has sex without insuring that he does not create an
    unwanted pregnancy or spread disease is irresponsible.  How many
    men in this country do this?  Where is the big movement to get
    more men to use their own birth control and disease prevention 
    devices?

    [Note:  A monogamous man who is prepared to love and support his
    children as they come along is not irresponsible.  I'm talking
    about men who risk unwanted pregnancies and diseases who are being
    irresponsible if they don't take their own action to address these
    risks.]

    / In reguards to your comment about men being responsible for their acts.
    / Weelp... how come the welfare ranks increase with responsible women at
    / the help of the family?

    Every child who is born to be supported on Welfare is the product of
    some guy who did not control his sperm.  If such men kept their sperm
    to themselves, these children would not be created.

    It couldn't possibly be simpler:

    		2 people have sex
    		2 people create an embryo/fetus/child
    		2 people should be responsible for birth control

    The idea of only *1* person being responsible for birth control when
    two people have sex is downright insane.

    In this country, we need a movement to tell more men to keep their sperm
    to themselves (whether they have sex or not.)
    
    Suzanne

    RE: .0  DECLARATION OF THE FATHER'S FUNDAMENTAL PRE-NATAL RIGHTS !
    
    Notice that this whole thing doesn't say one doggone WORD about men
    having the responsibility to help prevent pregnancy in the first place.
    

    By the way, women who fail to address the risks of unwanted pregnancies
    and disease are irresponsible, too.
    
    They aren't alone, though.  If their male partners failed to address
    these risks, they're BOTH irresponsible.
    
    [Again, I'm not talking about monogamous men and women who are prepared
    to love and support their children as they come along.]

I've been hearing on the radio an ad for Sheik condoms in which a 20-ish "boy"
is ranting about how HE's not going to wear a condom, HE's not going to 
be controlled, etc., etc.  Then a girl's voice says "Wear one or get none",
at which point the boy suddenly changes his tune.

If I didn't know that the attitude expressed by the boy in the ad wasn't 
so widespread, I'd find the ad offensive.  Instead I sigh and wonder if there's
hope for the future.

I agree with Suzanne here (btw, there's been no "Susan" responding that I
can recall) - if the majority of men would just think with their brains instead
of their balls, then there would be far fewer cases of "unwanted fatherhood".

				Steve

    Susan. Gotta remember that it takes two to be irresponsible. Not only
    does it take an irresponsible neanderthal man, it takes a purer than
    driven snow woman. Other wise its masterbation.:) Cause either side can
    say no. Either side can blame and finger point. 

    RE: .78  George Rauh
    
    // By the way, women who fail to address the risks of unwanted pregnancies
    // and disease are irresponsible, too.
    
    // They aren't alone, though.  If their male partners failed to address
    // these risks, they're BOTH irresponsible.
    
    / Susan. Gotta remember that it takes two to be irresponsible. Not only
    / does it take an irresponsible neanderthal man, it takes a purer than
    / driven snow woman.
    
    Which parts of my statements above (in .76) didn't you understand?
    
    Suzanne

    George, I said that "BOTH" people are irresponsible if they don't take
    actions to prevent unwanted pregnancies and diseases, then you told me
    to *remember* that they were both irresponsible in that situation (which
    is what I'd just written.)  You didn't seem to realize this.
    
    And, my name is Suzanne (not Susan).

        re .77

>I agree with Suzanne here (btw, there's been no "Susan" responding that I
>can recall) - if the majority of men would just think with their brains instead
>of their balls, then there would be far fewer cases of "unwanted fatherhood".

    And the same statement (with a few adjustments of course) could be
    said about women.

    I agree as far as it goes, but given the "Woman's Reproductive Rights"
    business, then, IMNSHO, the greater weight of responsibility does fall
    upon the woman.  Once again we have a disproportionate division of
    rights vs. responsibility.  I'll buy the extra responsibility if you
    will also give me the rights to go with it.
    
    fred();

Re: .82

I'm not suggesting "greater responsibility", but "equal responsibility".  Right
now, the assumption is that the woman bears the entire responsibility for
contraception and the man is care-free.

				Steve

    Steve, 
    
    Poo on that concept. For its the guys who bears the responsibility to
    the fincial end of it for the rest of their lives. A woman can go get
    her reproductive rights abortion. And he has no say. He has no say if
    the child is brought into the world either. But, is our fault. Our
    pictures adorne the post office walls.:)

    
    re .84
    
    >    Poo on that concept. 
    
    Dittoes!
    
    fred();

    This all reminds me of 'Taxing with out representation'. Something our
    forfathers fought for. Freedom from opression..... Gee.. . I wonder
    what they would say about todays life style we all lead?;)
    

    RE: .82  Fred

    / I agree as far as it goes, but given the "Woman's Reproductive Rights"
    / business, then, IMNSHO, the greater weight of responsibility does fall
    / upon the woman.  

    The greater physical burdens of pregnancy fall upon the woman.  The 
    responsibility for preventing unwanted pregnancies belongs to both
    people (since they both have the sex.)

    / Once again we have a disproportionate division of rights vs. 
    / responsibility.  I'll buy the extra responsibility if you will 
    / also give me the rights to go with it.
                    
    Meanwhile, you wants rights *without* responsibilities for birth
    control, though.  

    Such a deal.

    George and Fred, if you think men get 'royally screwed' in the case
    of unwanted pregnancies, it's ALL THE MORE REASON why more men should
    control their sperm.

    When someone tells you that you can get 'royally screwed' from a drug
    overdose, do you run out to ingest as much drugs as you can?

    When someone says that you can get 'royally screwed' by accidentally
    falling off a 10 story building, do you go JUMP off the building? 

    If men can get 'royally screwed' from unwanted pregnancies, then some
    men shouldn't refuse to use their own birth control on the idea that
    they might as well run out to risk getting someone pregnant if such 
    a thing can truly mess up their lives.

    It's simple:  More men should keep control of their sperm themselves
    (first and foremost), for their sakes, for the women's sake, and for the
    sakes of any children that might be created if they give their sperm away.

    It's to men's advantage to control their sperm.  Men benefit from
    this preventive action.  (Women and children benefit from it, too.)

    So why do a shocking number of men refuse to protect themselves?

    Isn't it sort of 'cutting off your nose to spite your face' to risk
    the problems of unwanted pregnancy out of spite for the fact that
    men DO face problems when unwanted pregnancies occur??

    
    re .87

>    The greater physical burdens of pregnancy fall upon the woman.  The 
>    responsibility for preventing unwanted pregnancies belongs to both
>    people (since they both have the sex.)

    No because she has the "right" to go get an abortion.  The male has
    no rights in this process.  If she decides, and how dare anyone tell
    her that she and she alone does not have the the right to decide, to
    keep the kid, then the far greater financial responsibility of 
    finance falls upon the man, if the man would rather keep and raise
    the child himself, he has no say in that either.  The far greater right 
    to deciding issues of the child's life is reserved to the woman.  Even 
    in marriage, if the man as fulfilled his responsibilities for any number 
    of years it can all be pulled from him at the filing of a paper.

    Once again, can anyone tell me the difference in a "deadbeat dad" who
    will not take responsibility for his children, and a "welfare mom" 
    who will not go to work and fulfill _her_ financial responsibilities.

>    Meanwhile, you wants rights *without* responsibilities for birth
>    control, though.  

    No I didn't say that Susan.  I said I'd buy the extra responsibilities
    if you would give me the extra (actually more equitable) rights.  
    It appear to be you who want to add responsibilities to the male
    and reserve all the rights to the female.
    
    fred();

    I don't think its a responsibility issue here is in question. Its that the
    blame seems to be laid upon us neanderthals. And I seem to read this
    constant message in your notes to that acord. Hence, this is why the
    aparent foot dragging that you might be seeing in ours. I would
    certainly urge such as a precaution. 
    
    And to lay blame upon men constantly, trying to get that last word in
    or have the last say as you like to, constantly do, seems to fire the
    flames for us to get more upset with your finger pointing. Saying that
    women are imune from blame is certainly wrong. So, I guess its that
    last word game. Lets get em in!!;)
    

    re Susan
    
    I've already said the I, personally, think that men should protect
    themselves, but probably for differnt reasons.  So why do you keep
    harping on me?
    
    fred();

    Fred, Susanne is championing her cause again. She wants to tell us we
    are neanderthals. If we go 'Uha..." maybe she'll stop.:)
    
    'Uha..." :)
    
    

    re george
    
    "Uha, ork, gerk, subanga"!
    
    Translation:
    If I could just get those cactus needles out of my knuckles, life 
    would seem SO much better ;^).
    
    fred();

Re: .91

In reality, it's the women who are blamed and punished for getting pregnant,
since they're easy targets and don't have the political or financial power.
The majority of men just skip out.

As I told my son, if you cannot accept the risk of creating a child and being
financially and physically responsible for it until it becomes an adult, then
it's YOUR responsibility to make sure that a child is not created.  There are
many easy ways to do that, the most obvious of which is abstention.  All
other methods have some degree of risk, some more than others.  I would tell
a daughter the same thing.  If both man and woman take the same approach, then
there would be little or no problem.  EACH should take responsibility for
contraception (or abstention) as if they were the only one to do so.  That
way there are no surprises.

If you want to continue the pity party, go on ahead.  But you don't have
my sympathy.

					Steve

    RE: .90  Fred

    // The greater physical burdens of pregnancy fall upon the woman.  The 
    // responsibility for preventing unwanted pregnancies belongs to both
    // people (since they both have the sex.)

    / No because she has the "right" to go get an abortion.  The male has
    / no rights in this process. 

    ALL THE MORE REASON why the man should keep his sperm to himself.

    Why on EARTH would a man decide that he better give his sperm away out
    of spite for the fact that he can't control what happens to it later???

    And by the way, 'abortion' is part of the physical burden placed on
    the woman.  The fact that a man doesn't go through childbirth or
    abortions does NOT relieve him of responsibilities when HE has sex
    with a woman.

    / If she decides, and how dare anyone tell
    / her that she and she alone does not have the the right to decide, to
    / keep the kid, then the far greater financial responsibility of 
    / finance falls upon the man, if the man would rather keep and raise
    / the child himself, he has no say in that either.  The far greater right 
    / to deciding issues of the child's life is reserved to the woman. 

    This is a horrible argument to justify giving one's sperm away.  Men
    help THEMSELVES a great deal by keeping their sperm to themselves (in
    a little condom which they control themselves after sex.)

    / Even in marriage, if the man as fulfilled his responsibilities for 
    / any number of years it can all be pulled from him at the filing of 
    / a paper.

    Is this supposed to be a good reason to give sperm away, either??

    / Once again, can anyone tell me the difference in a "deadbeat dad" who
    / will not take responsibility for his children, and a "welfare mom" 
    / who will not go to work and fulfill _her_ financial responsibilities.

    Women with small children who work outside the home are regarded as
    selfish and irresponsible ('You let OTHER PEOPLE raise your children')
    if they have a husband, but women with small children who DON'T work
    outside the home are regarded as selfish and irresponsible ('You let
    OTHER PEOPLE support you by being on welfare') if they don't have a
    husband.

    // Meanwhile, you wants rights *without* responsibilities for birth
    // control, though.  

    / No I didn't say that Suzanne.  I said I'd buy the extra responsibilities
    / if you would give me the extra (actually more equitable) rights.  

    MEN would benefit by being more responsible in this area.  It's insane
    to reject this benefit until you can get some other sort of benefit.
    (It's like saying "I'll stop trying to kill myself with a drug overdose
    if you make drugs legal."  Stopping the overdose attempts is goal which
    would benefit you NOW.)

    / It appear to be you who want to add responsibilities to the male
    / and reserve all the rights to the female.

    Men get the benefits by being responsible in this area.  It's self-
    destructive to deny yourself these benefits out of spite for something
    else you want.

    You might as well threaten to hold your breath until your face turns blue.
    
    Suzanne

    RE: .92  Frod

    / I've already said the I, personally, think that men should protect
    / themselves, but probably for differnt reasons.  So why do you keep
    / harping on me?

    You keep arguing against the idea of more men being responsible for
    preventing pregnancies, even though men benefit from taking such
    action.

    You say you want rights first - meanwhile, some men continue to give 
    their sperm away (and suffer for it later.)

    By the way, we want men to protect themselves for the SAME REASON:
    Men benefit from this protection.  (Women and children also benefit.)
    
    Suzanne

    RE: .95  Steve Lionel

    / As I told my son, if you cannot accept the risk of creating a child and 
    / being financially and physically responsible for it until it becomes an 
    / adult, then it's YOUR responsibility to make sure that a child is not 
    / created.  There are many easy ways to do that, the most obvious of which 
    / is abstention.  All other methods have some degree of risk, some more 
    / than others.  

