This is a letter I am working on. I would appreciate any help or criticism.<P> Roe vs. Wade legalized abortion for women in 1973. Paternity laws should also protect men from accidental and unwanted pregnancies.<BR>“While several laws protect women from these detriments, the law actually rewards women who infringe on men's rights by compelling their victims to pay them child support! The protections given to men and women are light years apart! Men have been treated as an under class without reproductive rights since Roe v. Wade in 1973, despite the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection", and we seek to emancipate men from this hypocrisy. Forcing only men into parenthood is demeaning and offensive to the basic principles of human dignity.”<BR> Many argue that it is a man’s responsibility to use a condom during sex to prevent pregnancy or abstain altogether. However a woman’s failure to use birth control does not prevent her right to abortion. Condoms are not a substitute for real reproductive rights that women have enjoyed since 1973. Whether male or female, forced parenthood can mean disrupting one’s education, mental health and even one’s marriage. Legalizing reproductive choice for men should recognize men’s procreational autonomy.<BR> Some argue that it is the man’s responsibility to pay for an unwanted child because it is a financial burden on the state. However, fundamental rights such as procreational autonomy may not be infringed by the state merely to save money.<BR> Women can force men into biological parenthood after accidental pregnancies by refusing the options of abortion and adoption. Then it is just a matter of time before the state can force a man into legal fatherhood. Men are not equal partners in making children when a woman declines an abortion or adoption.<BR> Legalizing choice for men is not a way to allow men to get out of paying child support. It is a way to allow men the same reproductive freedom that women have been privileged to since 1973, to decline parenthood. It also permits men to plan their families free from government intrusion.<BR> The 14th amendment states “No State shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. “ No where is there a clause in that amendment that states ..” unless you are a man seeking reproductive equality.”<BR> <P><p>[This message has been edited by Jtigger (edited July 26, 2001).]

jtigger,<P>I think this sounds great. If only this could see some real light. But I don't think any politician will come forward to support the men. They claim that child support is for the children. It is so true that if a woman doesn't want to be a parent she can choose not to be, but not the guy. <P>I watch the news in this day and age, and I really don't think this will change. I want it to. But when farmers can't water their crops to keep their families because of sucker fish, than no one is going to give men their just rights. But I am going to keep hopeful, I think it is a great letter. I will gladly sign any petition or letter.<P>babstr.

The argument that I am going to present is that this is not about the rights of the child, this about an individual's rights. The rights of one class of citizens does not out way anothers. <BR>All they can do is tell me to get lost. I'll never give up hope. We all need to keep fighting to be heard.<BR>I just need help in making this letter as persuasive as possible.<P><BR>jtigger<p>[This message has been edited by Jtigger (edited July 26, 2001).]

Jtigger,<P>Please, email me as soon as you get the chance. I know of a person (including myself) who may be VERY interested in helping you with this letter, along with giving additional ideas of where else you might want to send it. If you're interested, I should be up for another hour or so. <P>Thanks and take care,<BR>CoR <P>

COR,<BR>My e-mail address is ********. I will leave this on here for about 10 minutes.<P>jtigger<p>[This message has been edited by Jtigger (edited July 26, 2001).]

Got it. Be expecting an email in a few.

Jtigger,<P>Very well thought out and written...and I feel the same.<P>But I am curious about men in a marriage...should a legal contract between two people be enough to keep the man or woman from preventing the other from having a family? What I am saying is (im bad with getting my thoughts down..sorry) if there is a married couple and there is a child born to the couple what then? Should the rights be the same or does the marriage contract throw in another twist? This is something I have wondered about a lot, because I totally agree with you, but then I wonder about my marriage and what if I were to get pg and my H decided he didnt want it.....just some thoughts.<BR>

broken wings,<BR>Very good question. I truly believe, and did before all this , that a man should have EQUAL say in a pregnancy. Married or not, if he does not want a child then I think the couple must decide whether or not to stay together. I don't think a marriage license disolves a man's right to choose.<BR>Jtigger

Most of you know my first child was out oot of wedlock and I and the father were young teenagers. can you even imagine what the teen pregnancy rates would be if the teen boys knew they could get off the hook anytime for an unplanned preganancy? What if the man purposely gets the women pregnant but than decides he doesn't want to be responsible? I can see why we women, the ws, may be against cs but it IS for the child and cs laws are NEVER going away and i for one pray to god they never do and i would be marching to prevent them from changing, and that is from a ws who helps pay almost 1300/moth for the oc. that is just my opinion and i support your right to your opinion.