    This is precisely what I tell my son.  Like you, he fully regards men
    as being equally responsible (with women) for the prevention of pregnancy.

    / I would tell a daughter the same thing.  If both man and woman take the 
    / same approach, then there would be little or no problem.  EACH should 
    / take responsibility for contraception (or abstention) as if they were 
    / the only one to do so.  That way there are no surprises.

    Exactly right!!!

    This is an important message that can best be given by parents to their
    children (and by men to some other men, IMO.)

    This all is starting to remind me of a great Rodney Dangerfield yuck.
    
    "Hey! I get no respect! Its a great life. Sex? I have a great sex life.
    Now all I need is a partner....":)

    
>    / I would tell a daughter the same thing.  If both man and woman take the 
>    / same approach, then there would be little or no problem.  EACH should 
>    / take responsibility for contraception (or abstention) as if they were 
>    / the only one to do so.  That way there are no surprises.
>
>    Exactly right!!!
    
    Situation 1 ... in college I go to PP with my girlfriend we talk about
    options she decides to go on the pill.  I do half the trips to pick up
    new prescriptions.  Given the above am I supposed to ask that I use a
    condom because I don't trust shes using the pill?
    
    Situation 2 ... done with kids I get my plumbing fixed.  Given the
    above my wife uses brith control also because she doesn't trust I
    actually did it?
    
    To me the the words above imply a serious lack of trust in an
    established on-going relationship.  Sure the two folks should discuss
    how, who, when, etc but after a decision is made only one person
    actively doing something can be a very reasonable course of action
    (and a trusting action that can be abused).
    
    Greg
    

    

>    You say you want rights first - meanwhile, some men continue to give 
>    their sperm away (and suffer for it later.)

    Right now the women have all the rights and far fewer responsibilities.
    Men who want to take the responsibility for helping raise their
    children or deciding events are forbidden to do so.

    A woman who does not want to take responsibility for her actions can
    1) get an abortion, 2) give the child up for adoption, 3) sit on
    her butt and let someone else support her.

    Which is, as you say, all the more reason for a man to protect himself.
    Use condoms, get a vasectomy, cut it off, whatever, cause once she
    gets pregnant, you are the one who's f$$$ed.

    'Cepet in Colorado,  if you are married, don't matter _who_ got
    her pregnant,  _you_ are still f$$$ed.  So maybe men should abstain
    from marriage too?

    'Course there's lots of women with whom I _gladly_ practice the
    ultimate birth control of abstention with ;^).

    fred();

    RE: .100  Greg

    The flaw in your thinking is the idea that birth control is an
    EITHER-OR-BUT-NOT-BOTH situation.  If your partner uses birth 
    control, you don't need to avoid using it yourself.  It's better
    if BOTH people use it.

    / Situation 1 ... in college I go to PP with my girlfriend we talk about
    / options she decides to go on the pill.  I do half the trips to pick up
    / new prescriptions.  Given the above am I supposed to ask that I use a
    / condom because I don't trust shes using the pill?

    You ask to use a condom because the pill is not 100% effective (and
    neither is a condom.)  Both methods are a 'backup' to the other.
    It's very unlikely that they'll both fail at the same time if you're
    using these methods correctly.

    / Situation 2 ... done with kids I get my plumbing fixed.  Given the
    / above my wife uses brith control also because she doesn't trust I
    / actually did it?

    You talk with your wife:  'What if the vasectomy doesn't work?  Are
    we willing and ready to raise another child?'  If not, then it's
    probably a good idea for her to keep using birth control until you
    get a sperm count taken which makes it definite that you're no longer
    capable of participating in a conception.

    / To me the the words above imply a serious lack of trust in an
    / established on-going relationship.  Sure the two folks should discuss
    / how, who, when, etc but after a decision is made only one person
    / actively doing something can be a very reasonable course of action
    / (and a trusting action that can be abused).

    BOTH people using birth control works better, though.  If your common
    goal is to avoid pregnancy, you don't have to choose between one 
    partner or the other to decide WHO gets to do the preventing.  You
    BOTH take responsibility for it.  You both serve as a backup for the
    other person's birth control.

    Somehow, in this country, too many people are stuck on the idea that
    birth control must only be done by one person (and that if you use
    two methods, it means a lack of trust.)  In the Netherlands, they
    don't see it as a lack of trust at all.  It's just a matter of two
    people being responsible.  It's little wonder that they have so few
    unwanted pregnancies there.

.88 

suzanne, i happen to believe the story of men being 'royally screwed' 
due to them evading their share of responsibilities in pregnancies 
is fast becoming a myth as more men take on their share of responsibility.



andreas.

.93,.94

alas, the neanderthals are quickly becoming an endangered species! hehehe! 
:-) ;-)



andreas.

    RE: .101  Fred

    // You say you want rights first - meanwhile, some men continue to give 
    // their sperm away (and suffer for it later.)

    / Right now the women have all the rights and far fewer responsibilities.
    
    Say what???!  Women do most of the child raising in this culture (in
    addition to bearing ALL of the physical burdens of pregnancy.)  Most
    mothers also work outside the home these days, too, so most women also
    bear financial burdens involved with child raising.

    Women have far more of the responsibilities involved with child rearing
    than men (in general) currently hold.  There are notable exceptions to
    this in individual cases, of course.

    / Men who want to take the responsibility for helping raise their
    / children or deciding events are forbidden to do so.

    Here you even ADMIT that some men don't have this responsibility, yet 
    you still think men have far more of the responsibility for children
    than women have.

    / A woman who does not want to take responsibility for her actions can
    / 1) get an abortion, 2) give the child up for adoption, 3) sit on
    / her butt and let someone else support her.

    Oh, I see.  You're talking about money here.  It all comes down to
    money - is that the idea?

    Most mothers work outside the home (even in a culture which often
    considers mothers to be selfish and irresponsible for doing so.)

    / Which is, as you say, all the more reason for a man to protect himself.
    / Use condoms, get a vasectomy, cut it off, whatever, cause once she
    / gets pregnant, you are the one who's f$$$ed.

    Women can be 'royally screwed' by unwanted pregnancies, too (no matter
    what choices a woman makes about being pregnant.)  Children can be
    the most 'royally screwed' of all, of course.

    Some men should be more responsible in this area for their own sakes,
    women's sakes, and children's sakes.

    / 'Cepet in Colorado,  if you are married, don't matter _who_ got
    / her pregnant,  _you_ are still f$$$ed.  So maybe men should abstain
    / from marriage too?

    Some men could be more careful about who they marry.  Some women
    could be more careful about this, too.

    / 'Course there's lots of women with whom I _gladly_ practice the
    / ultimate birth control of abstention with ;^).

    And I'll bet they appreciate it more than you know.  :)

    RE: .103  Andreas

    / suzanne, i happen to believe the story of men being 'royally screwed' 
    / due to them evading their share of responsibilities in pregnancies 
    / is fast becoming a myth as more men take on their share of responsibility.

    The first responsibility is to help *prevent* unwanted pregnancies.
    If more men would take equal responsibility in this area, they
    would help protect themselves from the legal consequences which
    can result from unwanted pregnancies.

    So far, we don't have much of a movement in this country to get more
    men to feel they are equally responsible for preventing pregnancy.

    The men who DO feel this responsibility are wonderful.  We just need
    more of them!!

    
    re .104

>    Say what???!  Women do most of the child raising in this culture (in
>    addition to bearing ALL of the physical burdens of pregnancy.)  Most
>    mothers also work outside the home these days, too, so most women also
>    bear financial burdens involved with child raising.

    Women have far more  _choice_ whether not they want to take on these
    burdens or not once they are pregnant.  Men have _no_ choice.  As
    far as just walking away, it is now a _felony_ for a man to ignore
    his financial responsibility.  Women who _choose_ to forego the 
    responsibilities and consequences of hopty-hopping around in the
    back seat are called "victims".  Men who choose to forego those
    consequences are called "felons".

    I remember a rather long and heated discussion somewhere about the
    "woman's" right to "say no" to sex.  Maybe more women should exercise
    that right.  Then they wouldn't be so "victimized".

    fred();

.106> The first responsibility is to help *prevent* unwanted pregnancies.


sure. i am single and move in the singles scene and most men i know think 
this way. as we say in my country: "doubly knit holds tighter!"

which is why i prefer using a condom even though my partner may be using
the pill or the coil. best be sure than sorry.



andreas.

    Susanne, the reason many men are precieved to be irresponsible is that
    our beloved court system refuses to grant the custody of the children
    to them. So, how can we neanderthals prove ourselves if we don't get
    the chance to do so? 
    
    Mean time.... Hey great Pitty Party! Where's the chips and dips?:)
    

Re: .107

>    Women have far more  _choice_ whether not they want to take on these
>    burdens or not once they are pregnant.  Men have _no_ choice. 

The choice is made before the pregnancy results, and both men and women have
the choice available.  After the woman becomes pregnant, then, since she is
the one pregnant, she has further options.

If the man didn't want a child, he should make sure that the woman doesn't
get pregnant.  If he did want the child, he needs to find a woman who is
willing to share that responsibility.  Yes, she can change her mind
after she gets pregnant (maybe), but that's biology and moaning and groaning
isn't going to change it.

>    As
>    far as just walking away, it is now a _felony_ for a man to ignore
>    his financial responsibility.  Women who _choose_ to forego the 
>    responsibilities and consequences of hopty-hopping around in the
>    back seat are called "victims".  Men who choose to forego those
>    consequences are called "felons".

Hmm - can the woman just "walk away"?  Nope - that's also a felony violation,
once the child is born.  What's your gripe?

				Steve

    At the risk of being "flammed" I add my following comment:
    
    How funny/absurd all this flap over who has responsiblity or doesn't
    for controlling sperm/reproduction to that person who has chosen to
    follow the Judaeo-Christian code of sexual purity within and without
    marriage!  
    
    The problem seems to stem from the first decision to "share your
    reproductive ability". From that decision comes all the discussion of
    who owns responsibility for the consequences of (gulp-dare I say it?)-
    fornication.
    
    For the follower of the Judaeo-Christian sexual ethic, the pain and
    heartache does not happen.
    
    Sign me a follower and a happily married man with 8 beautiful and very
    much wanted children
    
    Paul
                                       

.109


hey that's real simple george. if the missus makes more money than you
then your chances of staying home looking after kids are increased...
the more women get into good paying jobs the more likely men will gain
custody. simple as that.



andreas.

    andreas! Great pitty party or what!:) Do you know where the brews are
    located in this place? I got my six pack of Buds here. Want one?:)
    
    I would sumize any min someones going to start flapping at me about
    being a party animal here.:) Wish it was a toga party.:) Toe-Gaa!
    Toe-Gaa! Toe-Gaaa!!!:)
    
    

    
        re .110

>Hmm - can the woman just "walk away"?  Nope - that's also a felony violation,
>once the child is born.  What's your gripe?

    A woman can walk away by 1) leaving the children to her
    husband/boyfriend (a higher percentage of women, including my ex, will
    not pay support, and it is easier for them to remain unemployed and
    just live off some guy to avoid the courts), 2) get an abortion,
    3) give the child up for adoption, 4) go on welfare and let the
    taxpayers support her, 5) if she has a nice enough husband, she can
    stay home and let him work and support her (then complain about how
    _he_ doesn't help).

    Again I have the perfect solution for all these "victimized" women
    JUST SAY NO!!!!  Sex is not an inalienable right.  If it were, rape
    would be legal.  For a woman to willingly have sex with an unprotected
    male, then complain about _his_ irresponsibility, is IMNSHO,
    hypocritical in the least.

    fred();

.113, thanks bud, make that two! :-)

.111 paul, there's another absurdity in this topic too. i 'spect some 
guys just can't take it that the women have one up on them when it comes 
to pregnancy.



cheers, new year 'n all! :-)

andreas.

    RE: .107  Fred

    // Say what???!  Women do most of the child raising in this culture (in
    // addition to bearing ALL of the physical burdens of pregnancy.)  Most
    // mothers also work outside the home these days, too, so most women also
    // bear financial burdens involved with child raising.

    / Women have far more  _choice_ whether not they want to take on these
    / burdens or not once they are pregnant.  Men have _no_ choice. 

    Childbirth, miscarriage and abortion are **ALL** physical burdens that
    a woman cannot escape (except through her own death) once she has become
    pregnant.  Men bear ZERO of these burdens.

    / As far as just walking away, it is now a _felony_ for a man to ignore
    / his financial responsibility. 

    Yet, it still happens all the time (because it costs a lot of MONEY for 
    the blood tests to determine paternity if the parents are not married.)

    / Women who _choose_ to forego the responsibilities and consequences of 
    / hopty-hopping around in the back seat are called "victims".  

    Women can't escape the physical burdens of childbirth, miscarriage or
    abortion (as I said), but they can choose adoption if the father also
    agrees to it.  In many cases, this is far kinder to the child than
    the alternatives would be.  Or would you rather FORCE children to stay
    with parents who cannot care for them as some sort of SPITE against women?

    / Men who choose to forego those consequences are called "felons".

    Men who choose to forego these consequences constitute a group far too
    large to track down (much less hold in prisons), unfortunately.

    / I remember a rather long and heated discussion somewhere about the
    / "woman's" right to "say no" to sex.  Maybe more women should exercise
    / that right.  Then they wouldn't be so "victimized".

    Apparently, some men feel that men ARE NOT CAPABLE of saying "No",
    though, so some men continue to feel victimized themselves.  ("Hey,
    I'm a MAN.  I can't be expected to turn down a chance to get laid!
    If she gets herself pregnant, it's not my fault.  I'M the victim in
    all this!!  {waaaaaaaa!}")

    RE: .112  Andreas
    
    / hey that's real simple george. if the missus makes more money than you
    / then your chances of staying home looking after kids are increased...
    / the more women get into good paying jobs the more likely men will gain
    / custody. simple as that.
    
    Excellent point!

    
>    Somehow, in this country, too many people are stuck on the idea that
>    birth control must only be done by one person (and that if you use
>    two methods, it means a lack of trust.)  In the Netherlands, they
>    don't see it as a lack of trust at all.  It's just a matter of two
>    people being responsible.  It's little wonder that they have so few
>    unwanted pregnancies there.
    
    Somehow, in this country, too many people are stuck on the idea that
    birth control must only be done by *both* person.
      
    I never said only one person should use birth control but a couple can
    be quite responsible and use only one method.  Use of two methods is
    not the only way in all situations.
    
    
>    In the Netherlands, they
>    don't see it as a lack of trust at all.  It's just a matter of two
>    people being responsible.  It's little wonder that they have so few
>    unwanted pregnancies there.
    
    Given no data I'll take the wild guess that folks with a partner who
    has been "fixed" in Netherlands, on average, tend to use only one form
    of birth control.  I applaud the attitudes and actions of many of the
    folks in that section of Europe.  However I doubt a single prescription
    fits all situations.
    
    Enough said,
    Greg
    
                                      

    
    reply .116
    
>    Apparently, some men feel that men ARE NOT CAPABLE of saying "No",
>    though, so some men continue to feel victimized themselves.  ("Hey,
>    I'm a MAN.  I can't be expected to turn down a chance to get laid!
>    If she gets herself pregnant, it's not my fault.  I'M the victim in
>    all this!!  {waaaaaaaa!}")
    
    Apparently there are just as many women who feel that they have some
    "right" to have sex.  Again, for a woman to willingly have sex with
    an unprotected male, then complain about _his_ irresponsibility is, 
    IMNSHO, hypocritical in the least.
    
    fred();

    RE: .114  Fred

    / Again I have the perfect solution for all these "victimized" women
    / JUST SAY NO!!!!  

    When you can say this to MEN (equally), you will have finally gotten
    the point.

    'Victimized' men could have said 'No' *and* they could have 'wrapped
    that rascal', if they did say 'Yes.'  Instead, they just claim that
    they are the real victims in all this.

    / Sex is not an inalienable right.  If it were, rape would be legal.  
    / For a woman to willingly have sex with an unprotected male, then 
    / complain about _his_ irresponsibility, is IMNSHO, hypocritical in 
    / the least.

    It's unbelievably hypocritical for a man to whine to the heavens that
    he's being treated unfairly as an unmarried father when he didn't make
    the slightest attempt to prevent the pregnancy himself.

    Some men will do anything to avoid having to be responsible during
    sex.  Some men simply believe that the whole point of sex is to get
    their rocks off without having to worry about anything else.

    Some men will do anything to avoid responsibility? Hows that? How in
    the name of .... would someone avoid such? Your way out on a limb here.
    And I will again quote Bullwinkle J. Moose on this, "If it is in print,
    it must be true".
    
    

    RE: .118  Greg

    / Somehow, in this country, too many people are stuck on the idea that
    / birth control must only be done by *both* person.

    We don't have NEARLY ENOUGH people in this country who believe that
    both people are responsible to use their own birth control (or, as
    they call it in the Netherlands, the 'double Dutch' method.)

    / I never said only one person should use birth control but a couple can
    / be quite responsible and use only one method.  Use of two methods is
    / not the only way in all situations.

    If an established COUPLE uses one method, they could discuss what they
    intend to do if it fails.  (Even if they use two methods, it's a good
    idea to discuss what to do if both methods fail.)  If you agree on what
    to do and you're both willing to risk using only one method, more power
    to you.

    If you're not an 'established' couple, it's absolutely nuts (IMO) to
    rely on anyone but yourself for birth control.  When two people both
    do it, the result is that each person has a 'backup' method for the 
    other.  It's entirely reasonable to be doubly safe when the consequences
    of pregnancy would be so much more severe.

    / Given no data I'll take the wild guess that folks with a partner who
    / has been "fixed" in Netherlands, on average, tend to use only one form
    / of birth control.  I applaud the attitudes and actions of many of the
    / folks in that section of Europe.  However I doubt a single prescription
    / fits all situations.

    Being 'fixed' is a form of birth control in and of itself, Greg.

    
    reply .120
    
>    When you can say this to MEN (equally), you will have finally gotten
>    the point.
    
    YOOOOOHOOOO! SUUUSANNNNNE! I've _already_ said that more than once.
    
    At this point you are becomming, once again, the perfect example
    of the hypocrisy I'm talking about.  Thanks for the help.
    
    fred();

    RE: .121  George Rauh
    
    / Some men will do anything to avoid responsibility? Hows that?
    
    Fred suggested that if a woman has sex with an unprotected man, it's
    HER fault for not saying "No."  (The man bears no fault at all for
    being unprotected.)
    
    This is an avoidance of responsibility, in my opinion.

    RE: .123  Fred
    
    / At this point you are becomming, once again, the perfect example
    / of the hypocrisy I'm talking about.  Thanks for the help.
    
    You couldn't back up this statement with a real argument if your
    life depended on it.
    
    It's just something you always say (sooner or later.)

    
    re .124
    >
>    Fred suggested that if a woman has sex with an unprotected man, it's
>    HER fault for not saying "No."  (The man bears no fault at all for
>    being unprotected.)
    
    NOT!  When the couple as sex with the male unprotected they _equally_
    share in the responsibility of the act.  It is _you_ Suzanne who have
    repeatedly attempted to put the full blame on the male.
    
    Again thank you for the admirable example.
    
    fred();

    Back this up as if your life depended on it, Fred, instead of just 
    spouting this like a mantra:
    
    	"Apparently there are just as many women who feel that they have some
        'right' to have sex.  Again, for a woman to willingly have sex with
        an unprotected male, then complain about _his_ irresponsibility is, 
        IMNSHO, hypocritical in the least."
    
        "At this point you are becomming, once again, the perfect example
        of the hypocrisy I'm talking about.  Thanks for the help."
    
    Where (precisely) am I having sex with an unprotected male and then
    complaining about this guy's irresponsibility???

    RE: .126  Fred
    
    / It is _you_ Suzanne who have repeatedly attempted to put the full blame 
    / on the male.     
    
================================================================================
Note 192.76  DECLARATION OF THE FATHER'S FUNDAMENTAL PRE-NATAL RIGHTS  76 of 127
BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians"                8 lines   5-JAN-1996 10:42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By the way, women who fail to address the risks of unwanted pregnancies
    and disease are irresponsible, too.
    
    They aren't alone, though.  If their male partners failed to address
    these risks, they're BOTH irresponsible.
    
    [Again, I'm not talking about monogamous men and women who are prepared
    to love and support their children as they come along.]

    
    reply .127
    
>    Where (precisely) am I having sex with an unprotected male and then
>    complaining about this guy's irresponsibility???
    
    I didn't say that _you_ were haveing sex.  However you have certainly
    been hole heartedly trashing men all day for not taking responsibility
    for _their_ actions.  Where lies the responsibility of the female
    who willingly gets into bed with a man who she _knows_ is unprotected?
    
    fred();

    RE: .129  Fred
    
    / However you have certainly been hole heartedly trashing men all day 
    / for not taking responsibility for _their_ actions.  Where lies the 
    / responsibility of the female who willingly gets into bed with a man 
    / who she _knows_ is unprotected?
                                               
    So, you're saying that he's NOT responsible for himself - SHE is
    responsible if they have sex without his using protection??
    
    How nice for the guy.  "Hey, she got herself pregnant by not objecting
    when I didn't use birth control.  I just got my rocks off and that's
    all I needed to do."

'sides, it ain't just the dutch boys who've adopted a more intelligent 
approach to avoiding unwanted pregnancies. the scandinavians, germans, 
austrians, swiss and what not have followed suite. at least that's the
prevailing attitute in central and northern europe. you american boys 
can do so too! :-)


'nuff said and have a nice weekend all!


andreas.

    Once again, the Europeans are ahead of us.  :)

    If more American men would take responsibility in this area, it would
    solve a lot of problems in this country.

    It simply isn't practical for TWO people to have sex while only ONE
    person is regarded as responsible for preventing pregnancy.  If they
    were both concerned about this, it would help immeasurably!

    reply .130
    
>>    So, you're saying that he's NOT responsible for himself - SHE is
>    responsible if they have sex without his using protection??
    
    No I have not said that, Suzanne.  I have repeatedly said that they
    are _both_ responsible, and it appears that _you_ are only concerned 
    about _his_ responsibility.  So just what the *&^%$# is your problem!
    But if you insist on providing me with the opportunity to say you 
    are providing us with perfect examples,  go right head,  but the
    temptation of pointing it out may be just too much for me to resist.
    
    fred();

    RE: .133  Fred
    
    / I have repeatedly said that they are _both_ responsible, and it appears 
    / that _you_ are only concerned about _his_ responsibility.  So just what 
    / the *&^%$# is your problem!
================================================================================
Note 192.76  DECLARATION OF THE FATHER'S FUNDAMENTAL PRE-NATAL RIGHTS  76 of 127
BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians"                8 lines   5-JAN-1996 10:42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By the way, women who fail to address the risks of unwanted pregnancies
    and disease are irresponsible, too.
    
    They aren't alone, though.  If their male partners failed to address
    these risks, they're BOTH irresponsible.
    
    [Again, I'm not talking about monogamous men and women who are prepared
    to love and support their children as they come along.]

    Fred, your confusion may rest with the notion that the woman is supposed
    to be responsible for the MAN USING BIRTH CONTROL (so that if he doesn't
    use a condom, it's her fault.)
    
    Here's a simple concept for you:
    
    	The woman is responsible for HER birth control.
    
    	The man is responsible for HIS birth control.
    
    Hope this helps.

    
    reply .135

>    Here's a simple concept for you:
>    
>    	The woman is responsible for HER birth control.
>    
>    	The man is responsible for HIS birth control.

    Which is exactly what I thought you've been saying all day.  And under
    that logic, if a man is using birth control and she isn't then she is the
    only one responsible for getting pregnant?  I think not.  Just as I
    say that if he is not using birth control, and she knows it, and
    she _chooses_ to have sex anyway, then she cannot be blameless for what 
    happens.  They are _both_ a party to the decision, and they are _both_
    responsible for the act.  And if she doesn't want to be a "victim" of
    her own decisions, then there is a very simple solution "SAY NO"!  The
    same, as I've said, goes for the guy.

    Which brings us back to the question: _if_ a man is to take equal 
    responsibility, does that mean also that he should have equal right to 
    custody of his child?  Does it mean that he should have equal say as to 
    how the child should be raised?  Should he have an equal right to have 
    the child as part of his life?
    
    Should the child have a right to have a father as a part of _their_
    life?

    fred();

    RE: .136  Fred

    // Here's a simple concept for you:
    // 
    //    The woman is responsible for HER birth control.
    //     
    //    The man is responsible for HIS birth control.

    / Which is exactly what I thought you've been saying all day.  And under
    / that logic, if a man is using birth control and she isn't then she is the
    / only one responsible for getting pregnant?  I think not. 

    Using your logic, if SHE doesn't use birth control, it's HIS FAULT.

    What I'm saying is that each person should be responsible for doing
    everything humanly possible to protect him/herself from being involved
    with an unwanted pregnancy.