BW, <P>As JTigger said, it is a good question, but if you look at it in a different light, it might help answer it.<P>Say you have five kids (or even none at all) and simply do not want anymore. Say you tell your husband and he's excited, and wants this child even though it will place a great burden on you for the rest of your life. Leaving out our own moral decision, say you cannot abort the child. (As it is now, many states do not have laws preventing a married woman from aborting without a signature from her husband - he doesn't have the right to know anything.) This leaves you with two choices. The first is, you continue in the marriage even though you do not want this child and have no choice but to include this child in your family life. The second choice you have is to leave the marriage, but still, you have to pay support every month for the next 18-21 years of your life for a child you never truly wanted in your life but was forced to have. <P>When I first read of this type of movement of "free choice for all", my first reaction was that the viewpoint would allow many men to walk away from children simply because the law will allow it. However, walking away IS a choice women have had for centuries and one men should have as well, regradless of issues of biology. <P>In states where presumed paternity are on the books, men fair even worse. Married women have affairs and sometimes, as we all know, affairs produce children. In these states, husbands have NO choice but to support this child: 1)even though it's not biologically his 2)he very well may not want the child at all. <P>Some men have raised children NOT knowing they were not biologically theirs. When they find out the child isn't theirs, they still must pay support simply because they have been "acting" as father prior to discovery. I have heard of a few cases were the husband is paying for support for a child which is not biologically his, to an ex-wife who is living with the real bio father of the child. <P>Women have had more and more opportunities to relinguish their rights as parents. They can drop off an infant at any hospital, church, "home with a basket" etc .. no questions asked, no criminal charges placed, and face little moral backlashing from society as a whole. Instead, it's viewed as a "wonderful gesture of kindness" on her part for saving a child she doesn't want nor can or wants to care for. Granted, in some cases of abuse and or neglect, I would much rather have this out than none at all, particulary since we hear of many newborns being found in trash bags. However, fathers aren't provided ANY "out" at all. They are forced into parenthood because the states says they are parents who are responsible for the monetary upkeep or a child, whether they are good parents or bad parents. If they are granted NO visitation, they still must pay support. However, mothers who abandon their children or place them in foster care, are not forced to pay anything at all. <P>This is all probably much more than you wanted to read, but I firmly believe if we are handing out choices, we shouldn't hand them out on a gender basis only. <P>Take care,<BR>CoR <P>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by whatif?:<BR><B>What if the man purposely gets the women pregnant but than decides he doesn't want to be responsible?</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Although I respect your opinion, I do have just a few questions:<P>If a man is responsible for preventing unplanned pregnancies, why not women too? <P>What if a woman gets pregnant on purpose? Should he still have to pay support? <P>What if the father was a teen and the mother was older? Is he still responsible? Did you know, in some states, that even if a grown woman is charged with staturory rape of an teen boy he still has to pay support to the child? <P>Again, I respect your opinion and completely understand your point of view, but pose these questions as a way for you to see that the laws we have now are biased. <P>Take care,<BR>CoR<P><BR>

JTigger,<P>What a wonderful letter!! I have felt this way for so long and it is good to see there are some others that do too. Please let us know if there is anything we can do or send to do what we can to change things. Every little step counts.<P>CoR - I so heartily agree with your replies and reasoning.<P>Whatif - Maybe if women knew they would be help 100% responsible for the financial responsibility of the child they chose to keep, the women would be more likely to give the child up for adoption. It is WRONG that women have 100% of the reproductive rights, but men have zero once they have sex. I can imagine what the teenage pregnancy rates would be if men had a say in deciding their role and responsibility with a child. They would be lower. Men (and boys) do not have sex to make babies very often. I have not heard of a man trying to trap a woman. Many women have had children to trap men.<P>I have been here lurking since May 30 and haven't felt the need to post until now. DDay was in Feb, but we found out about ow's pregnancy much later. She felt she didn't need to tell h about the pg, but since he ignored her for many months, she got mad and started threatening court and other crap. She says she is giving the child up for adoption, but there is nothing we can do to ensure this plan. It is all a big mess.<P>I am sorry I have to be a part of this group. I never thought I would allow myself to be put in this position. One thing the a did was show us how much we really mean to each other. He is now almost the perfect husband. It is too bad the price was so high though. <P>A child should only be conceived in wedlock and with the willingness of both parties - anything less than that is a wrong doing against the child. Life is hard enough, but to find out you were conceived out of lies, deception and pain has got to be very hard for the child to take.