    It isn't HER fault if he doesn't use a condom.  It isn't HIS fault
    if she isn't using some form of birth control, either.

    If a pregnancy results, they will both be the expectant parents, of
    course (and they both face possible consequences of this.)

    Just don't blame the woman if the MAN doesn't do what he is responsible
    to do before they have sex.  HE is responsible for using his own birth
    control (and she is responsible for using her own birth control.)

    / BTW, _if_ a man is to take equal responsibility, does that mean also 
    / that he should have equal right to custody of his child?  Does it mean
    / that he should have equal say as to how the child should be raised?
    / Should he have an equal right to have the child as part of his life?

    Whether the law supports this or not, it is in the best interests of
    the man to do everything possible to help prevent unwanted pregnancies
    (and that means using his own birth control.)

    You can't tie the two together as if men will have every justification
    for getting as many women pregnant as possible if the laws don't go
    the way men want them to go.  As long as the laws are rough on unmarried
    fathers, it's all the more reason for more men to be careful about using
    birth control.

    
>    / Which is exactly what I thought you've been saying all day.  And under
>    / that logic, if a man is using birth control and she isn't then she is the
>    / only one responsible for getting pregnant?  I think not. 
>
>    Using your logic, if SHE doesn't use birth control, it's HIS FAULT.
    
    That was a question, not a staement, and my answer was in the negative.
    
>    What I'm saying is that each person should be responsible for doing
>    everything humanly possible to protect him/herself from being involved
>    with an unwanted pregnancy.
    
    Does that not include her saying "NO" if she knows he is not using
    protection?
    
>    It isn't HER fault if he doesn't use a condom.  It isn't HIS fault
>    if she isn't using some form of birth control, either.
    
    Then, again, under that logic it is not his fault if she gets pregnant
    so long as he is using a condom.
    
>    Whether the law supports this or not, it is in the best interests of
>    the man to do everything possible to help prevent unwanted pregnancies
>    (and that means using his own birth control.)
>
>    You can't tie the two together as if men will have every justification
>    for getting as many women pregnant as possible if the laws don't go
>    the way men want them to go.  As long as the laws are rough on unmarried
>    fathers, it's all the more reason for more men to be careful about using
>    birth control.
    
    And once again you seem willing to force the responcibility on men and
    you seem not willing to give him the rights _he_ deserves.
    
    And once again you provide us with an excellent example of what we've
    been talking about.
    
    fred();

    Years ago, I remember a discussion among some women about birth control
    for men.

    ALL of the women in the discussion said they thought it would be
    wonderful if more men chose to use birth control, but not ONE of
    them was willing to stop using her own birth control at the same
    time.

    The most frequent comment is, "It's my body, and I'm taking my own
    precautions to prevent pregnancy no matter what anyone else ever
    decides to do.  If he uses birth control, too - great!  I'll never
    stop using my own, no matter what."

    It would be great if more men would say, "It's my sperm, and I'm
    taking my own precautions to prevent a pregnancy no matter what
    anyone else ever decides to do.  If she uses birth control, too
    - great!  I'll never stop using my own, no matter what."

    If two people decide to rely on one form of birth control, they'd
    better decide what they will do if it fails.  (This is a good thing
    to talk about before having sex anyway!)

    
    re .139
    
>    ALL of the women in the discussion said they thought it would be
>    wonderful if more men chose to use birth control, but not ONE of
>    them was willing to stop using her own birth control at the same
>    time.
    
>    The most frequent comment is, "It's my body, and I'm taking my own
>    precautions to prevent pregnancy no matter what anyone else ever
>    decides to do.  If he uses birth control, too - great!  I'll never
>    stop using my own, no matter what."
    
    That may be true for that particular group, but I know a _lot_ of
    sex takes place where the condom is the _only_ form of birth control,
    if any.
    
>    If two people decide to rely on one form of birth control, they'd
>    better decide what they will do if it fails.  (This is a good thing
>    to talk about before having sex anyway!)
    
    Is not willingly haveing sex with an unprotected male a decision?  
    A decision to use only one form of birth control?
    
    fred();

    RE: .138  Fred

    // What I'm saying is that each person should be responsible for doing
    // everything humanly possible to protect him/herself from being involved
    // with an unwanted pregnancy.
    
    / Does that not include her saying "NO" if she knows he is not using
    / protection?

    Is it the man's fault if they have sex when he knows she is NOT using
    protection?

    // It isn't HER fault if he doesn't use a condom.  It isn't HIS fault
    // if she isn't using some form of birth control, either.
    
    / Then, again, under that logic it is not his fault if she gets pregnant
    / so long as he is using a condom.

    You're confusing the responsibility for birth control with the
    responsibilities involved with an unwanted pregnancy.

    Each person is responsible for his/her own birth control.  If a
    pregnancy results anyway, they're both expectant parents (no matter
    who used birth control and who didn't.)

    / And once again you seem willing to force the responcibility on men and
    / you seem not willing to give him the rights _he_ deserves.

    When men will get the GREATEST BENEFIT from taking responsibility for
    birth control, why does it need to be 'forced' on men?

    The laws are NOT MINE TO CHANGE - men's rights are NOT MINE TO GIVE.

    It would be unbelievably stupid for some men to refrain from doing
    something which would BENEFIT THEM in order to strike back at women
    in some way.  Again, it's cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    Men should be responsible in the area of birth control because it 
    would benefit MEN - and it's the right thing to do.  It's also the
    smart thing to do since fewer pregnancies will result in unmarried
    fathers being treated unfairly.

    / And once again you provide us with an excellent example of what we've
    / been talking about.

    Oh, yeah - the hypocrisy of having sex with unprotected men and still
    complaining about it.  You still haven't shown where I've done this.

    
    reply .141

>    Is it the man's fault if they have sex when he knows she is NOT using
>    protection?

    Given my statements earlier, it is both their responsibility, but given
    what you certainly appear to keep trying to foist upon us a "logic"
    he would not be.

>    You're confusing the responsibility for birth control with the
>    responsibilities involved with an unwanted pregnancy.
>
>    Each person is responsible for his/her own birth control.  If a
>    pregnancy results anyway, they're both expectant parents (no matter
>    who used birth control and who didn't.)

    Birth control includes abstinence, and it is also up to the woman to
    make a decision when the male is unprotected.

>    When men will get the GREATEST BENEFIT from taking responsibility for
>    birth control, why does it need to be 'forced' on men?

    If you want to get men to use birth control, it seems line abstinence
    would be a pretty good way to do it.

    >The laws are NOT MINE TO CHANGE - men's rights are NOT MINE TO GIVE.

    And yet you demand that _everyone_ must support Women's rights. 
    What's that I keep hearing about when one is enslaved no one is free?

>    It would be unbelievably stupid for some men to refrain from doing
>    something which would BENEFIT THEM in order to strike back at women
>    in some way.  Again, it's cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    Which is, one more time, what I've been saying all day long.  So what's
    your problem?

>    / And once again you provide us with an excellent example of what we've
>    / been talking about.
>
>    Oh, yeah - the hypocrisy of having sex with unprotected men and still
>    complaining about it.  You still haven't shown where I've done this.

    Then just what _have_ you been doing all day long?

    fred();

    RE: .140  Fred

    / That may be true for that particular group, but I know a _lot_ of
    / sex takes place where the condom is the _only_ form of birth control,
    / if any.

    This isn't true for MOST sexual relations between men and women in
    our society, though.  Our culture most often expects birth control
    to be women's responsibility (not men's responsibility.)  This is
    the problem we've been discussing.
     
    // If two people decide to rely on one form of birth control, they'd
    // better decide what they will do if it fails.  (This is a good thing
    // to talk about before having sex anyway!)
    
    / Is not willingly haveing sex with an unprotected male a decision?  
    / A decision to use only one form of birth control?

    The male has made the decision to be unprotected even though he
    had the option of doing the responsible thing and using his own
    birth control.  If something goes wrong, he can't complain that
    the responsibility for birth control was in HER HANDS and he's
    just a victim.

    If she used birth control herself, she was the only one who tried
    to prevent pregnancy.  He did ZIP (after he UNZIPPED.)

    Realistically speaking, a great many couples still rely on one form
    of birth control (which is always better than nothing.)  What I've
    been saying is that the smart thing to do is for both parties to
    use their own birth control (so that each method can be a backup
    to the other.)

    I object to the notion that men are helpless victims who have no
    choice but to give away their sperm to anyone who might decide to
    plot against their future income.  Aside from abstinence, men do
    have the choice to protect themselves by using their own birth
    control.

    If a couple decides to rely on one method, they do so with their
    eyes WIDE OPEN.  The man has to realize that certain medications
    can make birth control pills ineffective (and that the woman's
    birth control is not 100% effective in any case.)  If he relies 
    on it, he's not a victim.  He's a guy who COULD have used his own
    birth control, but didn't.  (The same goes for a woman who relies
    strictly on the man's use of condoms as their only birth control.)

    RE: .142  Fred

    // Is it the man's fault if they have sex when he knows she is NOT using
    // protection?

    / Given my statements earlier, it is both their responsibility, but given
    / what you certainly appear to keep trying to foist upon us a "logic"
    / he would not be.

    You're still confused, Fred.  I've said that each person is responsible
    for his/her own use of birth control, but that both people still become
    expectant parents (which means they can both be called upon to face
    certain physical or financial burdens) if a pregnancy results.

    If a man refrains from using birth control, it's his choice (and his
    use or non-use of his own birth control is his responsibility.)

    / Birth control includes abstinence, and it is also up to the woman to
    / make a decision when the male is unprotected.

    It's up to the MALE to choose abstinence if he's not protected, too.
    Women aren't the only ones who can say "No."
     
    // When men will get the GREATEST BENEFIT from taking responsibility for
    // birth control, why does it need to be 'forced' on men?

    / If you want to get men to use birth control, it seems line abstinence
    / would be a pretty good way to do it.

    You must think men are pretty stupid (to need to be FORCED into
    doing something which benefits them as much as birth control
    protection does.)  European men can use their own birth control
    without being forced, so I think American men can do it more
    often, too.

    // The laws are NOT MINE TO CHANGE - men's rights are NOT MINE TO GIVE.

    / And yet you demand that _everyone_ must support Women's rights. 

    I've never made this demand.  I've certainly never believed that
    any one man in this country has the power to grant women cultural
    rights in a doggone notesfile.  Apparently, you think *I* can grant
    men's rights in a note, though, and you want me to grant those
    rights before you agree that MEN SHOULD PROTECT *THEMSELVES* BY USING
    BIRTH CONTROL.  (That's pretty surreal, Fred.)  :/

    / What's that I keep hearing about when one is enslaved no one is free?

    Some men believe they are enslaved by depending on women for birth
    control.  More men need to realize that it is simple and easy to
    protect *themselves* when they have sex.

    // It would be unbelievably stupid for some men to refrain from doing
    // something which would BENEFIT THEM in order to strike back at women
    // in some way.  Again, it's cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    / Which is, one more time, what I've been saying all day long.  So what's
    / your problem?

    If you believe as I do that men should consider themselves responsible
    for their own birth control, then we do indeed agree.  Why are you
    still taking shots at me?  Why all the crap about how men ought to
    have 'rights' before they are expected to be responsible in birth
    control (when it benefits men MOST to be responsible about their
    own birth control)?

    Why all the garbage about why men need to be 'forced' to do the one
    thing that would benefit them the most during sexual relations?

    Do you need to be forced to refrain from stepping out in front of
    cars on the freeway, too?  Would you threaten to step out in front
    of cars unless you get certain traffic rights that you seek?

    Think about it, Fred.  For men, using birth control is an important
    step in making things better for men in legal issues involving
    parenthood.  

    You started out (in this conversation) by saying that men don't use
    birth control because women would sob that the men didn't trust them
    if the men used their own birth control.

    It's time for the excuses to end!  Men can help prevent disease by
    using condoms (as well as pregnancy), so if any woman objects, the
    man can say "I don't want to risk giving you a disease that could
    kill you or make you sterile."  If the woman still objects, he can
    zip up his pants and leave.

    When men *and* women both concern themselves with birth control,
    we'll have fewer unwanted pregnancies (and STDs.)  That's what
    this is all about.

    reply .144
    
>    // The laws are NOT MINE TO CHANGE - men's rights are NOT MINE TO GIVE.
>
>    / And yet you demand that _everyone_ must support Women's rights. 
>
>    I've never made this demand.  
    
    Oh come on Susanne.  You've been ranting on for _years_ about women's
    rights this and women's right's that, and what a bunch of scumm men
    are because they won't support your agenda.  You're cretainly a staunch
    supporter of NOW and the "femenists" who most certainly do demand that
    men support _their_ cause.  And don't give me any of that "prove it" b.s.
    I already have a life, thank you.  Anyway, anybody who has followed 
    Mennotes, Womennotes, and probably Soapbox (I think, I haven't looked at 
    Soapbox for a while) knows better.
    
    
>    You started out (in this conversation) by saying that men don't use
>    birth control because women would sob that the men didn't trust them
>    if the men used their own birth control.
    
    Which _does_ happen, btw, more than you will ever admit.  There was
    a note back in this string somewhere about a radio commercial where
    the guy changed his mind real quick if she demands he use a condom
    or else.  That also works both ways.
    
    

    re .143
    
>    This isn't true for MOST sexual relations between men and women in
>    our society, though.  Our culture most often expects birth control
>    to be women's responsibility (not men's responsibility.)  This is
>    the problem we've been discussing.
    
    I didn't say _most_.  What are all those condoms being handed out
    in our high schools for then?
    
>    If she used birth control herself, she was the only one who tried
>    to prevent pregnancy.  He did ZIP (after he UNZIPPED.)
    
    If she gets pregnant he has Zip not matter who did what.  If he lives
    in Colorado and is married to her, it doens't matter _who_ unzipped
    he still has zip.
    
    

    
>    and you want me to grant those
>    rights before you agree that MEN SHOULD PROTECT *THEMSELVES* BY USING
>    BIRTH CONTROL.  (That's pretty surreal, Fred.)  :/

    I never said anythig about _before_ Susanne.  You pulled that one out
    of thin air.  I've already agreed several times, but like I said, 
    probably for different reasons, and you seem to have this godawful
    time taking yes for an answer.  

    But if I then mention that women need to look to their own
    responsibilities or look at the injustices men face you appear to want 
    to ignore that and go back to trashing men.  It's called hypocrisy, 
    Susanne, it's called bigotry, and once again I believe you are providing 
    us with a prime example.

    fred();

    RE: .145  Fred 

    /// And yet you demand that _everyone_ must support Women's rights. 

    // I've never made this demand.  
    
    / Oh come on Suzanne.

    If I ever decide to DEMAND that everyone support Women's rights, I'll
    start with you (since you are more against such rights than anyone
    I've ever seen in notes.)

    Supporting women's rights is not the same thing as DEMANDING that
    everyone support such rights.  The world will always contain bigots,
    whether a particular rights movement ever attains equal rights or not.
    Trying to get 'everyone' to support a rights movement has never been
    the goal of anyone I've ever known in any rights movement at all.
    (It's just something you made up.)

    RE: .147  Fred
    
    / But if I then mention that women need to look to their own
    / responsibilities...
    
    A man's use of birth control is HIS responsibility, though, not
    the woman's.  Her responsibility is to use her own birth control.
    
    Men can't get off the hook by saying 'Well, she was supposed to say
    NO when I didn't use birth control' (as if men are incapable of being 
    expected to refuse sex or protect their own interests in the heat
    of passion.)  More men need to take responsibility for themselves
    in the area of birth control in this country.
    
    / or look at the injustices men face you appear to want to ignore that 
    / and go back to trashing men. 
    
    The injustices are all the more reason for men to protect themselves
    during sex, as we've both agreed.  We need a movement to get more
    American men to use their own birth control (in much the way that
    European men are doing this already.)  That's the whole point.
                             
    / ...and once again I believe you are providing us with a prime example.
    
    Obviously, you have no valid argument against the points I've made, Fred.
    
    	194.239/Fred Haddock/ I find that people start with the 
    			    / personal attacks when they can no 
                            / longer argue facts and logic.

                            / Ever notice how those who cannot argue 
    			    / facts and logic and attack the argument 
    			    / must resort to attacking the person instead....

    
>    The injustices are all the more reason for men to protect themselves
>    during sex, as we've both agreed.  We need a movement to get more
>    American men to use their own birth control (in much the way that
>    European men are doing this already.)  That's the whole point.

    First you say that you do not demand that anyone support your cause,
    the you call for a "movement" to get more men to use their own birth
    control?  Or are you talking about some other sort of "movement"
    here ;^);

    I'm touched by your concern, but just what's it to _you_ anyway.
    Somehow I find it hard to believe that it's out of a genuine concern
    for the plight of men.

    > Obviously, you have no valid argument against the points I've made, Fred.

    Now you are trying to play another old notes game called "you have to
    prove your point to my satisfaction, or you lose".  Sorry.  I'm not
    buying it.

    fred();

    RE: .150  Fred
    
    // The injustices are all the more reason for men to protect themselves
    // during sex, as we've both agreed.  We need a movement to get more
    // American men to use their own birth control (in much the way that
    // European men are doing this already.)  That's the whole point.
     
    Is this supposed to be an example of a personal attack against you?
    
    //	194.239/Fred Haddock/ I find that people start with the 
    //                       / personal attacks when they can no 
    //                       / longer argue facts and logic.

    //                       / Ever notice how those who cannot argue 
    //                       / facts and logic and attack the argument 
    //                       / must resort to attacking the person instead....

    / And I can think of no more fitting person to apply it to than you,
    / Suzanne.
    
    This still isn't an argument against my statements, meanwhile.

    RE: .152  Fred
    
    // The injustices are all the more reason for men to protect themselves
    // during sex, as we've both agreed.  We need a movement to get more
    // American men to use their own birth control (in much the way that
    // European men are doing this already.)  That's the whole point.

    / First you say that you do not demand that anyone support your cause,
    / the you call for a "movement" to get more men to use their own birth
    / control?
    
    Is there some reason why it's inappropriate for an American citizen
    to comment on what we 'need' to do in this country?
    
    / I'm touched by your concern, but just what's it to _you_ anyway.
    / Somehow I find it hard to believe that it's out of a genuine concern
    / for the plight of men.

    The problems of unwanted pregnancies and the spread of diseases affect
    us ALL (men, women and children) in this country.  Some men are more
    likely to work on solving these problems once they realize that it
    is in THEIR best interests to do so (which makes it a worthwhile 
    thing to emphasize in the course of discussing this issue.)
    
    ///	194.239/Fred Haddock/ I find that people start with the 
    ///			    / personal attacks when they can no 
    ///                     / longer argue facts and logic.
    
    /// ...and once again I believe you are providing us with a prime example.
    
    // Obviously, you have no valid argument against the points I've made, Fred.

    / Now you are trying to play another old notes game called "you have to
    / prove your point to my satisfaction, or you lose".  Sorry.  I'm not
    / buying it.
    
    There's no way to judge the validity of your argument if you keep
    refusing to make one.  (Is that your intent here?)

     
    re .153
    
>    There's no way to judge the validity of your argument if you keep
>    refusing to make one.  (Is that your intent here?)
    
    And just who made _you_ judge?
    
    fred();

    RE: .154  Fred
    
    // There's no way to judge the validity of your argument if you keep
    // refusing to make one.  (Is that your intent here?)
    
    / And just who made _you_ judge?
    
    You can't make an argument about the subject at hand without directing
    your attention toward it, Fred.
    
    Birth control.  Responsibility.  Solving problems involved with
    unwanted pregnancies and diseases.  
    
    Give these issues some thought and get back to us, ok?

    Imagine a society where most people of both sexes felt obligated 
    to take action to prevent pregnancy and diseases.
    
    They're doing this in the Netherlands already (and elsewhere in
    Europe), so I know we can do this here.
    
    If more people agree to it, that is...

    
>    // There's no way to judge the validity of your argument if you keep
>    // refusing to make one.  (Is that your intent here?)
>    
>    / And just who made _you_ judge?
>    
>    You can't make an argument about the subject at hand without directing
>    your attention toward it, Fred.
    
    That's not an answer, Suzanne.  That's just another attack.  Which puts
    _you_ in the position of doing exactly what you are accusing me of
    doing.
    
    FWIW, one more time. I've already agreed SEVERAL TIMES that, given
    the climate in todays court system,  men should protect themselves.  
    What seems to be bothering you is my _repeated_ attempts to speak to 
    the injustice done to _men_ regualdless of birth control, and women's 
    responsibility in that injustice.
    
    fred();
    

    RE: .157  Fred

    / FWIW, one more time. I've already agreed SEVERAL TIMES that, given
    / the climate in todays court system,  men should protect themselves.  

    Men should also protect themselves (from contributing sperm in
    unwanted pregnancies) because it is the right thing (and the
    responsible thing) to do.

    / What seems to be bothering you is my _repeated_ attempts to speak to 
    / the injustice done to _men_ regualdless of birth control, and women's 
    / responsibility in that injustice.

    Whether injustices exist or not, it is still in men's best interest
    to protect themselves against participating in unwanted pregnancies
    and diseases.  It is also the right (and the responsible) thing to do.

    If more men would take responsibility for their own birth control,
    most of the problems involved with unwanted pregnancies and diseases
    would be eliminated.  At that point, we'd be in a position to find
    equitable solutions (for everyone!) for the few remaining problems.

    In the Netherlands, unwanted pregnancies have all but become extinct.
    If we could achieve that here, it would almost amount to a social
    revolution in this country.

    By the way, when I suggest that men's taking responsibility in
    birth control would almost eliminate unwanted pregnancies (and
    diseases), I'm not suggesting that men are solely to blame for
    these problems.

    When TWO people are involved with birth control and disease
    prevention considerations, their COOPERATION can be far more 
    effective than the efforts of ONE person trying to do it alone.

    This is what has happened in the Netherlands.  People of both
    sexes make commitments to themselves that they will NEVER have
    unprotected sex, so each partner in a couple cooperates in
    keeping this commitment.  As a result, pregnancies in high schools
    are exceptionally rare.  One Dutch teacher (on 20/20) said he'd
    only seen ONE teenage pregnancy at his high school in 20 years.

    Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could achieve that sort of trend
    in most American high schools!?!

    
>    / FWIW, one more time. I've already agreed SEVERAL TIMES that, given
>    / the climate in todays court system,  men should protect themselves.  
>
>    Men should also protect themselves (from contributing sperm in
>    unwanted pregnancies) because it is the right thing (and the
>    responsible thing) to do.

    In which you've just done exactly what I said you were doing.  Also
    in which you've just repeated your one-note mantra for the umpteenth 
    time. Do you have anything _new_ to add to the discussion?

    BTW .159 was much better, but could stand some improvment.
    
    And speaking of which, there are several things in your one-note
    mantra (perhaps not intentionally but there none the less) that I find 
    very offensive.  1) men are just sperm-donors.  2) simply because women
    are the ones who get pregnant they should be forever in control of not 
    only the pregnancy, but the children that result.  3) That the world
    would be such a better place of only _men_ would be more responsible
    (which probably it would, but taken in conjunction your refusal to 
    discuss any other solutions).  All of which, I believe, was the intent 
    of .0 to address.

    fred();

    RE: .160  Fred
    
    / In which you've just done... 
    
    Let's have another *attention span* adjustment.
    
    <A light smack on the desk.>  Birth control.  Responsibility.
    Helping the prevention of unwanted pregnancies and diseases.
    
    / And speaking of which, there are several things in your one-note
    / mantra (perhaps not intentionally but there none the less) that I find 
    / very offensive. 
    
    The first two (about men as sperm-donors and about how women should
    be forever in control of pregnancy and the children that result) were
    not included in ANY of my notes, so I won't bother to address these.
    
    The third one has been addressed, so here's some context for this
    item:  "3) That the world would be such a better place if only _men_ 
    would be more responsible..."
    
    From my reply .159:
    
        -< It's the 'cooperation' between partners that would be the key... >-

    	"By the way, when I suggest that men's taking responsibility in
    	birth control would almost eliminate unwanted pregnancies (and
    	diseases), I'm not suggesting that men are solely to blame for
    	these problems.

    	"When TWO people are involved with birth control and disease
    	prevention considerations, their COOPERATION can be far more 
    	effective than the efforts of ONE person trying to do it alone.

    	"This is what has happened in the Netherlands.  People of both
    	sexes make commitments to themselves that they will NEVER have
    	unprotected sex, so each partner in a couple cooperates in
    	keeping this commitment.  As a result, pregnancies in high schools
    	are exceptionally rare.  One Dutch teacher (on 20/20) said he'd
    	only seen ONE teenage pregnancy at his high school in 20 years.

    	"Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could achieve that sort of trend
    	in most American high schools!?!"

    RE: .0  DECLARATION OF THE FATHER'S FUNDAMENTAL PRE-NATAL RIGHTS !