Good thought JT, <P>But I too have to wonder what the ramification of something like this would be. The person (sorry Brain disfunction here) that made the analogy re: teens was VERY right on.<BR>and unfortuantly our court room would be nuts with these cases...because women would claim, they (the men) too wanted it (the Preg) come on..pillow talk is just that for men (to get the sex) but to a woman..it is real. I believe and this may be a very unpopular point..but I am sorry it is the plain truth...if the man is fertile, and he choses to have Unprotected sex, he in fact is making a implied consent to fatherhood...period. WE are not talking teens who cant think about consenqueces...we are talking MEN ( our H's)...the bottom line is MY H (as highly educated as he is) made an implied consent to have sex with a women, who told him she cant get PG (on birth control)...BUT he did not use protection to "make sure", that was HIS responsiblity and he chose not too, so he IS RESPONSIBLE for what may have come from that..including any STD's. it is not a big secret, how to avoid pregnancy...and in the heat of passion, I guess these smart men get stupid...but they have to own up to their stupidity...should anyone BE FORCED to participate in the raising of their stupidity...NO, but we do have a finacncial obligation...and that is the bottom line. I understand what you all are saying, and how madding this all is, BUT they KNEW...it does not matter what the OW told them (or lied to them about) If they wanted to MAKE SURE...they would have used a condom, and for any reason not to come home and infect their W's with OW "goobers". ..it will never fly ..because even though women are protected.(Roe vs Wade)..so are men, they have choices..use a condom, or dont have sex...because every man knows sex can lead to PG and they know if it does THEY ARE responsible... I understand all your frustration ( I only lived it briefly) BUT, our H's did have choices...and they in their better judgements chose NOT to do anything. NOW their whole family pays, emotionally and financially....BUT A POINT I WANT TO MAKE AGAIN FOR ALL THE OW LURKERS....THEY ONLY HAVE A FINANCIAL RESPONSIBLITY FOR THEIR ACTION...THEY DO NOT...REPEAT DO NOT HAVE TO RAISE THAT CHILD...OR BE IN THAT CHILDS LIFE...just like the OW who gets pg, can chose NOT to place for adoption or abortion (once the "mistake" is made) the men have the CHOICE...HEAR ME THE CHOICE wether to be in that childs life or not...YOU OW HAVE CHOICES, AND THESE FATHERS HAVE CHOICES...so get on with your lives, and raise those OC, alone (of course with finanacial assist) but that is all... anyway that is my opinion, though it may be unpopular, it is how I feel. I guess I see things differently. I think we would have a real crisis if we did not Keep the fathers responsible..USE A CONDOM!!!...i STILL LOVE YOU GUYS...MC

Here is an idea that no one thought of....<BR>If you don't want a child.....<P>1. Don't have sex<BR>2. Don't have sex with someone you are not married to.<BR>3. Don't have sex with someone you ARE married to if you are not open to the possibility of pregnancy even if it only a tiny, tiny chance<P>Gee, wouldn't this solve a lot of problems. <BR>Anything to pass the buck!

So, Suzi, are you saying that because you had sex with a married man for five-six years, you wanted to have a child with him? If not, you broke your first two "golden rules". <P>

Here's another idea <P>If you dont want to end up with a "scumbag" OW like the one above...all the above also should apply

Sorry JT, I know I promised..BUT the PG hormones have got the best of me....

Here's another thought ..<P>The husband and wife get full custody of the OC while the other woman visits the child every other weekend and pays child support, medical costs and day care expenses. Wow. What a twist huh? <P>

tigger,<BR> Very good letter. Couple of reasons I like that thought. I bet you would see a whole lot of ow suddenly not getting pregnate. with love flowerseed

My Cross,<P>You posted ***so are men, they have choices..use a condom, or dont have sex...because every man knows sex can lead to PG and they know if it does THEY ARE responsible... ***<BR>I completely understand what you are saying but I think I'm not making my point clear.<BR>This IS NOT a child support issue to me. IT IS an equal rights issue. You cannot sacrifice the rights of one gender or group of people to enrich the rights of another gender or group.<BR>Women have been screaming for "equal" rights for years, but to me equal does not mean preferential treatment just because I happen to have a uterus. And I have believed this since I was in high school. ( Which was longer ago than I care to admit on a public forum ;-) So please nobody think this is a new cause for me since oc issue came along.<BR>I'm afraid that I am one of those women that truly thinks equal should mean equal.<BR>Yes I agree that consenting to sex implies the knowledge that a pregnancy might occur. My objection is the choices offered to women after the pregnancy is discovered that are not offered to men. Again I state, equal should mean equal. If a woman has the state supported right to walk away from a pregnancy or child the same right must be afforded to men or we are all hypocrits in claiming our equality to men.<P>jtigger<p>[This message has been edited by Jtigger (edited July 27, 2001).]