    / WHEREAS, healthy relationships and healthy families require that
    / men be equal participants in every facet of parenting, including
    / responsible contraception and conception; and
      ****************************************

    The basenote declaration does actually mention contraception - it's
    a "WHEREAS", rather than a declaration of what should happen, though.

    WHEREAS, many men in the United States are ***NOT*** responsible
    in the area of contraception and conception, measures to try to
    get this to happen would most likely take precedence over any
    other suggestions regarding this issue in our society.

    RE: .2  Wally Neilsen-Steinhardt
    
    Going back to the subject introduced in the basenote, I commend your
    comments about it:
    
    / As a philosophic statement, I think it is too one-sided, full of talk 
    / about "fundamental rights" without any corresponding statements about
    / responsibilities.  
    
    / These are not limited to all the usual responsibilities of parenthood.  
    / For example, I believe that men and women have a responsibility to
    / avoid unprotected sex outside of marriage.  This would greatly decrease,
    / although not eliminate, the incidence of the problems that .0 is 
    / addressing.  
    
    Agree 100%!
    
    / I also believe that people in a serious relationship have a 
    / responsibility to discuss the questions that .0 raises, and to 
    / terminate the relationship if they find serious disagreement.  
    / This would also greately decrease the incidence.  I think a 
    / culture which supported these responsibilities would also have 
    / a lot less illegitimacy, divorce and unhappy marriages.
    
    Exactly right, IMO.

>    / In which you've just done... 
>    
>    Let's have another *attention span* adjustment.
>    
>    <A light smack on the desk.>  Birth control.  Responsibility.
>    Helping the prevention of unwanted pregnancies and diseases.
    
    I repeat.  Do you have anything _new_ to add to this discussion other
    than your one-note mantra which you seem to think constant repetition
    will make it right?
        
    fred();

    Fred, some seem to think that men need to be 'FORCED' to take
    responsibility for birth control.  This puts the responsibility
    upon women to MAKE some men do what men ought to be doing in the
    first place.  I disagree with that notion.

    Emphasizing the importance of men taking responsibility is one 
    of most important dialogs we can have in this country.  All the
    hostility and nasty comments in the world against those who stress
    the need for more men to take this responsibility won't change
    the critical nature of this message.

    Unwanted pregnancies and the spread of STDs is a horrible problem
    in this country that many men can and should help solve on their own.
    Obviously, it's not a popular thing to say to some men.

    re .165

    Maybe so, but, In My Not So Humble Opinion, the hypocrisy and bigotry
    I believe you have demonstrated in doing so probably has hurt your cause
    more then helped it.

    Moving on to other subjects,  I will present other solutions to the
    problems.  I fully expect to get major heat for what I am about to 
    present.  My views on the need for men to protect themselves is not
    new.  I distinctly remember raising the question in Notes, "In todays 
    society and legal climate, why do men continue to bother becoming 
    fathers and/or getting married"?  I was thoroughly trashed for daring
    to even ask the question. Never mind.  

    I HAVE PAID MY DUES.  I _have_ supported and cared for the children
    I have produced above and beyond the expectations of current society.
    Even though the mother of my children was _indeed_ unfit, it cost me
    all I had, much of what I would have, and nine and a half years of 
    hell for just the opportunity to give them a decent education and a
    chance in life.  Even at that I as asked by more than one _preacher_
    why I continued to bother.  I was asked by more than one _psychitrist_
    why I bothered with my eldest son (a fight that I lost, but not for
    lack of trying _everything_ humanly possible).

    And yet I have not lost my love for my family or my fellow man.  I
    continue to try, with my own pitiful efforts, to help improve the lives
    of others, both men _and_ women that seek my help.

    Thankfully I still find the _vast_ majority of women to be good decent
    people caring for what is right and wrong.  Sometimes misguidedly, but
    caring none the less.  I am married for the last 11 years to a very
    exceptional woman who has stood by me and walked beside me through
    fourty-seven different kinds of hell that she did not have to endure.
    More precious than rubies and gold.

    Therefore I will present these solutions over the next days and weeks
    in separate topics for discussion.

    fred();

    The 'cause' of getting more men to be responsible for their own birth 
    control is something that only the men themselves can make happen.

    The men's rights cause outlined in the basenote has very little chance
    of succeeding, of course, due to the endless bitterness and hostility 
    exhibited by men like our pal, Fred, in the course of working for this 
    cause.  As Wally said earlier, the basenote 'cause' is too one-sided
    and doesn't stress men's responsibilities along with men's rights.

    Our society will continue to move firmly in the other direction as
    the effects of some men's irresponsible attitudes towards contraception
    continue to create grave problems in this country.

    Now that the argument is finished in this topic, I think I'll write
    to the organization in the basenote to ASK them why they didn't take
    a stronger stand about getting more men to be responsible for their
    own birth control.  I'll post their answer if they respond.

    Take care,
    Suzanne

    Percent of women experiencing an accidental pregnancy
    in the first year of continuous use comparisons:
    
    I did take this off a Depo-Provera patient information sheet in the
    baby magazine my diaper service supplies.  

    Now I am not a statistician, but it seems to me that adding male 
    contraception (condom or vasectomy) in combination with female 
    contraception decreases the odds of an accidental pregnancy by a 
    pretty good margin.  

    Given the fact that the most reliable methods for women are also
    prone to some pretty major side effects, I would think a loving 
    partner would be willing to use a condom in addition to his female
    counterparts use of one of the less effective, but safer barrier
    methods.  

    
    Method		Lowest Expected		Typical
    -------------------------------------------------------------
    Depo-Provera    |      	0.3		|  0.3
    
    Norplant	    |		0.3		|  0.3
    
    Tubal Ligation  |		0.2		|  0.4
    
    Vasectomy       |		 .1		|   .15
    
    Combined Pill   |		0.1		|  3.0
    
    Mini Pill	    |           0.5             |  3.0
    
    IUD's:
    
    Progestasert    |		2.0		|  3.0
    Copper T	    |		0.8		|  3.0
    
    Condom(no 	    |		2.0		| 12.0
    Spermicid)
    
    Diaphram(with   |		6.0		| 18.0
    Spermicide)
    
    Cervical cap    | 		6.0		| 18.0
    
    Withdrawal	    |		4.0		| 18.0
    
    Periodic	    |		1-9		| 20
    Abstinence
    (Rythym)
    
    Spermicide 	    |		3		| 21
    (only)
    
    Vaginal sponge  |
    Before child-
    birth	    |		6		| 18
    
    After child-
    birth	    |		9		| 28
    
    No method	    |		85		| 85
    
    

    In my single days I rarely had a man ask me what I was doing for
    contraception, and NEVER had one haul out his own.  Really, I wouldn't
    have died of shock had a man pulled out a condom, I would have
    appreciated it!  I still would have used my cap or diaphram, or
    spermicide as it gives me peace of mind, however, if you look at the
    stats in the previous note you will see that women's barrier methods
    are considerably less than 100%, and in some cases not as reliable as
    the condoms so many seem to feel they shouldn't need to wear.  
    
    Now, with the information put out, can you honestly say a man shouldn't
    also protect himself and his partner by using contraception of one form
    or another?  
    
    Believe me, I shared these stat's with my oldest, and will with my
    other two daughters as they grow into an age where they need this
    information.  I also told Lolita when she became interested in young
    men, that a man who wouldn't help with contraception is not someone she
    shouldn't waste her time or body with, as a man who won't contribute his
    share of contraception/disease prevention is endangering her future and
    life, and certainly doesn't love her enough to be intimate.  I also
    explained that this is something that should be discussed long before
    they slipped between sheets, the back seat of a vehicle or the bushes.  
    
    If I had a son the same lecture would come through, and did when my
    nephew became sexually active.  Questions, though, why didn't his
    father hand him the box of condoms and why did his aunt have to be the
    one to explain this?  
    
    meg 

.159

>                                                  People of both
>   sexes make commitments to themselves that they will NEVER have
>   unprotected sex, so each partner in a couple cooperates in
>   keeping this commitment.  As a result, pregnancies in high schools
>   are exceptionally rare.  One Dutch teacher (on 20/20) said he'd
>   only seen ONE teenage pregnancy at his high school in 20 years.


well i dunno - how can high-school kids act responsibly as reards taking
the proper measures for contraception IF they have not been educated to 
this effect by either their parents or their teachers?

i am baffled by all the recent notes here. don't your high school kids
get sexual education in school? i mean sexual education is hardly new.
when i was twelve (that's 24 years ago) our school pastor put us kids 
in the know on the subject (and that wasn't a dutch school or a dutch
pastor!).



andreas.

    Sex Ed in many places in the US is schizophrenic.  They explain how the
    parts match up, and the consequences of the parts matching up, with
    little or no consequence prevention other than don't do it. 
    contraceptive methods, let alone failure stat's are left to parents to
    discuss.  If you have wonderful parents who are willing to take the
    time to discuss things beyond what the school teaches great!  If not
    and you don't take the "don't do it" advice you are likely to wind up a
    statistic for pregnancies or STD's.  This is frightening, as there are
    obviously far too many parents out there who are abdicating their
    responsibilities with their sons and daughters and they are
    endangering, not only their children, but the children who interact
    with them on an intimate level.  
    
    meg

>                                                      They explain how the
>   parts match up, and the consequences of the parts matching up, with
>   little or no consequence prevention other than don't do it. 


"just say NO" is not sufficient advice for teenagers. the same goes for
other typical teenage dangers, like drugs. information is a much more
useful deterrant for preventing teenage kids from getting into serious
situations. like the table in .168; it reminded me of my high-school
sex ed - contraception was the major theme in those days. now, with the
spread of AIDS, the use of the condom is even more emphasised in our
schools.

coming back to the base note. what if all protection fails and a pregnancy 
results? this seems to be the major hot issue in this topic. and a 
difficult issue too this can be for a man to deal with. when the decision 
on terminating or continuing the pregnancy is taken jointly (as it would be 
under normal circumstances) why shouldn't the man not feel equally 
responsible whichever way it goes when its a decision shared. the cases 
where the partners can't agree on a decision when faced with an unplanned 
pregnancy will be few, if both seek to mimimise the risk of getting into 
such a situation. and these few cases of disagreement are the ones that 
.0 appears to address; at least as regards unwanted pregnancies resulting 
from adult sexual relationships.

teenage pregnancies are more problematic.

back when i was a teenager -- and i had no lack of freedom or opportunity
then -- the mere fact of knowing all too well that there was no 100% fail
safe method of avoiding pregnancy, caused me to engage in all but actual 
intercourse. i decided at the age of fifteen when the first opportunity 
came up, that i wouldn't go "all the way" unless i could provide for what 
could come of it. that was a well informed decision and one that wouldn't 
have been as firm without that thorough sex ed at school. what's more, it was 
a teenagers own decision to "just say NO" and not one which came via parental
decree. as a parent, i now know that providing teenagers with all the 
information necessary for them to reach their own decisions is the best way 
for them to stay out of trouble. for in my experience, decisions self-made 
are the only ones which will really stand up to the test. "just say NO"
is a pretty good decision for any school going teenager to come to.




andreas.

.167>    exhibited by men like our pal, Fred, in the course of working for this 
>    cause.  As Wally said earlier, the basenote 'cause' is too one-sided
>    and doesn't stress men's responsibilities along with men's rights.

The juxtaposition of my name and Fred's above might suggest to some that I do
not agree with him.  

On the contrary, I agree completely with Fred's repeated statements that men
should take responsibility for their own contraception.

As far as I can remember, nobody has disagreed with that statement in all the
replies on this topic.

As a number of my replies show, I don't always agree with Fred, but I think he
is correct in the statement above.

    Men taking responsibility for birth control is something I support
    whole-heartedly, too.
    
    The declaration in the basenote mentions it (too briefly) as if it's
    a given, rather than something to work toward.
    
    I think much work is left to be done in this area.

    RTw  04/02 0547  New male contraceptive as good as pill - doctors

    By Paul Majendie

    LONDON, April 2 (Reuter) - A contraceptive injection for men has proved
    to be as effective as birth control pills for women, scientists said on
    Tuesday after worldwide trials.

    The new contraceptive, a weekly injection tested on 400 men, was hailed
    as a major breakthrough. Doctors are now working on a daily pill
    version that could be taken in combination with less frequent
    injections.

    "It is very significant. It is really for the first time showing the
    world that permanent contraception for men really works," said Dr Fred
    Wu of Manchester University in central England, one of 15 international
    centres to test it.

    The contraceptive secretes the male hormone testosterone into the body
    to reduce the sperm count to negligible levels.

    The World Health Organisation said the new method was as effective as
    the female pill in preventing pregnancy. Side-effects are minimal and
    Wu said it worked better than a condom.

    Initial tests showed the sperm counts in 60 percent of men could be
    reduced to zero by weekly testosterone injections. Later trials showed
    it could be effective in a further 38.6 percent of men.

    "The importance of a new male contraceptive which is reversible is to
    increase the options for men so that they can play a more active role
    in family planning," Wu said.

    Asked if the researchers were effectively removing a barrier to
    disease, Wu told BBC Radio: "What we are trying to do is to provide
    couples in stable relationships with a form of contraception which does
    not interfere with the sexual act."

    The contraceptive was initially administered by a weekly injection into
    the buttocks.

    "We are now well on the way to testing more practical formulations
    which can achieve the same target," Wu said.

    "For example we are using a daily pill which is combined with
    long-acting injections three or four times a year as well as skin
    patches and implants," he added.

    But he warned against undue optimism, saying it could take up to eight
    years before a better technique of administering the drug is perfected.

    "It now depends on whether the drug companies think they can produce it
    profitably in the long term," Wu said.

    REUTER
    

Brazil to make first male birth-control pill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright � 1996 Nando.net
Copyright � 1996 Reuter Information Service

SAO PAULO (Aug 17, 1996 11:53 p.m. EDT) - A Brazilian pharmaceutical
company will make the world's first birth-control pill for men starting
next June, an official from the company making the product said Saturday.

Hebron S.A. plans to make the pill, called Nofertil, at its plant in
Caruaru, some 86 miles from Recife in Pernambuco state.

Hebron industrial director and chief pharmicist Luiz Francisco Pianowski
said Nofertil, made from a substance extracted from cotton called gossipol,
works by deactivating the enzyme responsible for producing sperm.

The pill was tested on 500 men in eight countries in Africa, Asia and Latin
America, including 100 in Brazil, Pianowski said.

He said test results show the pill was 96 percent to 98 percent effective,
equal to that of female birth-control pills.

He said the pill, unlike injectible contraceptives that work on hormones,
has no side effects. Pianowski said the pill taken for 40 days, renders a
man infertile but does not interfere with his sexual activity or the
production of semenal fluids. The effects of the pill disappear 20 to 40
days after a man stops taking it.

"We think that the effect in the marketplace will be fantastic," he said.
"Many people, particularly women, think it is a great idea."

He said other companies elsewhere in the world may be working on a similar
product but "we are the first in the launching stage."

Nofertil took two years to develop and has the backing of the World Health
Organization, Pianowski said.

Hebron's lab intends to produce 100,000 bottles of the pill a month but
will increase output to five million bottles in two years.

Pianowski credits the pill to studies conducted by Elsimar Coutinho of the
University of Bahia.



    You know something really shocked me when I went looking for a place in
    this file for contraception.  I would think men would be equally as
    concerned about knowing about old and new contraceptive measures, as
    well as futures.  Is a shot in the tuckus, or a pill a day of any
    interest to you all if it prevents unplanned consequences?
    
    meg

    I suspect it's that the methods available to men are limited and
    known.  There has been discussion of vasectomy.  I'm glad to see new
    developments in this area - they offer men more choices for
    contraception.  But the big problem is that since it's not the men who
    get pregnant, comparatively few men are interested.  Indeed, there are
    many (especially young men) who take pride in impregnating as many
    women as possible.
    
    The real battle will be social and psychological.  And even if that
    battle is won, women will still need to protect themselves as well.
    
    				Steve

    Steve,
    
    
    I agree, but I would think men would want to make themselves aware of
    the effectiveness their partners are using as well.  Some methods take
    cooperation and awareness by both partners.
    
    meg

The husband pf a colleague of my wife (phew!) was in a trial of the London
treatment.  He apparently felt considerably randier than normal and complained
of the pain of the injection.

I'd have no objection to taking a daily pill; I would not be at all interested
in injections...

regards,
//alan

    
    My prediction is that unless they set the price too high for many
    men to afford, you'll see the birth rate drop like a rock.  I also
    predict a big push by the "feminists" that any man not taking the
    new contraceptives is just plain a "bad" person.
    
    fred();

    And why not?
    
    Women have been accused of being bad women if they don't risk their
    health by taking the pill.

    
    Once again when you try to defend your actions by "they are doing/did it"
    you are only admitting that you are doing it while the accusation 
    against the other side remains in debate.
    
    fred();

    What actions is Meg trying to defend?  There are probably stories or
    comments right in this file where the implication is 'the woman
    trapped me by not doing x,y,or z; thus, the 'bad woman' accusation.
    As Suzanne and others have said repeatedly about this subject, there
    should be nothing wrong with both parties taking an active interest
    in birth control and men should be happy to see more headway, other 
    than the condom and vasectomy offered to them.  As a woman, I will
    gladly take on the responsibility of ensuring I do not become pregnant
    and I would heartily encourage other women to do the same, just as I
    would encourage men to ensure they don't become fathers before they
    wish to.  That's equality, no?

    My very young nephew got a young girl pregnant and he does not want the
    child to be born because he knows that she is too young to be a
    responsible mother and he is to young to start out as a father.  Guess
    what, she wants to have it and he has no say in this matter.  She was
    suppose to be taking the pill but stopped so she could get pregnant
    and get out of the parents house.  He is now up shits creek without a
    paddle... She can just sit back and enjoy life while he will have to go
    out and support her and the child.   Is this right?  Do you think his
    life is over?  I can bet in less than two years she will kick his butt
    out, get another boyfriend and just sit back and collect the money and
    enjoy life.  Meanwhile, the child will probably be neglected and grow
    up to be a problem in society.  Is this right?   Do you think this
    child will become a productive member of society?  I don't...
    
    

    It may not be right, but what was this young man thinking about by
    having intercourse without using a condom?  IMO any person who is not
    doing the utmost he or she can to prevent an unplanned pregnancy should
    rethink their actions carefully.  No matter what decision is made in
    the case of an unplanned pregnancy it is a life changing event, for
    both the man and the woman.
    
    meg
    
    

    RE: .185  Dom
    
    > I can bet in less than two years she will kick his butt out, get 
    > another boyfriend and just sit back and collect the money and
    > enjoy life.  
    
    Unless your nephew is a millionaire, she won't get a lot of enjoyment
    out of his money.  It may help feed the child, though.
    
    > Meanwhile, the child will probably be neglected and grow up to be a 
    > problem in society.  Is this right?   
    
    It's horribly wrong for you to trash the hell out of this young woman
    to us when the child isn't even born yet (and you have no idea in the
    world what kind of mother she will be.)
    
    > Do you think this child will become a productive member of society?  
    > I don't...
                   
    So you condemn this child before he/she is even born.  Greeeeat.
    
    When the male pill is available, I hope a great many men take
    responsibility in this area.  It will help society A LOT if they do.

    Dom, why in the world did your nephew move in with this young woman
    when he seems to hate her so much (or is that you talking)?
    

    
    re .184
    
    My concern is that there will be undue pressur for men to take the
    product whether they need to or not.  There is no pressure allowed
    for women to take the pill, or even use anything at all for that 
    matter.  It's part of the "woman's choice" thing.  
    
    I agree men should protect themselves if they are going to be sexually
    active (thus a falling birth rate if there is something more reliable
    and less obnoxious to use than condoms).  
    
    fred();

    re Meg
    
    Sure, just simply blame the guy.  She had nothing to do with it, she is
    suppose to be taking the pill...  I can't believe you meg.  She gets 
    pregnent by her actions of not taking the pill and your reply is "what
    was this young man thinking about by having intercourse without using a 
    comdom"  She has no responsability for any of this hey....  wow, I
    can't believe some people...
    
    Dom

    re .187
    
>    When the male pill is available, I hope a great many men take
>    responsibility in this area.  It will help society A LOT if they do.
    
    I hope so too.  And when that happens, you'll see women's power over
    men diminsh considerably (Unless they're married, then she can still
    go get pregnant by other means and he is still stuck).  
    
    fred();

    In the country where I live (the United States of America), women's
    groups have been promoting the use of birth control to women for
    about 60 years.

    Men have been encouraged to use condoms since the advent of AIDS
    and the knowledge of how AIDS is transmitted (which is a little over
    ten years.)

    I try to imagine a scenario where society DEMANDS that all men take
    the male pill whether they need to or not, and I can't stop laughing
    at the preposterous nature of this 'concern'.

    RE: .191  Fred
    
    >> When the male pill is available, I hope a great many men take
    >> responsibility in this area.  It will help society A LOT if they do.
    
    > I hope so too.  And when that happens, you'll see women's power over
    > men diminsh considerably (Unless they're married, then she can still
    > go get pregnant by other means and he is still stuck).  
    
    When this happens, we'll see millions and millions fewer unmarried
    women having babies, and we'll see far fewer abortions.
    
    A lot of society's problems will be helped.  I would very much like
    to see this happen.

    re .187, 188
    
    Sure Suzzane,  she will enjoy life and the money she will get will be
    enough to support her and the child.  I also never said he hated her, 
    he just does not want to be a father do you understand or do I need to
    repeate it 2 million times before you get it.  I never even said
    anything about how he felt about her so stop infering.  Yes Meg is
    right that he should have been using some kind of birth control insted
    of trusting her to keep doing so.  She litterally just screwed him over
    and there is nothing he can do.  And I am not wrong to trash this
    woman, her actions already speak for her.  She is not honest and from
    most of the women that I have ran into that are into the welfare seen,
    the kids are dirty, not fed well, not clothed properly, while the woman
    is dressed well, goes out as much as possible to get drugs and sex.
    The children are just used as pawns so that they can live the life of 
    rielly.  I've seen tons of this and the welfare system does not do a
    thing about it.  There is alot of abuse of the system out there and its
    the children that suffer for it.  This young girl with no education is
    heading in the same direction and the child will suffer for it.
    
    Dom

    re .190
    
    Blame can be applied equally to both parties. Both contributed DNA
    to the process. Why do you blame the woman and not the man?
    
    If your cousin didn't want a pregnancy to start, he had the option
    to use a condom. Blaming the woman because she was "supposed" to be
    on the pill is nothing less than a cop-out. Taken religiously, the
    pill can still fail, and women have been known through the years to
    forget to take it regularly (whether the forgetfulness is deliberate
    as you suggest or inadvertant really doesn't matter from the male
    side of the equation). 

    Ok Paul I agree that he is just as much to blame for her getting
    pregnant even if she told him that she was taking the pill...  However,
    he should have just as much right to not let the baby be born as her
    and he does'nt.  He also has no choice on what he will be doing for the
    next 20+ years except to work at low paying jobs supporting this child
    that he does not want.  He has no choice, its all up to her... But, I
    guess that just fair and just right?
    
    

    
    re .195

>    Blame can be applied equally to both parties. Both contributed DNA
>    to the process. 


    And he will be the only one to be held responsible for the support of
    the child where she will be given sympathy, "social" programs, and
    taxpayer money if necessary to take care of her.


    >Why do you blame the woman and not the man?

    Would a man be blamed if he told a woman he had had a vasectomy 
    or was not married or some such in order to get a woman to have
    sex with him?  I find her telling him she was on the pill when
    she was not just as odious.

    fred();

    RE: .194  Dom

    > And I am not wrong to trash this woman, her actions already speak 
    > for her.  She is not honest and... 

    Your trashing her so mercilessly to us speaks ill of you, Dom.

    > from most of the women that I have ran into that are into the welfare 
    > seen, the kids are dirty, not fed well, not clothed properly, while 
    > the woman is dressed well, goes out as much as possible to get drugs 
    > and sex. The children are just used as pawns so that they can live 
    > the life of rielly. 

    Most of the men in the world that I've seen trash Welfare women 
    viciously are real jerks, so I guess we each have our own experiences 
    of the people we've met through the years.

    > This young girl with no education is heading in the same direction 
    > and the child will suffer for it.
                                      
    Of course, if she does try to get an education, you'll trash the heck
    out of her for that (and you'll want custody removed from her if she
    uses daycare.)

    I don't believe anything you say about this woman, so why don't you
    just stop talking about her with such vitriol.

    
    Re Suzanne,
    
    
    In this day and age of "equal rights" what is the difference between a
    welfare mom and a deadbeat dad.  Are not _both_ responsible to work
    and support _their_ child?
    
    >Your trashing her so mercilessly to us speaks ill of you, Dom.
    
    Again I find this rather interesting given your record as a "champion"
    of "equal rights".  Yea, Dom, how _dare_ you trash this poor, helpless,
    defenseless, little female ;^|.
    
    fred();
    

    re .198
    
    
    Most woman that call men jerks because they trash woman on welfare who
    are not taking proper care of the children that they collect money for,
    and just go out and do drugs and have sex while the child is being 
    neglected must be mentally ill and can't see any reality what so ever.
    
    
    Oh and by the way, I think day care is just fine, you are just loosing
    it... I never said a word about it.  
    
    Oh, so she should get an education for free now, I thought that we did
    that already, you know grades 1-12.  I know you don't think he should
    get any education also right???
    
    
    
    Signed  (A JERK IN MISS SUZZANNE OPINION)
    
    Go ahead, make my day;)
    
    PS:  Some people say bad things about other people and call them names
    when they don't agree with thier wharped view of life.  Oh well, sigh
    
    

    re ,198 Suzzanne
    
    >>  Your trashing her so mercilessly to us speaks ill of you, Dom.
                                                                      
    
    No Suzzanne, you speak I'll of most men so were use to it;)
    
    Protecting the actions of women that neglect children and use them
    speaks ill of you.
    
    Dom

    Dom, you're trashing a woman for not taking care of her child when
    the child hasn't even been born yet.  You're using some stereotype
    you've concocted about women on Welfare.
    
    Sorry, but I don't believe a word you say about this woman when
    it's obvious that you're simply livid that she's gotten pregnant
    and refuses to have an abortion.
    
    Personally, I think it's a good sign of mental illness when people
    despise 5 million women they don't even know.
    
    > Oh, so she should get an education for free now, I thought that we did
    > that already, you know grades 1-12.  I know you don't think he should
    > get any education also right???
    
    Hey, I said nothing at all about getting an education for free (I know
    that I didn't get a free education when I was a young single mother.)
    
    He can have all the education he wants.  Have him call Financial Aid.
    
    I supported my little family while going to day colleges classes 
    full-time.  Surely your nephew can do it.

    Geez, Dom.  Your notes are getting worse. :/
    
    > Protecting the actions of women that neglect children and use them
    > speaks ill of you.
    
    I'm not protecting any specific instance of a woman who neglects her
    child.
    
    I'm against your trashing 5 million women you don't know on the basis
    of your prejudices against them.
    

    
    re .202
    
    >    He can have all the education he wants.  Have him call Financial Aid.
    
    No he can't.  Althought child support must be reported as income if
    receiving it, child support cannot be counted as a deduction if paying.
    So he goes out and gets a job to pay the "child support"---then his
    financial aid gets chopped because he's working.  Been there, done
    that.
    
    fred();

    If he's working crummy jobs, his very low income level qualifies
    him for Financial Aid (especially if he's supporting a family on
    this low income.)
    
    He's not doing 'child support' at this point - he lives with the
    expectant mother.
    

|Althought child support must be reported as income if
|    receiving it,

I'm not sure, but I don't think this is true.  Alimony, yes, but not child
support.  Therefore, even women who do receive their child support regularly, in
full and on time (which is the vast majority of the cases) such women can still
be counted as below the poverty line because that income isn't counted.  Part of
the false economy of custodial mothers - it makes them look very sympathetic.

tim

    
    re. 205
    
>    He's not doing 'child support' at this point - he lives with the
>    expectant mother.
    
    _If_ they stay married he can qualify for financial aid.  If, as so
    often happens, she decides the grass is greener somewhere else, then
    he will be expected to work and pay "child support" while she is
    given all the goodies.  "Equality"  gotta live it!
    
    fred();

    Suzzanne, you are wrong, he is not living with her yet.  She wants to
    get out of her parents house and is using him as the scape goat.  You
    just infer all you want.  I'm not trashing all welfare women, I'm only
    trashing the ones that make it a career and just use the children.  How
    do I know this, because I've seen it umpteen times.  So go blow smoke 
    somewhere else.  Don't put words in my mouth and suggest what I am
    doing.  I said that it is wrong for women to do this, I did not say
    that all women do this got it or do I need to start talking simple
    again so you can understand.  Her actions speak load and clear to me.
    
    Dom

    
    re .206
    
    >I'm not sure, but I don't think this is true.
    
    Just go take a look at the FAF form.  I don't think it's changed.
    Been there, done that.  I brought this up with my congressman and
    he acted like I just unzipped my pants in public.
    
    fred();

    I will repeat.  Any man who does not want to have to deal with an
    unplanned pregnancy needs to do his share of the chores involved not to
    have one.  In this country today that means a vasectomy with regular
    fertility testing for a few years, or using a concom.  Anything else is
    less than resonsible.  
    
    BC fails.  I used a diaphram consistantly and got Carrie out of the
    deal.  Atlehi was a cap baby. I cannot take the pill, it sends my blood
    pressure and blood sugar off the map and causes migraines.  I have a
    history of PID's so an IUD is out of the picture.  After baby number
    three diaphrams and caps are a non-option because of changes in my
    pelvic floor and cervix.  We are back to spermicides and condoms, as
    neither of us is willing to permanently curtail our fertility at this
    point. 
    
    My best friend and I were talking about this.  She and I are in
    monogomous relationships, and guess who the only condom users are that
    we know?
    
    meg

    RE: .208  Dom
    
    > ...do I need to start talking simple again so you can understand. 
    
    Here you go again.  You make remarks like this, then you rail to
    the heavens when someone responds back in kind.  Only make such
    remarks when you can handle someone firing back at you.  Understand?
    
    You said earlier that you suspected that the young woman would kick
    your nephew out one day (which implies that he's already living with
    her.)  You forgot to make it clear that they haven't even moved in
    together yet.
    
    Why on Earth would your nephew move in with this woman at all if he's
    so furious at her (and doesn't want the child)?  She's better off
    without him.

    re M_EVANS
    
    You are right meg, men should participate with in birth control. 
    However when the pregnancy happens, should it be just her decision
    on whether or not the child is born?  What is your opinion on that?
    
    Dom

    Yes Suzzanne, I was talking about the future after they end up living
    together because thats what she wants and she kinda has him by the
    balls on that one.  He won't be able to afford to support himself 
    and her and a child if he lives on his own.  Thats how it works
    comprende.  As for firing back at me, I can take it just fine, you seem
    to just twist and infer the hell out of every mans note until you get
    what you want.   If you read my note, I said that she was trying to get
    out of her parents house...  Do you only read every fourth line or
    something???
    
    Dom

    RE: .213  Dom
    
    > If you read my note, I said that she was trying to get
    > out of her parents house...  
    
    No, you didn't.  You said:
    
    	"she was suppose to be taking the pill but stopped so she could 
    	get pregnant and get out of the parents house."
      
    It says nothing about her *trying* to get out of the house.
    
    > Do you only read every fourth line or something???
                     
    Do you read your own words while you write them?  (If not, it would
    explain a lot.)  :>

    Re Suzzanne  
    
    Let me say it reeaal slow.
    
  >>       "she was suppose to be taking the pill but stopped so she could
  >>          get pregnant and get out of the parents house."
       
    
    
    This implies a present situation with a future notion.  Now I hope you 
    understand.  Was there anybody else out there that thought the same way
    as Suzzane with my entry.
    
    Dom
    

    RE:  .215  Dom

    > Let me say it reeaal slow.

    You are cruising for a bruising, Dom.  :>

    >> "she was suppose to be taking the pill but stopped so she could
    >>  get pregnant and get out of the parents house."
       
    > This implies a present situation with a future notion. 

    You used the same verb tense for both 'get pregnant' and 'get out
    of the parents[SIC] house', though.

    We know she's already pregnant.  If you use the same verb tense
    for her residential status, it can be interpreted that she's
    already out of the parents' house, too.

    Did I write this slowly enough for you?  :>

    re .216
    
 >>    You are cruising for a bruising, Dom.  :>
                                                   
    
    Was that what that breeze whs a minute ago ;)
    
    You missed;);););)
    
    So now you know that she has gotten pregnant for not the best of
    reasons...  Now whats the guy gonna do, what can he do???  A: Nothing,
    he is stuck with the options she has chosen for him.   Is this ok with
    you or do you think he should have some input as to have the baby or
    not????
    
    Dom

    Dom, I don't think it's practical for your nephew to drag his
    girlfriend, kicking and screaming, to the hospital for an
    operation to her body that she does not wish to have.
    
    Imagine if someone had the power to decide who cuts into HIS
    genitals?
    
    Your nephew is in a sad situation.  Male birth control will
    help a lot of young men in the future to avoid this problem.
    
    As for now, I would seriously advise this young man AGAINST
    moving in with this woman.  He isn't forced to do that at all.
    
    She may want him to do it, but if he moves in with a woman he
    distrusts and resents (for having his baby), he's no good to
    the woman and especially, he's no good to the baby.
    
    He should work his situation out some other way.

    
    re .216
    
    >    You are cruising for a bruising, Dom.  :>
    
    Yep. Suzanne the peace maker.  Who would have thunk it.
    
    fred();

    
    Gee, some people have no idea what a 'smiley face' is in notes.
    
    Who would have thunk it.  :>
    

    re ,218
    
    Suzzanne, how about putting the baby up for adoption.  They are both to
    young to sustain themselves nevermind taking care of a baby.  There are
    alot of people out there that want to have a child and can not.  These
    people have the ability to sustain themselves and a child.  I think the
    child would be in a much better situation if it were placed with a 
    loving capable family.   Maybe they should do this will all of these 
    teenage people that have kids but can't afford them.  If the parents
    of the teenager are not willing to step in and help out and are just
    going to let the young girl fend for herself and the baby, I think that 
    the adoption option would be the best for all concerned.
    
    What are your thoughts?
    
    No guns here...;)

    Hey, if it were up to me, I'd say put the child up for adoption, too.

    Unfortunately, you and I aren't in the position to make this decision
    (and I don't think anyone can force someone to make this choice.)

    A very close friend's daughter just went through an unmarried pregnancy
    (where she and her former boyfriend hated each other by the time she
    found out she was pregnant.)  They were both 19.

    We strongly suggested that she choose adoption.  She chose the tough
    path to raise the baby on her own.  The father took off.

    Unfortunately, the baby was born prematurely (by almost three months.)
    It looked as though he was going to be ok - and the mother really
    took on responsibility as she visited him all day and evening every
    day for months and months, while also preparing for his special
    oxygen needs when he was expected to come home.

    The baby is dying right now - actually, I haven't heard anything
    in the past couple of days, so he may have passed away already.
    He seemed to be doing ok (even with lung problems), but he caught
    pneumonia.  There was no way his lungs could take it.

    He never left the hospital at all.  He was born in the middle of
    January 1996.

    This mother is using birth control a lot more religiously now.
    She and the father thought they were protected before, but their
    ignorance in these matters got them in trouble.

    So, these matters are often very sad.

    Adoption, like abortion and choosing to keep a child are all very
    personal decisions.  I personally know I could not give up a child who
    spent 9 months in my uterus, even though I know my oldest child and I
    went through a lot of poverty and rough spots while getting to a
    "comfortable" point in life.  She graduates from College in December. 
    She was born when I was 18 and unskilled and not particularly welcomed
    into the world by her paternal grandparents.  As a matter of fact they
    sounded just like you do.  
    
    Too bad, they missed out on enjoying a wonderful person who still sends
    them birthday and xmas cards, and continues to write to them on
    occaision, even though they have never said a kind word to her, hate
    her major, and belittled her, as they did their own kids.  I would urge
    you to learn to enjoy this new gift to your family, instead of feeling
    that all is lost because this child is getting started in less than
    ideal circumstances.  
    
    meg

    No,
    
    Paternal grand's.  My mom refers to her as the "perfect grandchild." 
    she gave my parents years of joy, as they took care of her quite a bit
    in her younger years.  The other two never got to experience my parents
    at that level of health.  
    
    meg

    Well Meg, you seem to have done a good job.  However, there are alot of 
    people out there that just want to use the system and could care less
    about the children and thats what I am getting at.  I think the Adoption 
    option for a girl that is 16 having a baby sounds more like the best
    thing to do in most cases.  If there is continious support from both 
    families to ensure that the child is properly raised, and the young lady
    does'nt sit on her but and let the world take care of everything then
    she should keep the child.  Otherwise the adoption option would be the
    best for the child IMHO.
    
    Dom 

    Excellent note, Meg.  It is, indeed, a personal decision.
    
    It would also be a great loss if the nephew's family missed out
    on this child's life because of their anger or sadness at the
    situation.
    
    Your daughter always sounds wonderful.  It's sad for her paternal
    grandparents that they don't appreciate her in their lives.
    
    Thanks.

    Meg, I'm sorry - I knew it was 'paternal grandparents', but I typed
    'maternal' by mistake.
    
    Sorry about that!  I'll change it.
    
    Suzanne